LINGUIST List 7.296

Mon Feb 26 1996

Qs: Journal, Parameters, NPs, Socio-lg, Metaphor

Editor for this issue: T. Daniel Seely <dseelyemunix.emich.edu>

Directory

1. Alexis Manaster Ramer, Q: Moskovskij lingvisticheskij zhurnal
2. jaretu.washington.edu, parameters and minimalism
3. (Chris Bongartz), NPs
4. K Bali, Socio-linguistics and Folk-literature
5. Roberto Bertuol, Mathematical metaphors and material processes

I have it on good authority that the first issue of this new
journal has come out, but I cannot seem to find out how to
get a copy (never mind that I am supposed to have two whole
articles in it). Any ideas anybody?
 
Alexis Manaster Ramer amrcs.wayne.edu

I wonder if somebody could explain how parametric variation is supposed 
to work in the minimalist program. In old GB it was quite clear. There 
were a certain number of innate UG principles, each one had a certain 
number of innately-specified possible parameter settings and language 
learning involved figuring out from positive evidence what the settings 
are for the language being learned.

But aside from 'least effort' principles, ARE THERE ANY innate UG 
principles that are still supposed to exist? I think 'least effort' is 
supposed to take over binding, bounding, and most of the others. And does 
it make sense to say that 'least effort' can be parameterized? Can some 
movement be more or less 'least effort' in one language than in another? 
And what about the residue of facts that used to be handled by some UG 
principle, but don't really fall under least effort? Do people now say 
that they are learnable by positive evidence? That would be making a 
retreat on innateness, wouldn't it? 

As you can see, I'm terrible confused about how what was the 'heart' of 
GB is supposed to work under minimalism. If people who do this theory can 
explain to me, I'll be happy to summarize what they say on the List.

Frank Jaret

 I am currently setting up a contrastive analysis between English,
Czech, and Chinese for patterns of possible combinations of nouns within
noun phrases (NPs), and I need help with examples for Czech and Chinese
since I do not speak either.

 For Chinese, I am looking for examples of the type NPNP; i.e. a
combination of two independent NPs. Anderson (1985) states that Chinese
allows for this combinatory pattern, but I cannot find a sufficient number
of examples to support a contrastive hypothesis. How can such forms be
distinguished from noun+noun compounds?

 The point that I am trying to make for Czech is that - unlike in
Chinese - NPNP combinations are not well-formed. In order to demonstrate
this, I would need examples of the type *NPNP and the correspondent
well-formed Case marked NPNP sequence.

 Thanks in advance for helping me out on this.

Chris

HUMOR IST WENN MAN TROTZDEM LACHT. (Wilhelm Busch)

Chris Bongartz e-mail:
Bongartzmacc.wisc.edu
Dept. of English
 Bongartzstudents.wisc.edu
English Language and Linguistics
University of Wisconsin - Madison phone: (608) 263 995
7
5158 H.C. White Hall
600 N. Park Street
Madison, WI 53706
USA

I am sending this on behalf of a friend from India who does not have 
access to the list. He is working on folk-literature in Bengal from a 
socio-linguistics point of view and would like to know of any other 
related work in any other language. 

Also, can anyone supply any ref.s on 
Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistics and Poetics ?


Thank-you,

Kalika Bali

Dear Linguists,

I am a Phd student who is writing a thesis on 'Mathematical imagery in
the 17th century', and Systemic Functional Grammar is the general
framework adopted. I realized that all the grammatical metaphors, I
analyzed up to now, represent either Relational or Mental Processes, but
if we look at the literal meaning of the terms, we can notice that they
all represent Material Processes. Since, I am a Systemic Functionalist
beginner, I would be very grateful to receive any inputs or suggestions,
and above all references about the matter.

Please send replies to:

 9408731budcf.gla.ac.uk

Thank you,

Roberto Bertuol