LINGUIST List 8.15

Wed Jan 15 1997

Qs: Internet discourse, Pronouns, Thai

Editor for this issue: Susan Robinson <suelinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Catherine Browning, internet discourse
2. elisa vazquez iglesias, Bound pronouns
3. sechangl, Thai

I shall be completing a post-graduate thesis this year on German and
English Internet communication, and was hoping to find information and
research about this topic (eg. German use of grammatical features such as
sentence structure and capitalisation in IRC, formal and informal email;
use of English in "German" language email/IRC communication or other
sociolinguistic variations).
	If anyone has knowledge of existing research done in such a field
(English or German), please contact me at:
 			cebroyoyo.cc.monash.edu.au

Thanking you in advance,

Catherine Browning
Monash University, Australia.

Dear listers,

	I am currently working on defective governing categories in
Spanish and English and I urgently need some help.

	I have found that PP arguments, especially those bearing the
theta role Theme, are defective binding domains in Spanish. At the same
time, PPs bearing a Locative role are also binding domains in this language.
	As regards English, things get more complicated, however.

1. Apparently, PP arguments (at least Themes) are not defective GCs.
	(a) She(i) relies on her(*i)
	(b) She(i) believes in her(*i)
2. Locative adjuncts are defective GCs.
	(a) Max(i) saw a snake over him(i)
3. Sentences such as
	(a) Max(i) put the gun near him(i)
	(b) Max(i) pulled the cart towards him(i)
	(c) Max(i) twisted the knife into him(i)			
	(d) Max(i) carved the letters into him(i)

are also grammatical. My real question with respect to (3) is: are all
the data under (3) examples of adjuncts or can these PPs ("near him",
"towards him", "into him") be considered as PP arguments of two-place
predicates?

4. Consider an example with a Beneficiary theta role
	(a) Max(i) bought a gun for him(*i)

How would you explain the ungrammaticality of (4a)? Are all the examples of
Beneficiaries ungrammatical? Why?

Thank you for your help.
				Elisa Vazquez
				Universidad de Santiago
				Spain

Dear Linguists

Korean has a three-way distinction of obstruents: plain, aspirated, and
tense consonants. For examle, tam 'wall', tham 'greed', and t'am 'sweat'.
When they are in coda position, they are all neutralized to an unreleased
plain counterpart. Of interest, at the same time, any following consonant
undergoes tensification after the unreleased coda consonant. For example,
/kat + ta/ 'be the same' --> [kat=t'a] (t=: unreleased t, t': tensified
t).

 As far as I know of, Thai utilizes both the [voiced] and the [spread glottis]
dimensions to make a three-way distinction among [t], [th], and [d], for
example. Just like in Korean, they all neutralizes to the plain [t] in
coda.

 In a situation like this, is the syllable-final [t] in Thai unreleased
as in Korean? What happens if a consonant follows the syllable-final [t]?
Does Thai have any such phenomenon as tensification in Korean?

 I'd very much appreicate if any linguists could give me some feedback or
references. Thank you in advance.

 Sincerely,
 Sechang Lee (at USC)
 <sechanglaludra.usc.edu>