Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Morphosyntax / Re: Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by Daniel on January 09, 2018, 07:47:32 PM »
Good question. I suppose someone maintaining that analysis would imagine some additional distinct structure in those two complement types.

Personally at least for English I like thinking of accusative as default ("elsewhere") and nominative as assigned in specific circumstances. But that's not the standard generative analysis.
Morphosyntax / Prepositional Complementisers and ACC
« Last post by Morphosyntax on January 09, 2018, 02:07:37 PM »
Prepositions are ACC case assigners. The subject of a non-finite clause with prepositional complementiser for gets ACC case from the preposition:

"I would like for [TP him to join me]"

Why does the PRO subject of a gerund not receive ACC case when the non-finite clause is introduced by a preposition?

"Thank youi for [TP PROi joining me]"
There is some chance that a job will become available somewhere in about 10-15 years (a plausible future target for you). Let's say that there are exactly 2 jobs in that open up within that time frame, and there are 200 applicants. Then the question is, what do you need to do, so that you end up as one of the lucky 2? One approach is the "multiple birds, one stone" approach, where you specialize in Indo-European and Semitic and Athabaskan (and computational linguistics), the reason being that the department happens to have courses in these areas than need covering. Better to hire one person who can do everything, right? There is, however, the problem that people are willing to claim an ability to do things that they can't actually do, and developing an impressive publication portfolio in all of those fields is extremely hard, and risky (in case the demand is for IE, semantics, sign language and Mansi dialectology).

The other approach is the "undisputed brilliance" approach, implying tight focus (and frankly, "Indo-European is way too broad – instead, you need to have general fluency in IE and extreme competence in Iranian linguistics or Greek epigraphy). The idea is that you might become so superb in your area that no other candidate can touch you. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that departments want to hire the absolutely best person for the position, and I think that's unrealistic, at least at the relevant level. This is the way to get a named chair full professor position in a traditional European university, which could happen in some number of decades.

If you follow a broader study path, you have more future options to rearrange your research interests. For example, you may discover that you're more interested in comparative linguistics than historical linguistics. Language description and field work very naturally connect to comparative linguistics in a way that historical linguistics doesn't (essentially, you can't do historical linguistics in a family until there is some factual knowledge of the language that is sufficient to allow you to compare and reconstruct, and then you can do the finely-focused detail work that typifies historical linguistics). If you have spend all of your time developing talents at reading medieval manuscripts, you'd be unqualified to move in that new direction. Ultimately you have to narrow your focus, but right now an even split between general linguistics and specific languages would, IMO, be a wiser choice (assuming that you've already gained the requisite general knowledge of history, logic, ethics, physics etc.).

English / Re: Kindly look at these sentences
« Last post by Daniel on January 08, 2018, 08:32:02 AM »
Churchill is the only person who remembers Churchill (himself) giving that particular speech.
English / Kindly look at these sentences
« Last post by binumal on January 08, 2018, 07:46:04 AM »
   Here are two sentence taken from Hornstein's book.                                                    a. a.  Only Churchill remembers himself giving the BST speech
b.  Only Churchill remembers that he gave the BST speech.    -                                       How would you paraphrase the  sentence?  Who remembers what?     Can this sentence be paraphrased as " Churchil only remembers himself giving the BST speech"?
Linguist's Lounge / Re: Aspiring Linguist
« Last post by Daniel on January 07, 2018, 07:30:02 PM »
If your question is about getting a job, then I would recommend a career-oriented Master's degree rather than a PhD. A doctorate prepares you for one thing: being a professor. At least in an academic field like Linguistics. There are few jobs out there in the "industry". And the jobs in academia are very competitive. If you are certain you want to pursue that path, then I'm not saying you shouldn't. But it's not the easiest or most certain way to a career. That's where I am now, looking for a job as I finish my PhD. A much more direct way to a job is to get a Master's in Speech Pathology, ESL, translation, or computational linguistics. You can still do some Linguistics on the way, but you'll be prepared for a job out there in the world. At best, a PhD would give you the same qualifications as a Master's (and often not!) if you end up looking for a job outside academia.
Sure, you can do that (or become an Indo-Europeanist still). Typically these specialties allow a little flexibility-- teaching Russian language classes while doing Slavic linguistics research for publication, etc. But it would also limit the topics for your research in a way--  if you work in a Slavic department you would end up mostly doing research on Slavic. Which might be fine for you. You should look at researchers today to see what career path you'd like to do. Then the big question is just whether you can get one of those jobs-- always a trade off-- narrow specialization means you're an expert in a narrow field if that job becomes available but not qualified for a slightly different job. Getting a job these days requires some luck.
Morphosyntax / Re: Echo Questions
« Last post by Daniel on January 07, 2018, 06:04:01 PM »
I'm still not sure I understand. Echo questions are Wh-questions that function like yes/no questions, true. But I'm not sure where there's room for a third type. Feel free to give some examples (minimal pairs style would help).
English / Re: please look at this sentence
« Last post by Daniel on January 07, 2018, 06:01:41 PM »
"Used to" highlights a sense of contrast. Both are fine, and the simple past would be the default.

Note: "the Second World War" vs. (no "the") "World War II".
English / Re: please look at this sentence
« Last post by binumal on January 07, 2018, 01:05:55 PM »
If it is in the past,for example - a)During the World War Two, He woke up at every day or  b)During the World War Two, He used to  wake up at every day - which would be preferable?
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]