LINGUIST List 13.1623

Sat Jun 8 2002

Qs: SLA/Social Model, Marked Sounds in Affixes

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate. In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.

Directory

  1. Mahide Demirci, Social Model of Second Language Acquisition
  2. Andres Enrique-Arias, Historical evolution of marked sounds in affixes

Message 1: Social Model of Second Language Acquisition

 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:08:24 +0000
From: Mahide Demirci <mdemirilstu.edu>
Subject: Social Model of Second Language Acquisition

Dear Linguists,

A doctoral student of mine is doing a research on "Pidginization and
Creolization" and also "Accommodation" theory (or the Intergroup
Model) in Second Language Acquisition.

I would really appreciate if you suggest any book, article, research,
study, etc. related to these theories.

Thanks in advance

Mahide Demirci
Assistant Professor of Linguistics
English Department
Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61790
Email: mdemirilstu.edu
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Message 2: Historical evolution of marked sounds in affixes

 Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 17:45:22 +0000
From: Andres Enrique-Arias <aenriquemail.colgate.edu>
Subject: Historical evolution of marked sounds in affixes

Dear Linguists:

A few months ago Adam Ussishki (ussishkiemail.arizona.edu) posted a
summary with examples illustrating the observation that in many
languages marked phonological segments are restricted to root lexemes
while affixes exhibit phonologically less marked segments 
(Linguist 12.2430). 

As a historical linguist I am particularly interested in the
diachronic dimension of this principle. I would like to ask fellow
linguists for references or examples that illustrate the following
question: how do languages solve conflicts between the result of
regular sound change and the need to have "easy" sounds in affixes?
Are there any strategies that can be observed crosslinguistically?
Does anyone know of any examples that would illustrate such
strategies? I'd be interested in collecting examples or references
pertaining to two specific scenarios: 1) Cases in which through
grammaticization a word containing a marked segment becomes a
candidate to become a function affix, and the "problem sound" is
dropped or evolves into an "easier" sound through a change that
doesn't reflect regular changes in the language in question. 2) Cases
in which, through regular sound changes, an affixal grammatical marker
may be expected to exhibit a marked phonological segment but the
change fails to happen in this particular context although it
generally does occur in root morphemes in the language in
question.

I'll be glad to post a summary of responses if there is enough
interest. Thank you,

Andres Enrique-Arias
Department of Spanish Philology
University of the Balearic Islands
Palma de Mallorca
Spain
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue