Editor for this issue: <>
In doing work on my dissertation on pronominal usage in a corpus I am en- countering a semantic conundrum which my training in semantics is not adequate to solve. The problem is related to the semantic distinction between referents which are +specific (or +referential) or more informally real, existing out there in some way, and those which are -specific, hypothetical or generic. Thus there is a clear distinction between two readings of , to use a rather unoriginal example. "Peter is going to marry the richest woman in town." So far so good. The issue seems relatively clear when you are using example sen- tences, but when you use real language, things do get messy sometimes. For ex- ample, I would be reluctant to use the + or - specific lable for the following example from my corpus, (which is based on TV talk shows by the way) The prob- lematic antecedent-anaphor pair are in caps: (1) I have become involved with a consumer advocacy group called s.h.a.m.e. it stands for Stop[ Hospital and Medical Errors, and it is a group that was formed by MALPRACTICE VICTIMS and THEIR families. In this case there were indeed a concrete set of people who formed this group, yet neither speaker nor hearer were in any position to specify that set any further. In addition it is certainly conceivible that there might be some dis- pute as to who exactly belongs in this set or not. So my solution was to label this type as semi-specific (actually I use the term 'semi-solid' reserving 'solid' for specific and non-solid for -specific, but I don't want to get into that here) Cases like (1) where there are sets which none of the interlocutors are in any position to identify are fairly common, and using this semi label, I have managed to reduce the number of problematic tokens by more than half. If any semanticists have any objections to this, I would like to hear them now, before I get any further. Yet I have not solved all my problems. Here are a few cases which I am puzzling over. In (2) the speaker (George Carlin on Larry King Live by the way) is talk- ing about censorship on the radio (2) you know THESE MORAL COMMANDOS who want us to think THEIR way and want to change what we can hear and see and think in this country are dangerous. . . This is close to a generic, but is it a true generic? The use of the definite specifier would seem to tilt the image in the direction of a closed set of people. (3) is also from George Carlin who is talking about Andrew Dice Clay and his fans. Clay is (or was since he disappeared from view) a comedian who would make hostile jokes about gays, blacks, women, immigrants, etc. (3) I think he's appealing largely, I think his core audience are young white males who are threatended by these groups. I think A LOT OF THESE GUYS aren't sure of THEIR manhood, because that's a problem when you're going through ado- lesence, you know, am I really, am I? This ambiguity or perhaps more acurately, vagueness, of specificity of refer- ence seems typical of Carlin and some other speakers. It will be part of the findings of my dissertation, but I would like it if someone with more semantic training than myself would help me draw the lines on what appears to be a cline from one extreme, the concrete individual(s) whose identities are known, to the other, hypothetical or generic referents. Michael NewmanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
If there is anybody familiar with French usage in the 18th century (before the Revolution), can you tell me whether 'neveu' can mean something like 'protege, favorite'? I am dealing with a diplomatic document from that time in which the term is used, even though the normal meaning 'nephew' is clearly impossible.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
As a teacher of Slavic languages, I sometimes encounter people in class who have, let's say, a partial command of Serbo-Croatian from home, or an approximate knowledge of Polish from spending time in Poland. My usual teaching methods often do not work well with such people; they have great difficulties in expanding their vocabulary in the language, or in learning its morphology correctly (both in getting the endings correct and in realizing that the endings are vital for proper understanding of sentences). Have there been any second-language acquisition studies, or psycho- linguistic researches, or empirical observations that would help in working with such quasi-native speakers? Please write to me at jn5jMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecornella.bitnet or jn5j
cornella.cit.cornell.edu and I will summarize to the list.
Hi, I am desperately in search of a Windows International Phonetical Alphabet font. I looked at CICA and SIMTEL and found nothing. If that font does not exist anywhere, I would settle for a font editor and make it up myself. Please answer directly, if you know anything that would help me on this... thanks in advance. Benoit Racicot BPROF02Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueCMR001.BITNET