LINGUIST List 16.907
Thu Mar 24 2005
Qs: Structural N Incorporation;Correctness of English
Editor for this issue: Jessica Boynton <jessicalinguistlist.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.
de la Fuente,
Structural Noun Incorporation
Correctness of English as a Foreign Language
Message 1: Structural Noun Incorporation
From: Ana de la Fuente <delafuenext.jussieu.fr>
Subject: Structural Noun Incorporation
I am looking at languages with structural noun incorporation, with special
attention to discourse reference possibilities.
There seem to be two types of languages: those where an incorporated
nominal supports discourse anaphora and those that do not. (I set aside
definite reference possibilities).
Looking at the data in the literature,- (Geenhoven 1998, Sadock 1991,
Mithun 1984, Cook & Wilhelm 1998, Gronemeyer 1996, among others), I have
noticed that languages that support discourse anaphora also license numeral
and weak quantifier stranding. This is the case of W. Greenlandic, Mohawk,
Hopi and Southern Tiwa.
On the other hand, languages that do not support discourse anaphora like
Chipewan and Modern Nahuatl, do not license either numeral or quantifier
Does anybody know of other languages with structural noun incorporation
that follow this pattern? Or languages that do not? And if yes, would it
be possible to send me the relevant data? Thanks!
I will be glad to post a summary with the data.
Ana de la Fuente
Université de Paris 3
154 rue de Romainville
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Message 2: Correctness of English as a Foreign Language
From: Noriko Nakanishi <questionnaire2004mail.goo.ne.jp>
Subject: Correctness of English as a Foreign Language
I am an MA student who was interested in English errors and submitted a
query about ''understandability'' on 60 erroneous sentences last year.
Please refer to:
Linguist 15.2394 http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2394.html#2
Linguist 15.2412 http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2412.html
Linguist 15.3596 http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3596.html
This year, I am working on ''Correctness'' of English, especially English
as a Foreign Language. What is the ''correct'' English for the EFL
learners? Or, to what degree should / could an EFL teacher expect the
learners' English to be ''correct''? In other words, does it always have
to meet the grammatical standards? (What is a standard, then?) On the
other hand, is it OK as long as the hearers can guess what the speakers are
trying to say, even when the learners' language is somewhat strange?
As the basis of the research on the correctness, I would like to provide
scales for correctness of EFL: The Questionnaire 2005 is to see what kinds
of sentences are considered grammatical / acceptable / understandable and
guessable. Would any one of you please type in your opinion to the form,
which you can access from the URL below:
The responses can be submitted via the web page, and I will post a summary
of the final figures by the end of April 2005.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
MA student at
Kobe City University of Foreign Studies
Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
Subject Language(s): English (ENG)
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue