6.569 Qs: IBM ads, [+foreign] pronunciations, Deep structure

[The Linguist List]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-569. Sat 15 Apr 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 110
 
Subject: 6.569 Qs: IBM ads, [+foreign] pronunciations, Deep structure
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Asst. Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
               Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
               Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
               Annemarie Valdez <avaldez at emunix.emich.edu>
 
                           REMINDER
[We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then  strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list.   This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.]
 
-------------------------Directory-------------------------------------
 
1)
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 95 12:23:02 MST
From: Mary Ellen Ryder (RENRYDER at idbsu.idbsu.edu)
Subject:      Foreign language in IBM ads
 
2)
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 95 12:13:14 MST
From: Mary Ellen Ryder (RENRYDER at idbsu.idbsu.edu)
Subject:      [+foreign] pronunciations
 
3)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:21:54 -0400
From: griffi21 at potsdam.edu (Bill Griffin)
Subject: Refutation of Deep Structure
 
-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 95 12:23:02 MST
From: Mary Ellen Ryder (RENRYDER at idbsu.idbsu.edu)
Subject:      Foreign language in IBM ads
 
Content-Length: 1326
 
Greetings and apologies!
 
I haven't yet gotten off the stuff on foreign language in ads to those
who wanted it, but I haven't forgotten.  However, I'm shameless enough
to ask for just a little more information, even though I'm not holding
up my end of the bargain.  Am I right that the IBM ad with the diver
on the boat is in Greek?  And does anyone know what the language of
the ad on the water taxi is?  That's the one where the driver at the
end gets a call on his cellular phone about soy beans and says, "Sell."
 
Many thanks,
 
Mary Ellen Ryder
renryder at idbsu.idbsu.edu
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:         Thu, 13 Apr 95 12:13:14 MST
From: Mary Ellen Ryder (RENRYDER at idbsu.idbsu.edu)
Subject:      [+foreign] pronunciations
 
Content-Length: 1850
 
Reading James Kirchner's summary of interesting observations on [+foreign]
pronunciations encouraged me to present a small but irritating puzzle
to the list.  I live in Boise, Idaho, which most Americans pronounce with a
[z], [boyzi] as if it rhymed with "noisy".  That in itself seems interesting
since it doesn't match English orthographical patterns, nor does it match
French, from which the word comes, of course (related to the word bois,
`forest, woods').  However, most of the locals pronounce the word with
an [s], [boysi].  This is what I find really mystifying, since neither
English nor French would have this pronunciation of the letter s between
vowels, silent or not.  I've wondered if this came about because 1) it's
foreign and therefore must not match English, so use anything else that
comes to mind or 2) it's foreign, so every letter is pronounced
the way it "should" be, so s is [s] (though that doesn't explain the
pronunciation of the final e).  I'm not a phonologist or an ortho-
graphist (?), so I'm open to more expert opinions.
 
Mary Ellen Ryder
renryder at idbsu.idbsu.edu
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 1995 12:21:54 -0400
From: griffi21 at potsdam.edu (Bill Griffin)
Subject: Refutation of Deep Structure
 
Content-Length: 1303
 
Currently, I am working on a critique of theoretical reductionism in
linguistics theory, especially chomsky's formulations.  One area which
strikes me as problematic is the now defunct concept of "deep structure".
However, I am not familiar with those arguments that have already been made
against its ontological status.  This would seem a logically prior step to
such an analysis.
 
I would greatly appreciate any help in directing me to refrences concerning
the refutation of "deep structure".
 
Thank you,
William Earl Griffin
griffi21 at potsdam.edu
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-569.