top of page

riverglen Group

Public·10 members

How To Change Language 25pp

Requests for name changes in the electronic proceedings will be accepted with no questions asked. However name changes may cause bibliographic tracking issues. Authors are asked to consider this carefully and discuss it with their co-authors prior to requesting a name change in the electronic proceedings.

how to change language 25pp

I.21 Final Paper Topics. If you do not have a topic of your own devising that I confirmed, then please pick one of the following. Your paper must be 10 to 15 pages long, and it needs to burn with a gem-like flame of intellectual intensity. Grads and Independent Studies: papers 20 - 25pp. Also, Grads and Independent Studies may choose any topic, even though some are recommended for you.

2. Teaching Grammar. What are some of the issues involved in teaching grammar to children and adolescents? What are the arguments for and against? How do you respond? Do you have a proposal for how best to make students aware of the structure of language? If so, what is it? You can include lesson plans or course descriptions. See me for more details. (Especially recommended for M.A., Ed. students.)

For example, if language is thought, does thought change as language changes? Then, how then can we understand writing from the past, like Shakespeare or Beowulf, and how can we understand the thoughts of people who don't speak our language? How significant must language changes be before we cease to recognize a given thought as familiar. If thought is beyond language, do we lose our abilities to express thoughts as language changes? Ruminate on these questions and address one. (Especially recommended for grad students and independent studies.)

4. Origins. Where does language come from? If language is an instinct, as Steven Pinker suggests, then was our species ever without language? What evidence do we have for the beginnings of language? How does this evidence support a primitivist view of the past as simple and uncomplicated? Does it imply that language is getting more complex (and are we getting more complex, too)? What does the future of English look like? Ruminate on these questions and address one. For this paper, think about language in terms of evolution.

5. Babel. For eons, humans told stories about an originary language. Whether it's Hebrew in the Garden of Eden or German of the Garden of Eden, one language was considered best evocative of Nature. Discuss one story of an originary language. Then compare that story to the story of a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language. What do they imply about human control over language? About nature versus culture? See me for more details. (Especially recommended for grad students and independent studies.)

8. e. e. cummings. From capitalization to punctuation, e sure did bust up language good i guess. Sescribe how the lexicon, phonology, semantics, and syntax of one or two of e's poems influence your interpretation(s).

9. Germanic languages. Why didn't German lose its inflections? Beginning with Proto-Germanic, describe the phenomena that led to the simultaneous development of Old High German and English. What accounts for the major morphological variations of German?

10. Celts and Germans. The Celtic languages have always been left out of descriptions of the development of Germanic languages. But Celts and Germans were sometimes considered the same peoples by Roman ethnographers, and often inhabited the same lands. Compare two views of how Celtic and English are related: one before 1920 and one after 1920.

11. Modern English. Language around us is constantly changing. Certain dialects take precedence over others. Describe three major language changes in English in the United States today: consider dialects, urban environments, class, the role of universities and a mobile work force, population shifts, and so forth. Narrow your focus as much as possible. Rely on credible sources (avoid journalists, bloggers, and podcasters).

Vietnamese has to date been considered to be a language without infixation. This study is an attempt to change that notion. Infixation does exist in the Vietnamese language, but in restricted discoursal and social contexts. Our analysis shows that infixes have pragmatic functions and convey one of three implications. They can be used to (1) to express a complaint, (2) to express disagreement, or (3) to enhance a compliment. For each pragmatic purpose, the social context must be considered so that offensiveness and impoliteness can be avoided. Our results reveal that the majority of the Vietnamese words containing the infix với chả express complaints and that với chả is most often inserted into nouns. This study provides Vietnamese language teachers, learners, and translators with an in-depth understanding of the Vietnamese infix với chả, as added into base words in certain styles of language play.

Traditional approaches to semantic change typically focus on outcomes of meaning change and list types of change such as metaphoric and metonymic extension, broadening and narrowing, and the development of positive and negative meanings. Examples are usually considered out of context, and are lexical members of nominal and adjectival word classes.

However, language is a communicative activity that is highly dependent on context, whether that of the ongoing discourse or of social and ideological changes. Much recent work on semantic change has focused, not on results of change, but on pragmatic enabling factors for change in the flow of speech. Attention has been paid to the contributions of cognitive processes, such as analogical thinking, production of cues as to how a message is to be interpreted, and perception or interpretation of meaning, especially in grammaticalization. Mechanisms of change such as metaphorization, metonymization, and subjectification have been among topics of special interest and debate. The work has been enabled by the fine-grained approach to contextual data that electronic corpora allow.

What is change, and how do we recognize it when it has occurred? Individual speakers innovate when they use language creatively, and hearers innovate when they interpret what a speaker has said in a different way from the speaker or others in their group. Most of these innovations are unintentional (Keller, 1994) and ephemeral; some are resisted. The position taken here is that for a change to have occurred, there must be evidence of transmission of innovations to others, in other words, of conventionalization (Milroy, 1992; Traugott & Trousdale, 2013).3

In the first half of the 20th century, much work was done on classifying types of semantic change, most of them lexical/contentful and considered in isolation (e.g., Ullmann, 1962). These are still the mainstay of textbooks on language change (e.g., Campbell, 2004; Hock & Joseph, 2009) and are assumed in most recent work. Most important are (with up-dates in definitions):

The kinds of semantic change most extensively studied in the last 40 years are changes leading to grammatical, procedural meaning,6 typically in the context of work on grammaticalization, the study of work on morphosyntactic change (e.g., Heine, Claudi, & Hünnemeyer, 1991, Hopper & Traugott, 2003). Much of the work has been conducted from typological and cognitive linguistic perspectives. It has revealed that semantic changes correlated with the types of morphosyntactic changes associated with grammaticalization are regular in the sense that they are replicated not only in the same language but cross-linguistically. They are almost exclusively unidirectional in that lexical meaning may become grammatical meaning, but not vice versa (see Norde, 2009 for an account of a few exceptions to unidirectionality, but mainly from the perspective of form rather than meaning).

Sequential semantic changes identified in work on grammaticalization are often described in terms of paths of change. Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca (1994) identified several possible cross-linguistic paths for modal meanings, among them (in abbreviated form), this map (Figure 1):

Most historical linguists distinguish motivations for and mechanisms of change. Motivations concern reasons why change occurs. Mechanisms concern how change occurs. They will be discussed in the next section.

Although originally discussed mainly with reference to grammaticalization, invited inferencing is conceived as a major motivation for semantic change in general (Traugott & Dasher, 2002). It encompasses the changes associated with metonymy and metaphor, and also pejoration and amelioration.

Seeking to differentiate metaphorical and metonymic change, Koch (2012) builds on prior synchronic work such as is represented in Barcelona (2000a) and proposes that metaphor is based on similarity, metonymy on contiguity and taxonomic hierarchization. Drawing on Anttila (1989, p. 142), we may say that:

In considering both subjectification and intersubjectification, it is important to distinguish them as mechanisms of change from synchronic subjectivity and intersubjectivity, which are ambient in all language use and arise out of coordination between speaker and hearer. For a detailed account of work on both subjectification and intersubjectification, see López-Couso (2010).

2. A more restricted domain of study has been how meanings change as referents change (see Brown, 1958), for example, the meaning of phone clearly changed referentially as rotary phones began to be replaced by digital phones and desk phones by cell phones.

7. A balanced corpus is equally divided among different genres, varieties, etc. It should be noted that although the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) on-line is a very important data source for the history of English, it is not a corpus, because it does not provide full contexts (many are abbreviated), and several examples are repeated (Mair, 2004). Allan (2012) discusses some problems in using the OED for researching semantic change. 350c69d7ab


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

bottom of page