LINGUIST List 3.826

Mon 26 Oct 1992

Disc: Japanese, Objectionable words, Gender Studies

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

1. , RE 3.765 Japanese pronouns
2. BIASCA DEBRA HALPERIN, Re: 3.816 FYI: Mystery Citation, Diachronic Chinese, Gay
3. "Mira Ariel, Tel-Aviv University", Re: 3.815 The Study of Gender?

Having just got back on to Linguist I'm coming into the middle of this
discussion, so for all I know Kazuto Matsumura is right in saying it
'stinks'; but I would like to know which of 'all aspects of [J pronouns']
syntactic and semantic behavior' he thinks argue against classifying
BOKU etc as pronouns. It certainly is true, as Shimizu points out, that
eg BOKU was originally a common noun [and the character can still be read
as SHIMOBE 'manservant']; but this is hardly here or there for the Japanese
child acquiring the language. So far as I know, BOKU, ANATA, KARE, etc.
have reference only, and no more sense than ME, YOU, etc. [Well, almost;
KARE can mean boyfriend]. Japnese pronouns certainly look like pronouns,
anyway; I'd be curious to know specifically what arguments, other than
historical ones, there are for excluding them from that class.
Kevin R. Gregg D00712sinet.ad.jp

Message 2: Re: 3.816 FYI: Mystery Citation, Diachronic Chinese, Gay

In response to the note about usage of "gay," I am not in agreement that
usage of "Jew" to refer to individuals is unobjectionable. I definitely
would use "there were two Jewish P people on the panel."

(ignore the typo--my editing capabilities are minimal).

Message 3: Re: 3.815 The Study of Gender?

In reply to Vicky Fromkin's protest: I would not presume to know what the
situation in U.S. is concerning the topic of language and gender, but in
some places this not considered quite an o.k. topic, especially in linguistics
departments (as opposed to applied linguistics, sociology, women studies and th
e like). We do not need an award for a principles and parameters work, because
that gets awarded with plenty of prestige by being part of the mainstream, pres
tigious reearch agenda. Perhaps not so the topic of language and gender?

Yours,

Mira Ariel