Query Details
| Query Subject: |
O'Grady et al, Contemporary Linguistics
|
| Author: | Ahmad R. Lotfi |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email |
| Query: |
James Kirchner wrote: Re: Linguist 12.2273 CHAPTER THREE Phonology: The Function and Patterning of Sounds (Michael Dobrovsky and Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins) It should be noted tha this chapter contains an error in its discussion of syllable onsets. Speaking of errors, which are usually inevitable in a textbook as wide in scope as this, I was reminded of a couple of what I consider errors in O'Grady's. I didn't include them in my review as I believe the book is rather carefully edited, and mentioning errors as few as those in the text might make an exaggerated impression on the reader of the review. Now James mentions an alleged error you cannot notice unless you know Czech. This encourages me to add 4 more errors below hoping that making a list of the possible errors in this text will help the editors to make their work even better. (1) On page 271, O'grady writes: 40) a. the judge denied the prisoner's request because he was cautious. b. The judge denied the prisoner's request because he was dangerous. "These two sentences have identical syntactic structures, differing only in the choice of the adjective in the second clause ... . Ye most people feel *he* refers to the judge in 40a but to the prisoner in 40b. ... All other things being equal, we are more likely to believe that a judge is cautious and a prisoner dangerous than vice versa." In my judgement, O'Grady's explanation is wrong. Replacing *judge* and *prisoner* with two neutral names like *John* and *Peter* doesn' drastically change my preferences (what about your?): "John denied Peter's request because he was cautious/dangerous." Apparently, the constraint is still pragmatic but more general than what O'Grady assumes. It must have sth to do with the semantics of the predicate denying (requests). (2) On page 354, Aleksandra Steinbergs writes: "All languages permit V and CV (where V normally stands for a vowel, and C for a consonant). These syllable types are unmarked, in the sense that they are permitted in all languages." But Persian does not permit V as a single syllable! The onset of the syllable in Persian is always filled with a consonant. Even if there's no consonant there in the underlying structure, the speakers automatically insert a glottal stop to avoid V as a single syllable: [?ab] "water"(? standing for a glottal stop and NOT a pharyngial). (3) On page 376, Steinbergs considers Assyrian to be an extinc language with no native-speakers. As far as I know, we've got some native-speakers of this language living in Urmia (north-west of Iran). Iranian Assyrians are a small Christian community, and this must have helped them to retain their native-language. (4) On page 664, Judith Klavans writes: "[A]lthough telephone and email messages are written and are likely to be read, they are unlikely to contain arguments." Well, ... telephone messages are not written, I suppose. And the very e-mail you're reading just now contains arguments, I hope! I would like to ask the colleagues that have noticed similar cases in the text to share them with me. If there are more errors found there, I'll post a summary both to the list and the editors. A tex as good as this is worthy of that. Best, Ahmad R. Lotfi. ************************************************ Ahmad R. Lotfi, Ph. D Department of the English Language, Chair Azad University at Khorasgan Esfahan, IRAN. Mail: lotfi@www.dci.co.ir http://www.geocities.com/arlotfi/lotfipage.html ************************************************ |
