Asian Languages and Linguistics - Volume 1, Issue 2, 2020

Abstract

Language identification is a complex process. In most cases, the processes of language identification by governmental agencies are based on their political compulsions and intentions. Even objective studies made by linguists are not free from the flaws of their philosophical background. This kind of lack of objectivity in establishing linguistic identities may lead to linguistic right movements. In this context, an ethnolinguistic analysis to establish the identity of a language becomes important. The cases of Balmiki and Kupia represent a situation where the linguistic identities of many languages are equally disputable due to the lack of scientific and objective studies. They are listed as different languages in many governmental and non-governmental reports. Linguists who have worked on these languages held the view that Balmiki is an isolated language spoken in Odisha only and is certainly different from Kupia, which is spoken in Andhra Pradesh. The present study attempts to ascertain the ethnolinguistic position of Balmiki vis-à-vis Kupia using bibliographical evidence. It concludes that Balmiki and Kupia are one and the same language. It also finds that it is well recorded and studied by different scholars since long.

Abstract

Siyâsat-nâmeh ‘letter of politics’ as a famous Persian book carries verbal forms which seem different from those found in contemporary corpora. In this paper, we focus on a comparison between prefixal verbs in Siyâsat-nâmeh and those in contemporary corpora. Our corpus is taken randomly from political section of a popular contemporary Iranian newspaper called Hamshahri. Since Siyâsat-nâmeh contains almost 100000 words, we take the same number of words from Hamshahri. We focus on verbs containing one of the five frequent prefixes. First, we extracted verbs carrying such prefixes from both sources under study, and then classified them in terms of types and tokens in AntConc (computer software). Afterward, we compared and contrasted verbs of the two sources. A number of verbal prefixes became completely obsolete; a number of them changed into prefixal nouns/adjectives to be used as non-verbal elements of new verbs.

Abstract

This paper examines the mechanisms of semantic change in the creation of ten Cantonese slang words. It demonstrates with synchronic evidence that metaphorization, metonymization and (inter)subjectification are three principal driving forces behind the shift in meaning. It is argued that Traugott and Dasher’s (2002) Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change (IITSC), initially proposed for and widely used in the context of grammaticalization, is equally useful for the study of neologisms – in this case, the relatively recent slang expressions in Cantonese. These monosyllabic lexemes are shown to have followed the same unidirectional pathway of semantic change – that is, the shift from non-subjective meaning to encoded (inter)subjective meaning – outlined in their model of semantic change.

Abstract

The case model of the syncretic case [xa] in the Gansu-Qinghai area came from non-Sinitic languages, while the phonetic form came from Sinitic languages (“Sinitic languages” are usually called “Chinese dialects” in the linguistic community). The paper shows that this marker [xa] may come from a topic marker and topic chain markers in Sinitic languages. The accusative/dative marker formation was motivated by pragmatic factors. This phenomenon is also found in other languages. The syncretic use of cases is commonplace in languages across the world, whereas the accusative/dative marker [xa] is one of the prominent features in Sinitic languages in the Gansu-Qinghai area. The accusative/dative case formation did not know an even speed in Sinitic languages. It seems that Wutun and Tangwang evolved rapidly while Linxia and Gangou changed with an intermediate rhythm. Qinghai languages are the closest to Tibetic languages, but paradoxically they seem to be more conservative and do not adopt dative markers in possessor and experiencer constructions which are seen overwhelmingly in Tibetic languages. However, other Sinitic languages have adopted this marking progressively and steadily. The language model of the syncretic marker [xa] is not from a single language. Amdo Tibetan as well as Mongolic languages have contributed to the case formation of [xa] in Sinitic languages. This paper proposes that an Intertwining Model helped the spread of case formation in this zone. Languages of one group or of one language family have influenced each other at different periods. The results of case formation we note today constitute a net-like relationships connected to various languages, but not a neat and linear path.

Abstract

This paper aims to study a kind of interrogative in Yi which surfaces as an AA form commonly viewed as AA/Reduplicative Question. It explores the interrogative motivation, question type, generative mechanism and syntactic derivation of AA Question. We first assume that (i) AA question in Yi is a kind of alternative question, which is reduced successively from A-or-not-A and A-not-A question and (ii) the [+Q] feature of AA question does not result from reduplication but from other reasons. To justify these two assumptions, we use tests including adverb tests, modal tests, tag question tests, SFP tests, Q & A tests, and cross-language investigation and sociolinguistic survey. The findings include (i) the [+Q] feature of AA question results from the existence of an abstract interrogative morpheme, (ii) the phenomenon of reduplication is just a kind of byproduct with the syntactic derivation of AA question and (iii) AA question, diachronically speaking, is essentially a kind of alternative question, which is reduced successively from A-or-not-A and A-not-A question to meet the economic principle of language.

Abstract

This paper shows why it is not a contradiction to say that each language is structurally unique and must be described with its own categories, but language description profits enormously from typological knowledge. It has sometimes been suggested that the Boasian imperative (“each language should be described in its own terms”) leads to uninsightful analyses, and that language description should instead be “typologically informed”. But the Boasian imperative is not at all incompatible with an intimate connection between description and comparison: Comparative (or typological) knowledge is highly valuable both for making our descriptions transparent and comprehensible, and for helping describers to ask a wide range of questions that would not have occurred to them otherwise. Since we do not know whether any of the building blocks of languages are innate and universal for this reason, we cannot rely on general frameworks (of the generative type) for our descriptions, but we can use typological questionnaires and other kinds of comparative information as a scaffold. Such scaffolds are not theoretical components of the description, but are important methodological tools.

This article reviews The study of word stress and accent: Theories, methods and data978131668310197811071640311107164036