6.589 Qs: Zoroastrianism, Relevance theory, Algonquian

[The Linguist List]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-589. Fri 21 Apr 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 120
 
Subject: 6.589 Qs: Zoroastrianism, Relevance theory, Algonquian
 
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: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:48:37 -0600
From: jbmart at facstaff.wm.edu (Jack Martin)
Subject: Q:  Zoroastrianism
 
2)
Date:          Wed, 19 Apr 1995 16:03:38 GMT+1
From: GAGLIARD at chiostro.univr.it
Subject:       Relevance theory and discourse analysis
 
3)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:23:05 +1000
From: Malcolm.Ross at anu.edu.au (Malcolm Ross)
Subject: Algonquian
 
-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:48:37 -0600
From: jbmart at facstaff.wm.edu (Jack Martin)
Subject: Q:  Zoroastrianism
 
Content-Length: 313
 
A student of ours in anthropology and linguistics will be in Madras this
summer researching some topic related to language and the religious
practices of his Zoroastrian relatives.  I would be most grateful for any
leads on research in this area or any specific suggestions.  -Jack Martin,
jbmart at facstaff.wm.edu
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date:          Wed, 19 Apr 1995 16:03:38 GMT+1
From: GAGLIARD at chiostro.univr.it
Subject:       Relevance theory and discourse analysis
 
Content-Length: 1094
 
 What's the state of the art of research into "Relevance" in discourse
analysis? I'd like to deepen my knowledge of this subject. Any
suggestion about Sperber&Wilson "Relevance Theory"? Particularly:
bibliographic references about applied research on conversational
analysis or narrative with Sperber&Wilson model.
GAGLIARD at CHIOSTO@UNIVR.IT
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 15:23:05 +1000
From: Malcolm.Ross at anu.edu.au (Malcolm Ross)
Subject: Algonquian
 
Content-Length: 3292
 
Before I even mention the topic of my enquiry, I should say that this is a
request for information, not a covert attempt to stir up controversy.
 
I have just been reading Merritt Ruhlen's _The Origin of Language_. I don't
want to make any comment about the book in general, but to ask a question
or two about the content of the section 'Locating the Algonquian homeland'.
 
First, Ruhlen says that 'Frank Siebert has proposed the area of the eastern
upper Great Lakes as the origin of the Algonquian dispersal'. Ruhlen does
not source his reference. Can anyone give me the source?
 
Secondly, and more importantly, Ruhlen appeals to Sapir's Age-Area
hypothesis to the effect that the area of greatest diversity in a family is
likely to point to the original homeland of the family. Since the greatest
divergence is evidently between Blackfoot and the rest of the family, in
the southwest of the family's extent, Ruhlen suggests, _contra_ Siebert,
that the homeland is there, and that the family's closest external
relatives are also in that direction.
 
As an initial attempt to locate a homeland, Ruhlen's arguments seem sound
enough to an outsider. However, the kind of support for them that I would
want to look for would be an argument that the first branching in the
genealogical tree divides Blackfoot from the rest of the family. This would
be based on a claim that the rest of the family shares a set of innovations
relative to Proto Algonquian (a Proto Algonquian whose reconstruction also
takes full account of Blackfoot data). (Yes, I know that this places me
among the practitioners of the 'standard comparative method' to whom Ruhlen
refers quite frequently.) I went to the library here to see what I could
find, and came up with Ives Goddard's account of 'Comparative Algonquian'
in Campbell & Mithun's _The languages of native America_ (1979). Goddard
says, if I read him correctly, (i) that the only obvious subgroup within
Algonquian is Eastern Algonquian (and he gives innovations defining this),
(ii) that Blackfoot is highly divergent and that its history is not yet
understood. Goddard's account understandably does not contain the kind of
data that would allow a non-Algonquianist to assess Ruhlen's hypothesis.
 
I would be grateful to anyone who could point me towards any work (since
Goddard's account?) that would cast light on the question of Algonquian
subgrouping and the homeland or who could comment knowledgably on Ruhlen's
homeland hypothesis.
 
I will summarise for the list whatever I receive.
 
Malcolm Ross
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-589.