Commentary on Smith’s papers
In his two contributions to this issue, Ian Smith nicely sets out criteria to establish language contact. Unfortunately, a rigorous application of the standards listed by Thomason (2001), which he endorses, is detrimental to his argumentation based on the Tamil accusative. Smith furthermore argues t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of language contact 2012, Vol.5 (1), p.73-79 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 79 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 73 |
container_title | Journal of language contact |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Nordhoff, Sebastian |
description | In his two contributions to this issue, Ian Smith nicely sets out criteria to establish language contact. Unfortunately, a rigorous application of the standards listed by Thomason (2001), which he endorses, is detrimental to his argumentation based on the Tamil accusative. Smith furthermore argues that phonological and syntactic influence should go together. This is intended to discredit Sinhala influence, but closer scrutiny of the argument shows that it actually discredits Tamil influence. Smith’s papers furthermore are not informed by the socio-historical data and analysis presented in Nordhoff (2009), which are not compatible with his approach. Furthermore, Smith lists a phonological analysis based on syllable weight as a desideratum; such an analysis is also already found in Nordhoff 2009 and should have been consulted. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1163/187740912X623415 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_istex</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1496986097</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1030894679</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i259t-c814bcd3025459b1d301d921966bfbc7e910e49322f0868ea38f2ed74d3732163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFj7tKxEAYhQdRcFm3t5KUNtH55_6XGtRVFyw2itgMuUwwmpuZLGjna_h6Pokja-9pzoHzceAQcgj0BEDxUzBaC4rAHhXjAuQOmQFKGTPFcDfkUMe__T5ZeP9CgzgyrcyMHCV927puysaPqO-idVtPz9-fXz4assGN_oDsVVnj3eLP5-T-8iJNlvHq7uo6OVvFNZM4xYUBkRclp0wKiTmEBCUyQKXyKi-0Q6BOIGesokYZl3FTMVdqUXLNWXgwJ8fb3WHs3zbOT7atfeGaJutcv_EWBCo0iqL-H6WcGhRKY0DjLVr7yb3bYazb8NNm46tVmmtpb25Tu0xT83C-NvaJ_wDA6V55</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1030894679</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Commentary on Smith’s papers</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Nordhoff, Sebastian</creator><creatorcontrib>Nordhoff, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><description>In his two contributions to this issue, Ian Smith nicely sets out criteria to establish language contact. Unfortunately, a rigorous application of the standards listed by Thomason (2001), which he endorses, is detrimental to his argumentation based on the Tamil accusative. Smith furthermore argues that phonological and syntactic influence should go together. This is intended to discredit Sinhala influence, but closer scrutiny of the argument shows that it actually discredits Tamil influence. Smith’s papers furthermore are not informed by the socio-historical data and analysis presented in Nordhoff (2009), which are not compatible with his approach. Furthermore, Smith lists a phonological analysis based on syllable weight as a desideratum; such an analysis is also already found in Nordhoff 2009 and should have been consulted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1877-4091</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1955-2629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1955-2629</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1163/187740912X623415</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leiden: Brill</publisher><subject>language contact ; prenasalized stops ; Sinhala ; Sri Lanka Malay ; Tamil ; typological markedness</subject><ispartof>Journal of language contact, 2012, Vol.5 (1), p.73-79</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nordhoff, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><title>Commentary on Smith’s papers</title><title>Journal of language contact</title><addtitle>JLC</addtitle><description>In his two contributions to this issue, Ian Smith nicely sets out criteria to establish language contact. Unfortunately, a rigorous application of the standards listed by Thomason (2001), which he endorses, is detrimental to his argumentation based on the Tamil accusative. Smith furthermore argues that phonological and syntactic influence should go together. This is intended to discredit Sinhala influence, but closer scrutiny of the argument shows that it actually discredits Tamil influence. Smith’s papers furthermore are not informed by the socio-historical data and analysis presented in Nordhoff (2009), which are not compatible with his approach. Furthermore, Smith lists a phonological analysis based on syllable weight as a desideratum; such an analysis is also already found in Nordhoff 2009 and should have been consulted.</description><subject>language contact</subject><subject>prenasalized stops</subject><subject>Sinhala</subject><subject>Sri Lanka Malay</subject><subject>Tamil</subject><subject>typological markedness</subject><issn>1877-4091</issn><issn>1955-2629</issn><issn>1955-2629</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFj7tKxEAYhQdRcFm3t5KUNtH55_6XGtRVFyw2itgMuUwwmpuZLGjna_h6Pokja-9pzoHzceAQcgj0BEDxUzBaC4rAHhXjAuQOmQFKGTPFcDfkUMe__T5ZeP9CgzgyrcyMHCV927puysaPqO-idVtPz9-fXz4assGN_oDsVVnj3eLP5-T-8iJNlvHq7uo6OVvFNZM4xYUBkRclp0wKiTmEBCUyQKXyKi-0Q6BOIGesokYZl3FTMVdqUXLNWXgwJ8fb3WHs3zbOT7atfeGaJutcv_EWBCo0iqL-H6WcGhRKY0DjLVr7yb3bYazb8NNm46tVmmtpb25Tu0xT83C-NvaJ_wDA6V55</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Nordhoff, Sebastian</creator><general>Brill</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>Commentary on Smith’s papers</title><author>Nordhoff, Sebastian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i259t-c814bcd3025459b1d301d921966bfbc7e910e49322f0868ea38f2ed74d3732163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>language contact</topic><topic>prenasalized stops</topic><topic>Sinhala</topic><topic>Sri Lanka Malay</topic><topic>Tamil</topic><topic>typological markedness</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nordhoff, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Journal of language contact</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nordhoff, Sebastian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Commentary on Smith’s papers</atitle><jtitle>Journal of language contact</jtitle><addtitle>JLC</addtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>73</spage><epage>79</epage><pages>73-79</pages><issn>1877-4091</issn><issn>1955-2629</issn><eissn>1955-2629</eissn><abstract>In his two contributions to this issue, Ian Smith nicely sets out criteria to establish language contact. Unfortunately, a rigorous application of the standards listed by Thomason (2001), which he endorses, is detrimental to his argumentation based on the Tamil accusative. Smith furthermore argues that phonological and syntactic influence should go together. This is intended to discredit Sinhala influence, but closer scrutiny of the argument shows that it actually discredits Tamil influence. Smith’s papers furthermore are not informed by the socio-historical data and analysis presented in Nordhoff (2009), which are not compatible with his approach. Furthermore, Smith lists a phonological analysis based on syllable weight as a desideratum; such an analysis is also already found in Nordhoff 2009 and should have been consulted.</abstract><cop>Leiden</cop><pub>Brill</pub><doi>10.1163/187740912X623415</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1877-4091 |
ispartof | Journal of language contact, 2012, Vol.5 (1), p.73-79 |
issn | 1877-4091 1955-2629 1955-2629 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1496986097 |
source | EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | language contact prenasalized stops Sinhala Sri Lanka Malay Tamil typological markedness |
title | Commentary on Smith’s papers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T04%3A26%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_istex&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Commentary%20on%20Smith%E2%80%99s%20papers&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20language%20contact&rft.au=Nordhoff,%20Sebastian&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.epage=79&rft.pages=73-79&rft.issn=1877-4091&rft.eissn=1955-2629&rft_id=info:doi/10.1163/187740912X623415&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_istex%3E1030894679%3C/proquest_istex%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1030894679&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |