Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Phonetics and Phonology / Phonological theory that denies phonemes?
« Last post by Muikkunen on November 05, 2021, 11:18:36 PM »
Some time ago I found a website proposing phonology without phonemes, because illiterate people don't have awareness of them, arguing that phonemes are a byproduct of writing system development. On that website, there were links to papers in psycholinguistics about phonemes having no mental representation in illiterate people and also article about history of writing systems.
Unfortunately, I forgot what that website and theory are called, but really need to find it now.
Can you help me?
Linguistics Links / Re: Russell: “On Denoting”
« Last post by waive15 on November 04, 2021, 02:58:19 AM »




4. From Events to Time

- - -

Sense Data

- - -

Law of excluded middle


Bertrand Russell and Principia Mathematica


This is not much help. But later, in a much deeper discussion ("Definition and systematic ambiguity of Truth and Falsehood" Chapter II part III, p. 41 ff), PM defines truth and falsehood in terms of a relationship between the "a" and the "b" and the "percipient". For example "This 'a' is 'b'" (e.g. "This 'object a' is 'red'") really means "'object a' is a sense-datum" and "'red' is a sense-datum", and they "stand in relation" to one another and in relation to "I". Thus what we really mean is: "I perceive that 'This object a is red'" and this is an undeniable-by-3rd-party "truth".

PM further defines a distinction between a "sense-datum" and a "sensation":

    That is, when we judge (say) "this is red", what occurs is a relation of three terms, the mind, and "this", and "red". On the other hand, when we perceive "the redness of this", there is a relation of two terms, namely the mind and the complex object "the redness of this" (pp. 43–44).

Russell reiterated his distinction between "sense-datum" and "sensation" in his book The Problems of Philosophy (1912), published at the same time as PM (1910–1913):

    Let us give the name of "sense-data" to the things that are immediately known in sensation: such things as colours, sounds, smells, hardnesses, roughnesses, and so on. We shall give the name "sensation" to the experience of being immediately aware of these things... The colour itself is a sense-datum, not a sensation. (p. 12)

Russell further described his reasoning behind his definitions of "truth" and "falsehood" in the same book (Chapter XII, Truth and Falsehood).


Semantics and Pragmatics / Re: Ergativity
« Last post by Daniel on October 31, 2021, 09:11:50 PM »
(Note: I'm most familiar with these terms from the perspective of linguistic typology, i.e. how some languages mark cases using nominative-accusative systems, and others ergative-absolutive.)

I see why this appears confusing, and I agree. But the footnote there seems helpful. If I'm interpreting this correctly, this is because sail is considered to be an active kind of verb, as if the ship is choosing to sail itself, rather than someone sailing the ship. This relates to another concept, of split intransitivity, where (in some languages) some intransitives are marked like ergatives/nominatives and some like absolutives/accusatives (either label works, because the distinction is now semantic, not collapsed, in intransitives), depending on how active the verb is.

A typical example of split intransitivity is an active verb like "jump" vs. a passive verb like "fall". I believe that passage is suggesting that "sail" is more like "jump".

(There's another complex layer here related to metonymy or meronymy, where the "ship" refers to its crew/captain making decisions. If we said "The captain sailed." that would be more obviously an active sentence.)
Linguist's Lounge / Re: Book Suggestions
« Last post by Daniel on October 31, 2021, 07:57:24 PM »
I'm not sure of a single book that covers everything from a neutral perspective. The one you found seems like a good overview of the history, but may not be so detailed regarding the actual theories themselves. Most other books that I've seen take one side or the other, although they may have a good summary of the history too. Often Cognitive Linguistics books will go into more detail than Generative books, because the Generativists may just take that (older) theory for granted, not paying much attention to Cognitive Linguistics, though there are exceptions. A good scholar who really knows the history of linguistics well, whose own perspective is more Generative, is Frederick Newmeyer, and he has written a lot (often technical) on the subject of theories, history of Linguistics, etc.

For a sampling of different syntactic theories, this is a nice overview (and free):
Linguist's Lounge / Book Suggestions
« Last post by Matt Longhorn on October 31, 2021, 04:40:57 AM »
Just wondering whether anyone has any thoughts on books on the history of linguistics, focussing on the debate between more generative approaches and cognitive/usage based approaches.
Intrigued as I came across this book and thought it would be interesting, but being the compulsive bibliophile that I am I now need to create an Amazon wishlist for more
Semantics and Pragmatics / Ergativity
« Last post by Matt Longhorn on October 31, 2021, 04:36:08 AM »
Reading a new book on the voice system in post-classical Greek.

Trying to get my head around the concept of ergativity that Mathewson sees as key in the analysis of voice and getting confused.
On page 30 he writes
More concisely, “Is the process brought about from within, or from outside?” That is, in an ergativity-based interpretation of a clause, the notions of causality and agency play focal roles. According to Halliday, if the action is self-engendered, with no reference to an outside cause, the clause is nonergative. If the process has an external cause in its clause, and it is brought about by an agent, then the clause is ergative.
And then on page 31 referring to the sentence “the boat sailed” he writes
In this second sentence there is no specific reference to an agent. The action, then, is seen as self-engendering, occurring from within, with no reference to an external cause. Hence it is ergative.

Having a seriously dumb moment, but is he contradicting himself?
I read Halliday and Matthiessen’s chapter on this in Hallidays Introduction to Functional Grammar and came away with the understanding that an ergative representation of a subject is one without an external cause. So in Halliday's example “the lion chased the tourist” he sees this as an ergative/non-ergative contrast. According to this reading Mathewson’s second quote is correct (assuming he contradicting himself, which I allow is more likely to be my misunderstanding of him)
Linguistics Links / Re: Russell: “On Denoting”
« Last post by waive15 on October 29, 2021, 01:54:01 AM »

SEMANTICS-8: Sense, Reference & Denotation

=== === ===

the course

SEMANTICS-1: What is Semantics?


Linguistics Links / Russell: “On Denoting”
« Last post by waive15 on October 29, 2021, 01:32:52 AM »
Semantics and Pragmatics / Circassian language
« Last post by kantemir on October 28, 2021, 11:35:07 AM »
Hello everyone my name is Kantemir im interested in linguistics ,study my native language Circassian.
In a while i have made a very interesting discovery about this language ,after six years of study i can truly say that this language has a system of sounds that has a meaning ,that does describe the reality that is actually happening at the moment, of course it is a view of an ancient people about there life . let me give examples so the picture gets clear for you.

Mother-contains two sound with a meaning of PAST and EYE, that does mean the one who was before me but is watching me all the way. mother in this case is compared to someone who is always watching you.
Father- contins the same sound of PAST and walnut, same as mother father was before you, but he is different he is a walnut tree. the seeds of this tree are brain a like. two sides and totally looking the same as a real human brain. by the way that tree is actually growing in every family no matter what is social status  most of the people grow this tree. in this case we can see that ancient people are using objects in order to abstract the understanding of mother and father. even now we say family tree ,roots and so on. here we have the straight name for it.
Son-SUPPORT-NOW. the word son contains two sounds that mean support and time range of present. in order to understand what a son is to you they used the sound of support ...the question of why is simple to answer . a man that is called by his father since the birth will know what kind of position he is actually standing before his parents. without explanation or anything else. the parent will know how to behave and also the son will know and understand the way of his life regarding the people he was created by .
you will ask probably a question about the influence of other languages and so on, the answer is simple. the language is impossible to be changed because the system will not allow it, the sound system does not allow any changes and even if they occur the word become meaningless.
looking forward to study and publish this with someone who does have interest in this field. regarding doubts and other thougths of yours that will occur, there is no doubt in this language . it does exist and it does explain the reality ,in the way at least the ancient people saw it.

feel free to contact me via email
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10