8.1549, Qs: Socio-ling theory,Lang purism,Possessives
The LINGUIST List
linguist at linguistlist.org
Wed Oct 29 16:21:48 UTC 1997
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1549. Wed Oct 29 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Subject: 8.1549, Qs: Socio-ling theory,Lang purism,Possessives
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>
Review Editor: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>
Associate Editor: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editors: Martin Jacobsen <marty at linguistlist.org>
Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
Anita Huang <anita at linguistlist.org>
Julie Wilson <julie at linguistlist.org>
Elaine Halleck <elaine at linguistlist.org>
Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
Editor for this issue: Brett Churchill <brett at linguistlist.org>
==========================================================================
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: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:35:00 -0500
From: "Carl Jay M. del Rosario" <clacjmd at dlsu.edu.ph>
Subject: Socio-Linguistic Theory as a Framework of Study
2)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:29:34 +0200
From: walker at monza.u-strasbg.fr (Jim Walker)
Subject: language purism in English
3)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 05:30:55 PST
From: "Zhimin Tong" <tongzm at hotmail.com>
Subject: Double possesive
-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:35:00 -0500
From: "Carl Jay M. del Rosario" <clacjmd at dlsu.edu.ph>
Subject: Socio-Linguistic Theory as a Framework of Study
Hi! I am a graduate student taking my M.A. in Philippine Studies.
I am currently doing research on people's participation in governance
(i.e. in the decision-making process) and development. My assumption
(as well as my professor's) is there can never be active mass
participation in the Philippines as long as the basic problem of not
having an accepted "national language" still persists. The Philippines,
as we all know, is an archipelago with countless ethno-linguistic groups
dispersed in various regions. Language planning (i.e. working on a
national language) is quite recent in as much as the Philippines was a
colony of Spain (for three centuries), America (for about four decades)
and Japan (for about four years). It only declared (genuine) statehood
at the onset of the second half of this century. There is now a
so-called "national language" -- "Filipino" -- which is no doubt based
on the regional dialect of the "dominant" ethno-linguistic group -- the
"Tagalogs" -- which in turn is based on the capital and some nearby
provinces. My question is: "What socio-linguistic theory would best
analyze the language situation in the Philippines?" I found theories
along the Marxist lines quite interesting to use. The persistence of
the Tagalogs (despite opposition from the Cebuanos farther south) in
maintaining a Tagalog-based national language could be considered an
elite group's attempt to perpetruate power relevant to decision-making
and (self-interests in) development. The language situation is
complicated by the fact that English is used side-by-side with the
"local languages (Tagalog-based Filipino and other dialects)." Modesty
aside I can claim that the well-educated Filipino is at par with the
well-educated American in English rhetoric, even in abstractive
reasoning. However, I cannot claim that this English language prowess
is very fortunate (or unfortunate) for the Filipino. In the capital --
Manila -- English is widely used, and in about 90% of schools, a
conservative figure, everything, except Filipino, History and some
Social Sciences, is taught in English. The elite -- in the realms of
politics, business, academe, etc. -- within the "elite society (Manila
vis-a-vis the rest of the country)" prefer to use English than Tagalog
or the so-called "Filipino," which I think is very much elitist as well
in as much as their use of English excludes "classes" not of their kind
in their affairs. Would Marxist Socio-Linguistic Theory fit a study
which would analyze the language situation in the Philippines? Would
you have in mind more "thinkers" who are more or less authorities in
this area? I encountered the names Marr and, surprisingly, Stalin in my
reading. Would they be of any help? How about the Frankfurt School
which my professor suggested? Thank you very much. I shall be waiting
for your response.
- Carl Jay M. del Rosario
-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:29:34 +0200
From: walker at monza.u-strasbg.fr (Jim Walker)
Subject: language purism in English
I'm currently writing about French language purism - its history, its
motivations, its effects on usage and so on. I'm keen to compare what
happens here in France with attitudes to language purism in English
speaking communities. I'm particularly keen on the sort of things written
by irate citizens to newspapers, intellectuals publishing pamphlets and so
on. If any of you have any bibliographical material that you think may be
of interest, I would love to hear from you.
I also know that there was a debate in the House of Lords on language
sometime in 1979, I think, but I have no references or any further details.
could any one throw some light on that for me.
Thank you very much indeed
Jim Walker 9, place Henry Dunant
Dipt. Anglais 67000 STRASBOURG
Universiti de Strasbourg II
22, rue Reni Descartes Til: +33 03 88 14 02 07
67000 STRASBOURG walker at monza.u-strasbg.fr
Fax: +33 03 88 60 76 61
-------------------------------- Message 3 -------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 05:30:55 PST
From: "Zhimin Tong" <tongzm at hotmail.com>
Subject: Double possesive
I'm a teacher of English with Peking University, China. In my textbook
I came across a sentence:
My father was a close friend of Albert Einstein
According to my limited knowledge of English grammar,
it seems Einstein's instead of Einstein should be used.
I want to know if both are OK. If the answer is yes,
then is there any difference between the
two? Would anyone help me?
With thanks,
Tong Zhimin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-1549
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list