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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of language contact 2012, Vol.5 (1), p.73-79
1. Verfasser: Nordhoff, Sebastian
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