Query Details
| Query Subject: |
Subject/topic-prominent languages
|
|
| Author: | K K Grohmann | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
General Linguistics
|
|
| Query: |
I'm wondering about Keenan's and Li & Thompson's categorization of
subject-prominent languages, topic-prominent languages, mix of both languages and lack of both languages (as L&T propose in their paper in C. Li (ed.), 1996, _Subject and Topic_, New York: Academic Press, 457-489.). First of all, what is the current status of this distinction (across theories)? Is is--at least roughly--correct, or is it completely flawed due to apparent misanalyses of subjects as topics in certain languages? My second question concerns L&T's categorization of languages. So on p. 460 they give us the following picture: (i) subject-prominent languages: Indo-European, Niger-Congo, Finno-Ugric, Semitic, Dyirbal, Indonesian, Malagasy... (ii) topic-prominent languages: Chinese, Lahu, Lisu... (iii) both-prominent languages: Japanese, Korean... (iv) neither-prominent languages: Tagalog, Illocano... If the two-way (or even four-way) distinction holds, or has some merit, has anything changed with respect to the status of the languages cited, i.e. have people continued to work on this topic and either found that some language(s) better be placed in a different rubric or added new languages to the list(s)? I would appreciate any replies, and I get enough responses I will post a summary. Thanks to everyone in advance, Kleanthes @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ KLEANTHES KOSTAS GROHMANN @ @ @ @ Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland @ @ 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD 20742 @ @ @ @ Phone: (301) 405-4936 - Fax: (301) 405-7104 (dept) @ @ Phone: (202) 483-8113 - Fax: (202) 483-4439 (home) @ @ Email: grohmann@wam.umd.edu OR kleanthes@hotmail.com @ @ Homepage: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~grohmann @ @ @ @ BRANDNEW--PLEASE VISIT: wam.umd.edu/~grohmann/ling @ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I have seen references to a CD rom in Linguistics but have lost track of the details. Could any of the colleagues give me info about existing CD rom(s) in Linguistics? thanks a lot. Jeanine Treffers-Daller -------------------------------------- Treffers-Daller, Jeanine Email: Jeanine.Treffers-Daller@uwe.ac.uk ''University of the West of England'' Is any linguist aware of any data of a language (or languages) whose nouns are marked overtly (with affixes) for ''experiencer'' AND ''animate'' semantic features? References regarding this matter are more than welcome. Thank you very much, Nick Bibis Dept. of French, University of Toronto One of my graduate students in linguistics is interested in any references that readers may be able to suggest on a topic referred to by some as ''semilingualism''. The student is familiar with numerous examples of children who have moved from one language environment (e.g., U.S.) to another (e.g., Japan) and then returned to the original environment, but are not fluent in either language. For some of these children, ESL instruction has been insufficient to improve their skills to age-appropriate levels. As a result, they are being assessed for special education. A preliminary search of various databases and back issues of LINGUIST has been done; however, given time constraints on the project, we are hoping LINGUIST readers may be able to provide information on specific references, especially recent ones, which may be helpful. Replies should be sent to Thank you. ******************************** Debra M. Hardison, Ph.D. Program in Linguistics/ESL University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 |
|
| LL Issue: | 9.1575 | |
| Date posted: | 09-Nov-1998 | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
