Editor for this issue: <>
I don't agree that ". . .all" necessarily introduces a full body caricature. I've noticed in my own speech (northern Californian, I'm 33 y.o.) "BE all" is what I'd use as a general informal verbum dicendi, while my students would use "BE like". I don't know whether this is a merely generational thing or whether it reflects a dialect difference between north and south (California, that is). In any case, either of these can be used to introduce quotations without any caricature (even of voice), though they both do seem to increase the dramatic effect (as contrasted with "GO" or "SAY"). claudia brugmanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
re: Adam Kilgarriff's request for info about 'come' and 'bring' and Ellen Prince's responce about a paper by Fillmore, the relevant citations are Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. Deictic categories in the semantics of 'come'. Foundations of Language 2:219-227. ___. 1971. How to know whether you're coming or going. Linguistik 1971, ed. by Karl Hyldgard-Jensen, 369-379. Frankfurt: Athenum Verlag. (Reprinted in Essays on deixis, ed. by Gisa Rauh, 219-227. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.) ___. 1975b. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Distibuted by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
In response to the note about the 'new logic' (obviously meant to offend) about ASL and ASL Literature... I accept that perhaps my argument was not as articulately stated as I had hoped. My point was that there are parallels between traditional definitions of language and literature. Traditional Defnition: All languages are spoken. Therefore, ASL cannot be a language because it is not spoken. Traditional Definition: All literature exists in a written form. ASL does not have a written form, therefore, it does not have a literature. Granted these are very narrow and general defintions, however, I think there is a parallel between the two situations. Obviously, my very (unashamedly) biased implication is that linguists have researched ASL and shown it to be a language...and the same change in definition of literature will occur. I have also made the assumption that one of the reasons research related to ASL has only recently begun is because it is the language of a minority culture. Finally, if the writer of the previous note still objects to my reasoning or lack of it, I can respond with Socrates Syllogisms...However, I would prefer to have the writer respond without using the 'analysis' to hide his feelings.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Charles Laughlin mentions Berlin & Kay's classic work as being the best empirical tests done of the SWH and as disconfirming it. A follow-up study by Kay and Kempton is discussed in the Relativity chapter of Lakoff's "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things." The experiment involved chips ranging from blue to green, and found that (not) having a word for green in one's native language does affect how one rates the similarity of such items. Lakoff's wide-ranging discussion sees this as evidence of an area where relativity is found. Another attempt at an empirical test is Alfred Bloom's book "The Linguistic Shaping of Thought." He found that Chinese speakers had more difficulty comprehending a text full of counterfactual conditionals than English speakers, and attributed this to the lack of explicit coding of counterfactuals in Chinese. However, Terry Au and Lisa Garbern Liu in "Cognition" (1985?) replicated the experiment trying to avoid cultural bias, and found no significant difference. This case would appear to support the view that cultural, rather than linguistic differences are often responsible for apparent relativity effects. Stephen Matthews, U. of Hong KongMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue