Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <marty
linguistlist.org>
I am wondering if someone could suggest references or current thinking on argument structure in verbs like act, behave, etc. They seem to require adverbs (He acts well, They behaved badly) as complements, yet how does fit into current thinking on argument structure. Jacobs, in his syntax book for teachers, says that arguments are either NP's or clauses. Any clarification of this would be appreciated. Tony DeFazio (ajdefazMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueaol.com)
It is obvious that the presence of cognate words in L2 that are related to a learner's L1 is a great advantage in acquisition. Is there, however, a point at which this advantage fades in acquiring related L3, L4 or L5? I am thinking in particular of a case in which, for example an English speaker learns his second or third foreign language within one family and does not commit cognate words in the new language to memory as easily, mainly because they are comprehended quickly through previous knowledge and are just buzzed over. Often the learner is not aware at first that he has encountered a new word to be learned. The situation is sort of the mirror image of an ESL student who cannot break out of a local immigrant pidgin, because once he knows he is understood, he loses motivation to learn the correct forms. Does anyone know if there tends to be such a state of diminishing returns in learning several related languages? James KirchnerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
the International Pragmatics Conference to take place in June 1999 at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem is going to deal with, among others, the observation that "interlocutors engage in negotiations about every aspect of their interaction - such as floor access and topic selection, contextual assumptions, conversational goals, and the (mis)interpretation and repair of their messages" - and a number of interactional features and participant interrelations could easily be added. I would be grateful for hints on articles, studies, books etc. that focus on this aspect. Please note: I'm not primarily looking for analyses of what one might call the text sort of negotation, like negotiations in business or diplomacy, rather I'm interested in the multiple, often implicit or covert negotiations that run parallel to every verbal and nonverbal interaction. I'd welcome hints from any theoretical background (CA, DA, argumentation theory, Ftf-interaction, action theory, social psychology, ...). Thanks in advance for your help. I'll post a summary of the responses. Wilfried Oeller University of Vienna, Austria e-mail: a6702821Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueunet.univie.ac.at
I'm searching for information on paradigmatic gaps. This phenomenon
can be described as a slot in a morphological paradigm that native
speakers of the language feel that no form adequately fills. For
example, for many English speakers, the verb "stride" does not have a
past participle:
I stride, I strode, I have *stridden/*strode/*strided
Another example of a paradigmatic gap is found in Russian,
where there does not seem to be a first person present form of the
verb "to vacuum clean":
pylesosit "to vacuum clean", *pylesoshu/*pylesos'u "I vacuum clean"
A difficulty in researching this topic is that grammars and
dictionaries of the language tend not acknowledge the existence of
such gaps, often proscribing a form to fill out the paradigm, contrary
to the intuitions of speakers of the language. For example, the
Oxford English Dictionary gives both "stridden" and "strode" for the
past participle of "stride" ("strode" being marked as colloquial).
In addition, many paradigmatic gaps seem to be like the
English and Russian examples cited here, in that speakers know what
possible forms would be, although all of them sound wrong. In other
cases, there may be phrasal alternatives that functionally fill the
slot in the paradigm.
I would appreciate hearing about any cases of paradigmatic
gaps that readers may know about, including whether speakers of the
language know of possible forms, and if there is a conventional
phrasal alternative. I will post a summary if there is sufficient
interest.
Thank you.
Julie Legate
jlegate
mit.edu
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue