Editor for this issue: <>
Does anyone know of any published work on differences (or similarities) between judgements made by linguists and by non-linguists. Labov has a footnote in Sociolinguistic Patterns (p. 199) in which he mentions unpublished work by N. Spencer which shows non-linguistic graduate students and non-students (i.e. normals) lining up against linguistics graduate students. Was it published? Has any further work been done along these lines? Reply to me please; if there's any quantity of response I'll summarise it. Dick Hudson Dept of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT (071) 387 7050 ext 3152Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
This query is being posted to three separate lists. My apologies to anyone who receives it more than once. Standard descriptions of Uzbek phonology (e.g. Kononov's) present a very confusing picture. The claim is made that the vowels u", o", and i" have merged phonologically (but not phonetically) with u, o, and i; in other words, back [u] and front [u"] are now allophonic variants of a single phoneme /u/, [o] and [o"] of /o/, and so forth. Associated with this phonological restructuring are two other changes: the loss of vowel harmony, and the assumption by the consonants of the task of distinguishing between [u] and [u"], [o] and [o"], [i] and [i"]. All of this works pretty well with vowels adjacent to back consonants (i.e. dorso-palatal, velar, and uvular), where separate phonemes /k/ vs. /q/, etc., can be reasonably motivated. But it fails miserably in words containing no back consonants. So, for example, Kononov cites words like [u"zu"m] 'grape,' [su"pu"rgi] 'broom,, and [bo"ri] 'wolf',' all of which contain the front allophones of /u/, /o/, and /i/ with nothing in the phonetic environment to account for their occurrence. Bernard Comrie also noted such cases (in Languages of the Soviet Union) and described them as classic cases of the violation of the biuniqueness principle. My question is this: has anyone looked at Uzbek phonology in an attempt to resolve the obvious contradictions in the traditional account? I would be most grateful for any references, suggestions, or insights that anyone may be able to provide. Thanks in advance. Steve Seegmiller <seegmillerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueapollo.montclair.edu>
Hebrew, German and Italian have the stop [t], the fricative [s] and the affricate [ts]. Greek has all of these and also the fricative [T] (i.e. 'theta'), but it does not have an affricate [tT]. (English, Castillian and Arabic have [t], [s] and [T], but neither [ts] nor [tT]). Does anyone know of languages having a [tT] affricate? More generally, [pT], [tT], [kT], etc. affricates? (To clarify, by affricates I mean real affricates that pass tests of single-segmenthood, not accidental adjacencies such as [p] [T] in the English word "depth".) If there is such a language, does it distinguish between such affricates and [ps], [ts], [ks], respectively? Daniel Radzinski Tovna Translation Machines Jerusalem, Israel drMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuetovna.co.il
This is, in my opinion, an unusual but interesting question posed by a student of mine: Let's assume that, more or less, English is a stressed-timed language (i.e. the time between stressed syllables is quite similar). In theory you could end up with some sentences where difficulties might arrise in keeping the times roughly equal because, say, between two stressed syllables there are three other syllables, and between the next two stressed syllables there are eight (the choice of numbers is purely random). A student suggested to me that, maybe, a trigger for code-switching (specifically, from English to German and vice versa) is a strategy to keep the number of syllables between stressed syllables roughly equal - in terms of the most desirable number of syllables a word is chosen from one language and not the other. Anyone know of/done any research on this? What do people think of it as a possible idea? Stu Watts.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue