Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
2 pages
1 file
l 7 qr tho field of theorotica,I lingu~tias the de o.de of the fihii.ls was one ef cre,;tive • controversy, both withi-q aqd outside tlw Soviet Union, In the West, of 9ourse, cl ve!ne• ment i,l!ld refinement of the distinctive feature :ipproqch to phonemic theory was continuing, most notably ln th work~ of ]llkobson and Halle. ln Russia, the long.denied stucturali~t heritagq of L. V. Scerb,1 and Baui:lr uii1 d<i Courtenay was revived b S. K. Saumjan ip his pr1wooa• tive articl~ "The Proble1n of the Phoniimo'' (''Froblcmv. fonemy"), in th h ated polemic which nrosi: svb~equently
"SUMMARY This article traces the development of the concept of the ‘basis of articulation’ in Russia of the first half of the 20th century, analysing in detail the major works in this area of research. In Russia this concept took a specific course of development. From the beginning it has been mainly conceived as a ‘summation of features’, distinguishing phonetic systems of different languages, however, Russian linguists tended to view it in a wider general-phonemic framework. While in the West the interest to this concept generally subsided, in Russian linguistics it was always present and remained viable and attractive particularly in the fields of the teaching of phonetics, dialectology, and language typology. RÉSUMÉ Cet article retrace l’évolution du concept de ‘base d’articulation’ en Russie de la première moitié du XXe siècle, tout en examinant les principaux travaux effectués dans ce secteur de recherche. Ce concept a connu en Russie un développement particulier. En effet, il était traditionnellement et communément considéré comme un ‘ensemble de traits’ distinguant les systèmes phonétiques de différentes langues. Toutefois, les linguistes russes étaient pour leur part enclins à le placer dans un système général de phonétique. Alors qu’en Occident l’intérêt pour ce concept a généralement tourné court, dans la linguistique russe il a toujours été présent et est resté d’actualité tout particulièrement dans le domaine de l’enseignement de la prononciation, la dialectologie, et la typologie linguistique. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Dieser Artikel zeichnet die Entwicklung des Konzepts der Artikulationsbasis in Russland in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts nach und analysiert die wichtigsten Arbeiten der Hauptvertreter auf diesem Gebiet. In Russland hat dieses Konzept einen besonderen Entwicklungskurs eingeschlagen. Von Beginn an wurde es als ‘Sum-mierung charakteristischer Merkmale’ zur Unterscheidung phonetischer Systeme verschiedener Sprachen wahrgenommen, allerdings tendierten russische Sprachwis-senschaftler dazu, das Konzept in einem weiteren, allgemeinen phonemischen Rahmen zu betrachten. Während im Westen das Interesse an diesem Konzept allgemein abebbte, war es in der russischen Linguistik immer präsent und blieb besonders auf den Gebieten des Phonetikunterrichts, der Dialektologie und Sprachtypologie lebendig. "
Tradition and innovation in the History of Linguistics / Ed. by C. Assunção, G. Fernandes, R. Kemmler. – Münster: Nodus Publikationen, 2016
In his works on Slavonic historical phonology, the Ukrainian linguist George Y. Shevelov (1908–2002) studied the system of phonemes in its historical development. The classical phonological methodology, based on the study of synchronic oppositions within a certain language, underwent some modifications in his practical research, as the author was set on combining synchronic and diachronic methods. Shevelov’s definition of phoneme, given in 1951, treated it functionally, rejecting all psychologism. Nevertheless, while analyzing the language of written records, he could not avoid introducing some psychological facets.
Language, 1997
This book, like the Kleinere Schriften of F's Stanford colleague, Joseph H. Greenberg, demonstrates that linguistics as practiced by linguists who know their languages is the most humane of the social sciences and the most scientific of the humanities. communities, register variation, and early work on language planning. Happily, there is a name index (329-35), topic index (336-44), and language index (345-8), without which this tome would be quite user-unfriendly (the very problem of the Dil volume). In addition to the two aforementioned essays, Part I reprints the (1968) 'Language development' (also in Dil 1971:40-7), which is quite basic and could have been omitted. The (1991) 'South Asia as a sociolinguistic area' (84-96) is, by contrast, fairly advanced and contains a particularly rich bibliography (93-6). This unevenness will make textbook adoption difficult. Part II, on register and genre, contains the (1964) 'Baby talk in six languages' (103-14). Providing background information, H writes that F 'now considers "Arabic babytalk" (1956) as an example of how not to do research' (97). Baby talk research probably was the catalyst for F's entry into pidginistics and creolistics, since 'Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech, baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins' appeared in 1971 (115-23). There is no better illustration of F's work on genre than 'Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation' (148-66). It is clear that, although not all natives are familiar with SAT, it is, like the knock-knock joke, 'as identifiable as the sonnet' (149).
Religions, 2023
This article analyzes the evolution of Pavel Florensky’s teachings about language from the end of the 1910s to the early 1920s in the context of the two lines of influence (Humboldtian–Potebnian and Palamite) on the basis of which this teaching developed. In his reasoning about language, Florensky, proceeding from intuition, declares that there is a rigid connection between the word’s sound/phoneme; its morpheme, etymon, and sememe (the given here and now meaning); and its denotate. According to Florensky, this points to the magicism of the word as such. At the beginning of the 1910s, Florensky, having become a participant in the name-glorifying debates, also adhered to the line presupposing a rigid connection between the word’s sound (the name, which is applied to God), its meaning, and its denotate. All these lines converged in Florensky’s thoughts on the nature of language in the late 1910s and the early 1920s. He turned again to the Humboldtian–Potebnian language scheme but rethought it, speaking of the intentionally charged sememe as the word’s inner form. In texts written in the late 1910s and the early 1920s, we single out two aspects of the understanding of the magicism of the word which were key for Florensky, namely the aspect revealed in the discourse of the independent and autonomous existence of words and names and the aspect presupposing the intentionally willed moment in the phenomenon of the magicism of the word.
This article is meant to show how central Firth's particular position towards the phoneme is, in terms of constitution of the concept of phonaesthesia as a direct answer to the flaws he denounced in the phoneme. The rejection of the phoneme theory then led to the constitution of a whole and coherent theory of language now known under the name Contextual theory of meaning or even Firthian linguistics. It has eventually resulted in the creation of an independent school of thinking, the London School of Linguistics that has influenced many generations of British linguists.
Journal of Linguistics, 1979
Besides the main parts of the analysis there are several other interesting observations-for example, a discussion of the special position of the number 12 and a collection of etymologies which go back, unexpectedly, to number words. However, errors and inconsistencies abound throughout the section. Consider first the Slavonic data. A transliteration scheme is proposed (vii, 98) which is eccentric and confusing. The author institutes e for Russian e (while it is normally reserved for %) but fails to use it consistently (15, 24, 98, 183). The Russian numerals 8, 10 and 2000 are given inaccurately (98) and there are further Russian errors on pp. 73 (units and tens are not reversed in Russian) 134 and 183. The transliteration given for Old Church Slavonic (93) is self-contradictory (inconsistencies on pp. 107, 126 and 190). Nor are the errors limited to Slavonic: Hetzron (1977: 197) found in the 1969 edition 'a great number of errors, inadequate transcriptions, wrong segmentation and incorrect etymology' in the Semitic and Hungarian data as well as in Slavonic. Furthermore, the Icelandic hundrad appears in two forms (95, 154) both incorrect, Danish (95), Welsh (97), French (99) and Romanian (99) data all contain inaccuracies, and so on. Clearly one could not use any of Menninger's data without prior checking. Yet this is not easy: first, there are only a handful of references in the entire book and there is no bibliography; secondly, it is difficult to check data from 'an African language spoken in the Sudan' (82) or 'an American Indian' (9). Certainly many of these inaccuracies do not seriously affect the argument, but in view of the optimistic claims made ('.. . profound glimpses into the early condition of the human mind' (151)) the reader is entitled to expect greater care. For the sake of the more valuable parts, the book deserved a fully corrected new edition rather than a new cover. As it is, there are rather too many misprints, (p. 78 'language' for languages', p. 89 'languages' for language', p. 216 'behooves', p. 271 'The first used' for 'The first method used', p. 333 'equpiment', p. 361 'the division 42 + 2', p. 411 'orignal') and, in one table (265), the glosses have still not been translated from the German. Until properly edited, this book will hardly deserve a place on the linguist's desk, though the second section, particularly the illustrations, may earn it a place on his coffee table.
Os artigos tchecos perdidos de Roman Jakobson sobre fonologia: um caso de como evitar anacronismo em historiografia linguística, 2021
Although Roman Jakobson’s theory of distinctive features is best depicted in his English works after his immigration to the United States, a full picture of the development of this theory remains blurred unless all his early works on this topic, written in Czech, Russian, French and German, are well examined. Even though some of these works have been translated into English, there may exist misleading differences between the original non-English texts and the translated English texts. Based on a comparison between Jakobson’s phonological works published in Czech in the early 1930s (“Z fonologie spisovné slovenštiny” and the Ottův entries) and their English versions in his Selected Writings, the present article attempts to clarify a few details on the divisibility of phoneme, the paradigmatic nature of distinctive feature, and the nomenclature and classification of the distinctive features. It also aims to provide a specific example on how to avoid anachronism in the research on history of linguistics. (continua na p. 1)
Nursing Outlook, 2010
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1997
International Journal of Modern Physics B, 2010
Proceedings of PTEE2000 Physics Teaching in Engineering …
Australian Women's Book Review, 2018
Working Papers, 2008
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 2010
Scientometrics, 2006
Journal of Business Research, 1991
Theatre Notebook, 2010
international journal of health and psychology research, 2019
Research Gate, 2025
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020
Gestion & Finances Publiques, 2020
Annales d'Endocrinologie, 2017
Soundscapes of the Early Modern Hispanophone and Lusophone Worlds, 2025
More Than Just Milk Lactation Science Symposium
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 2019