Editor for this issue: <>
It seems to me that politeness adds weight to a threat only to the extent that a sudden shift to "good manners" indicates seriousness of purpose -- a break out of a casual or friendly mode indicating that the relationship has become adversarial. Such a maneuver is less useful when there is a severe time constraint and the adversarial nature of the relationship needs no special emphasis. On the cop shows, somebody trying to get an antagonist to drop the gun tends to shout a curt command or threat. I don't think even bobbies would be laid-back enough to say, "please drop the gun, sir" if the issue were in doubt. On the home front, when a child is just on the point of making a move that a parent doesn't like, the parent is more likely to shriek "Don't you DARE ..." than to try on glacial civility of the sort that can be quite intimidating in, say, negotiations between labor and management.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
mark seidenberg (and linguist readership), i was interested in your comments about orthography and reading in the linguist list. i have been developing software for teachers to use in evaluating student text in networks. although i have been mainly working on measures of textual complexity in alphabetic writing systems, i have given a little thought to how measurement should handle whole-word characters. i have assumed that the difficulty of such text is directly based on the reading experience of the reader with that char... perhaps indirectly measured by the statistical frequency of the character in general text of that language. i would not like to be the one who writes a program to do a logographic analysis of any chinese char to estimate its general ease of processing. we have such whole-word chars in english too ($,#,%,& and so forth) and i have been evaluating these as words without syllables. arabic numbers also present nonsyllabic constructs-- reading and writing '435' is easier than 'four hundred thirty five'. most algorithmic measures of text complexity (those that do not use lookup tables of exceptional words) use some constructs like words-per-sentence and syllables-per-word to derive estimates of readability. i have been naively processing the whole-word chars as incrementing the word counters without incrementing the syllable counters. i guess i will find out about the usefulness of such assumptions when i have a large enough sample of text read and written by known-age children from the networks. i would appreciate any further bibliographic reference you might give me on research results in this area. it has been a while since i have done much what could be called psycholinguistics. i did throw some crude realtime measures into a reading task recently and got indication that some kids were switching to different reading strategies as text complexity increased beyond their apparent comprehension threshold, while other kids had a flatline reading rate no matter what the level of text. i had assumed that the kids with hills and valleys in their reading were multiple processing text on different levels at input time while the flatliners were straight phonic-syllable reading with comprehension either paralleled, delayed or decoupled from the serial process of text input. i have just joined the linguist reading list so forgive me if all this seems too simple to you. i will be looking into your archives soon. i would appreciate any pointers, particulary references, you can give me. i have become pretty much a network scholar, but i will dig into hardcopy when i have to.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In response to recent queries: (1) On voice quality in tone languages, try contacting William S.-Y. Wang at UC Berkeley. Another possibility is Mary Beckman at Ohio State. (2) On writing systems that use "triple letters": Saramaccan, a creole of Suriname, writes 3 like vowels in a row in words like beie 'bread' and buzu 'blood'. (The acute accents indicate high tone; the other vowels are low tone. The practical orthography does not mark tone in these words, so they come out beee and buuu.) huttarMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuesil.org
This is a reply to Kingsley Morse's query (24 jun 91) on bilingual dialogues. I am developing a corpus of Sourashtra/Tamil texts as part of a research project on convergence and could send you half an hour's worth (about 100-150K) The texts began as recorded Sourashtra conversations, which have been transcribed and translated into Tamil. There are no English glosses. Most of the conversations involve more than two people; a couple with only three participants are available. The texts are encoded with PC-Write, which doesn't have a large number of control characters. There is, however, a considerable amount of parenthetical remarks and other junk embedded in the text, but you should be able to clean it up fairly easily. Please contact me directly if you are interested. -ISMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
There may be something useful (although I don't feel competent to make a judgment) in Edith A. Moravcsik (1988), "Agreement and Markedness", in _Agreement in Natural Language: approaches, theories, descriptions_ edited by Michael Barlow and Charles A. Ferguson, CSLI, pp.89-106. The entire work was reviewed in Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35 (1990), pp. 99-102. Bert Peeters <peetersMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuetasman.cc.utas.edu.au>