LINGUIST List 16.1248
|
Tue Apr 19 2005
Qs: Poll About Proverbs; Higgenbotham's Linking Theory
Editor for this issue: Jessica Boynton
<jessica linguistlist.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. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Britta
Juska-Bacher,
Poll About Proverbs
2. Tony
Marmo,
On Higgenbotham's Linking Theory
Message 1: Poll About Proverbs
|
Date: 19-Apr-2005
From: Britta Juska-Bacher <Britta.Juska-Bacher access.unizh.ch>
Subject: Poll About Proverbs
I work at the University of Zurich (Switzerland) on a research project about proverbs and idioms. With the help of a questionnaire I investigate in different languages (Dutch, German, Swedish and English) which 16th century proverbs are still known and which are still in use. The questionnaire is based on the famous painting by Pieter Bruegel the elder, the Netherlandish proverbs (1559). In Dutch, German and Swedish speaking countries numerous people showed their interest in this research project by participating in the poll (during the first four weeks I received more than 700 filled-in questionnaires). I am now looking for native English speakers who want to participate in the poll. You can find the questionnaire at http://www.ds.unizh.ch/Nordistik/Mitarbeitende/Juska-Bacher/forschung.php. I would also be very grateful if you could forward the link to other people who you think might be interested. Thanks a lot for your help! Britta Juska-Bacher Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics Subject Language(s): Dutch (DUT) English (ENG) German, Standard (GER) Swedish (SWD)
Message 2: On Higgenbotham's Linking Theory
|
Date: 18-Apr-2005
From: Tony Marmo <antonio_marmo EXCITE.COM>
Subject: On Higgenbotham's Linking Theory
The occurence and the behaviour of co-referential nominals in sentences, under the labels of binding and control, have been classically treated as mainly syntactic phenomena, where the syntactic structure was licensed by teleological co-indexation considerations. Binding and Control theories are the oldest and most resilient component of Generative thought that has survived to present day. The basic assumptions and core concepts of Classical Binding and Control theory have their origins in Langacker (1966), Rosenbaun (1967), Postal (1970), Jackendoff (1972) (Chapters 4 and 5), Chomsky (1973) and Lasnik (1976), who had tackled most of the main issues from a transformational perspective. Thereafter, this conceptual Binding theoretic nucleus has been re-formulated based on the theoretic refinement and enlargement of the application of Langacker's (1966) notion of command in Reinhart (1976) and Chomsky (1980, 1981 and 1982), together and in parallel with Bresnam (1982) and Manzini (1983). The format of Binding theory has remained almost unaltered since that time. Later proposals of reformulation, such as Reinhart and Reuland (1993), Reinhart (1999, 2000), Heim (2004) etc, have kept the essence of the model virtually intact. One alternative that I consider at least captivating is Higginbotham's (1983) Linking theory. But, as far as I know, it has not been used by many. If anyone reading this post works with James Higginbotham's linking theory, please let me know about it. Thanks! Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories Syntax
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|

Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|