Oneida (LWM 301) by Abbott, Clifford

By Abbott, Clifford

Oneida is an endangered language of the Iroquoian kinfolk of northeastern North the United States. between its extra striking structural gains are: its rather small phonemic stock missing in labials; its use of whispered syllables; the complexity of the verbal morphology; the dominance of verbal constructions over nominal ones; and the efficient use of noun incorporation.
The present paintings relies on and a part many years of box paintings within the Wisconsin group of Oneidas the place there at the moment are fewer than a pair dozen local audio system last. different groups exist in Ontario and long island country the place the language is in a similar way endangered. regardless of the endangered prestige there's an oral literature, basically within the wealthy ceremonial culture. The neighborhood actively invests in language revitalization efforts and there's restricted literacy in an orthography no more than a couple of a long time previous.

Show description

Read or Download Oneida (LWM 301) PDF

Best linguistics books

Name Dropping: A No-nonsense Guide to the Use of Names in Everyday Language

Ever had a Hitchcockian event (in the bathe possibly? !) ormet anyone with a highly Ortonesque outlook on existence? There arehundreds of phrases derived from genuine those who are recognized - or notorious- adequate to provide their stamp to a move, a manner of pondering oracting, a mode or perhaps a temper. identify shedding?

Additional info for Oneida (LWM 301)

Example text

G. Bybee 2006; Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Winter-Froemel 2014). Where inferences, implicatures and relevance play a significant role at the level of current discourse, this gives us an important interface between diachronic semantics and pragmatic approaches (for example, Grice 1975; Sperber and Wilson 1995; Levinson 2000). For instance, according to the invited inferencing theory of semantic change (cf. ), the process of conventionalization presented above corresponds to the development from pragmatically colored utterance-token meanings through utterance-type meanings to coded meanings in the semantics of the language system.

29) Engl. bar ‘counter in a public house’ → ‘public house’ (cf. v. ). (30) CLat. focus ‘fireplace’ → Fr. feu, Sp. fuego, It. fuoco, etc. ‘fire’ (cf. v. v. v. fuoco). Notwithstanding the sharp external distinction from the other conceptual organizing principles and relations dealt with above, the terms frame and contiguity are – internally – still broad enough to encompass a wide variety of relation types. 42 Peter Koch Traditional rhetoric had already recognized the distinctions between various types of semantic relations within metonymy hinted at earlier (cf.

G. (26), (27); according to Ullmann 1957: 232 f. previously in Gombocz’s work; cf. now in particular Blank 1999b). A compromise between unity and diversity is represented by the attempt made to not simply list the subtypes of metonymy, but to classify them in a three-dimensional prototypical structure (cf. Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006; Geeraerts 2010: 217–220). Traditional rhetoric had also already recognized the problem of whether cognitive relations corresponding to the meronomic schema part-whole (31) or whole-part (32) were to be considered the basis of metonymy.

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.40 of 5 – based on 47 votes