13.07.2015 Views

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics.pdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A-Z 477ReferencesBergsl<strong>and</strong>, K. <strong>and</strong> H.Vogt. 1962. On the validity <strong>of</strong> glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3.115–53.Swadesh, M. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating <strong>of</strong> prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings <strong>of</strong> theAmerican Philological Society 96. 452–63.lexicostatisticsgnomic [Grk‘judgment, (general)opinion’]Verbal aspect which expresses ‘eternal’ or ‘timeless’ truths (e.g. Snow is white) <strong>and</strong>forms a subgroup <strong>of</strong> iterative verbs ( iterative vs semelfactive).Referencesgeneric 2 Goajiro Arawakangoalcase grammarGod’s truth vs hocuspocusFacetious term for the controversy within distributionalism over the status <strong>of</strong> system <strong>and</strong>structure in language. The hocuspocus position uses W.F.Twaddell’s definition <strong>of</strong> thephoneme as a ‘fictitious unit,’ which the linguist distills from a body <strong>of</strong> data on the basis<strong>of</strong> particular rules <strong>and</strong> operations. The ‘God’s truth’ linguists, however, maintain thatsystem <strong>and</strong> structure really do occur in the data <strong>and</strong> are not merely obtained throughsleight <strong>of</strong> h<strong>and</strong>. On the one h<strong>and</strong>, the rules criticized by the hocuspocus supporters are notarbitrary, but rather mechanically <strong>and</strong> scientifically verifiable; on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!