LINGUIST List 16.1627
|
Sat May 21 2005
Qs: Negation Systems; Referential Competence
Editor for this issue: Naomi Fox
<fox 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. Claire
Lampp,
Negation Systems
2. José Luis González
Escribano,
Referential Competence
Message 1: Negation Systems
|
Date: 20-May-2005
From: Claire Lampp <lamppemail.unc.edu>
Subject: Negation Systems
Dear Linguists,
I am a graduate student working on a master's thesis dealing with the
development of systems of negation. More specifically, I am looking at the
three negators in Hindi. Bhatia (1995) has classified these as ''mat''
(non-honorific imperative), ''na'' (subjunctive, honorific, imperative,
conditional, participial and gerundive phrases), and ''nahi?:'' (elsewhere).
Thus far most of the research I am aware of has focused on the formal
split in their development. I am looking for information on other
languages with multiple negators whose use is divided along similar
functional lines. Information on the historical development of such systems
would be especially welcome. Thank you for your help.
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics
Genetic Classification
Historical Linguistics
Language Description
Typology
Subject Language(s): Hindi (HND)
Message 2: Referential Competence
|
Date: 21-May-2005
From: José Luis González Escribano <scribbytelecable.es>
Subject: Referential Competence
Dear colleagues,
I am interested in exploring in some depth the referential competence of
typical educated native speakers. The ultimate source of that interest, of
course, is Putnam's well-known story about the division of linguistic labour and
subsequent literature (Fodor on elms, etc.). After taking all that more or less
for granted for many years, it suddenly dawned on me that I had never seen
empirical confirmation of the extent to which use of core
vocabulary is expert-dependent, and that, in case such a study really does
not exist, it might well be worth undertaking! I have tried to find
psycholinguistic literature on the specific topic of mature speakers'
referential competence, but without much success so far, so I am tempted to
believe that perhaps nobody has taken the trouble to examine Putnam's claim
in detail. Of course, my more sensible half tells me that that just can't be
true, so here is my query to you all:
Does anybody know of any (preferably experimental) empirical work in which
Putnam's classic claim is really subjected to careful scrutiny?
Any information, or help, in any guise, I receive from you on this matter
will be much appreciated and explicitly acknowledged in any future work on
the topic. I will also post a summary to the list if the number and quality
of the replies justifies it.
Best regards
JLG Escribano
Universidad de Oviedo
scribbytelecable.es
http://www.telecable.es/personales/escri
Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories
Psycholinguistics
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.
|
|
