[Xmca-l] Re: Indigenous Australian English

[Andy Blunden]

Mmm, but this is not a speech style applied across the board 
(like a distinctive accent, or never using the accusative 
case). It is used only for certain words, so the structural 
principle of difference applies. These specific words are 
given an elevated meaning by marking them with the 
/different/ usage, and kind of take on the meaning of a 
/principle/, rather than a thing or place, etc these

As to /perezhivanie/, of course, it is not an issue for 
Russian speakers speaking Russian. The problem comes up when 
a Russian uses a Russian word in an English sentence and how 
an English speaker hears that,

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 15/03/2019 11:34 pm, David Kellogg wrote:
> I think it means that Australians are leading the way into 
> a future without articles. Actually, very few languages 
> use an article system; as you know, Russian does not, and 
> neither does Chinese, Korean, Tibetan or Turkish.
>
> As you point out, English doesn't always use articles 
> either. When we embed singular nouns in prepositional 
> phrases, the use of the article tends to depend on the 
> meaning. Compare "in the morning" with "at night", or "at 
> weekend" with "over the the weekend", "down town" with 
> "down the street", etc. The usual analysis is that "at 
> night" functions mostly as an adverb ("nightwise") while 
> "in the morning" is a minor verb (i.e. a verb with no 
> subject but an object). "I go home", "I speak language" 
> and "I spent two weeks in hospital/jail/church" can be 
> analyzed in much the same way.
>
> I find it useful to think of articles as part of a whole 
> range of prenominal modifiers that go from deictic to 
> defining. So for example when my student writes "My mom 
> had to have an urgent C-section surgical operation" the 
> "an" part is maximally orienting but minimally defining 
> (it just means I am orienting towards it as an instance of 
> something but it doesn't say what it's an instance of), 
> the "urgent" part is somewhat less orienting and more 
> defining, the "C-section" part is classifying, and 
> therefore more defining still, until we come to the part 
> that is maximally defining and minimally orienting, 
> "operation". Not only nominal groups but verbal groups 
> obey this rule ("had to have", where "had" is tensed 
> because it is orienting and locates the speaker in time 
> but "to have" is untensed and simply defines the nature of 
> the process). Whole clauses can also be seen this way ("My 
> mom" is the deictic part of the clause and "operation" is 
> the defining part).
>
> Not all languages do this, because not all languages need 
> to. So for example Russian doesn't require this kind of 
> rigid order. Because of those pesky cases, so hard 
> for Russian students to master, it is always clear 
> who does what to whom by what means, and the order simply 
> doesn't matter. Same is true in Latin. This is why I think 
> you miss the point a little when you speak of "a 
> perizhivanie" vs. "perizhivanie". That's not how you think 
> in Russian.
>
> dk
>
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article;
>
> David Kellogg (2019) THE STORYTELLER’S TALE: VYGOTSKY’S 
> ‘VRASHCHIVANIYA’, THE ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT AND 
> ‘INGROWING’ IN THE WEEKEND STORIES OF KOREAN CHILDREN, 
> British Journal of Educational Studies, DOI: 
> 10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200 
> <https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200>
>
> Some e-prints available at:
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/GSS2cTAVAz2jaRdPIkvj/full?target=10.1080/00071005.2019.1569200 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 8:57 PM Andy Blunden 
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
>     While we have the attention of some linguists ....
>     Indigenous Australians have a way of using certain
>     specific words, for example, country, culture,
>     language, community, which in English we usually use
>     with a personal pronoun, as in "I can speak your
>     language," or article, "is this the country you come
>     from?" as if they were countable nouns, but which
>     Indigenous Australians use without an article or
>     personal pronoun, as in "I went to country" or "when I
>     speak language ...," much like the word "home" which
>     can be used without the "my" or "your."
>
>     This usage conveys a meaning which is generally
>     understood, but is used only in relation to the
>     Indigenous people. I understand it. But I find it hard
>     to put into words what is actually being done when
>     words are used like this. I use words like "science"
>     or "religion" in the same way, I guess. What does it
>     mean linguistically??
>
>     Andy
>
>     -- 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     Andy Blunden
>     http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190315/f8b71ad2/attachment.html