46 search hits
-
Causes and effects of Substratum, Superstratum and Adstratum influence, with reference to Tibeto-Burman languages
(2009)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Language contact has become a major focus of inquiry in historical and typological linguistics in the last twenty years, spurred in a large part by the publication of Thomason & Kaufman (1988), which tried to make sense of a large amount of language contact data. They argued that there was a direct relationship between the degree or intensity of language contact and the amount and type of influence the contact would have on one or more of the languages involved. Essentially, the greater the degree of bilingualism, the greater the degree of contact influence (see also Thomason 2001); if the contact and bilingualism was minimal, then there might just be a few loanwords adapted to the borrowing language's phonology and grammatical system, but if the contact and bilingualism was of a greater degree there would be influence in the grammar and phonology of the affected language. As more linguists came to take language contact more seriously, they came to realize how common language contact phenomena are.
-
Chinese as a topic-comment (not topic-prominent and not SVO) language
(2009)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Many linguists in China and the West have talked about Chinese as a topic-comment language, that is, a language in which the structure of the clause takes the form of a topic, about which something is to be said, and a comment, which is what is said about the topic, rather than being a language with a subject-predicate structure like that of English. Y. R. Chao (1968), for example, said that all Chinese clauses have topic-comment structure and there are no exceptions.
-
Relative clause structures in the Rawang language
(2009)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- This paper discusses the types of relative clause and noun complement structures found in the Rawang language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, as well as their origin and uses, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts. Two types are preposed relative clauses, but in one the relative clause is nominalized, and in the other it is not. The non-nominalized form with a general head led to the development of nominalizing suffixes and one type of nominalized relative clause structure. As the nominalized form is a nominal itself, it can be postposed to the head in an appositional structure. There is also discussion of the Rawang structures in the context of Tibeto-Burman and the development of relative clause structures in the language family.
-
Nominalization in Rawang
(2009)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- This paper discusses the various forms, origins, and uses of nominalization in the Rawang (Rvwàng) language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts.
-
On grammatical relations as constraints on referent identification
(2006)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Based on a Relevance Theory-informed view of language development, this paper argues that grammatical relations are construction-specific conventionalizations (grammaticalizations) of implicatures which arise out of repeated patterns of reference to particular types of referents. Once conventionalized, these structures function to constrain the hearer's identification of referents in discourse. As they are construction-specific, and hence language-specific, there is no category "subject" across languages; different languages will either show this type of grammaticalization or not, and if they do, may show it or not in different constructions. Any cross-linguistic use of terms such as "subject" (and "S", as in "SOV") should then be avoided.
-
Copula constructions in Rawang
(2007)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- This paper discusses the various uses of the copula in the Rawang language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, plus other types of copula like-constructions, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts.
-
Sino-Tibetan languages
(2006)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- The Sino-Tibetan (ST) language family includes the Sinitic languages (what for political reasons are known as Chinese ‘dialects’) and the 200 to 300 Tibeto-Burman (TB) languages. Geographically it stretches from Northeast India, Burma, Bangladesh, and northern Thailand in the southeast, throughout the Tibetan plateau to the north, across most of China and up to the Korean border in the northeast, and down to Taiwan and Hainan Island in the southeast. The family has come to be the way it is because of multiple migrations, often into areas where other languages were spoken (LaPolla, 2001).
-
Li Fang-Kuei (1902-1987)
(2006)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Fang-Kuei Li was one of the foremost scholars of Thai and Sino-Tibetan studies and a major contributor to Amerind studies. Born in China, he was one of the early scholars sent to the United States to study. He had developed an interest in language while learning English, Latin, and German as part of his studies in China, and so he decided to study linguistics in the United States. In 1924, he went to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, receiving his B.A. 2 years later, then moved to the University of Chicago, where he received his M.A. and Ph.D., studying with Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, and Carl Darling Buck.
-
Wang Li (1900-1986)
(2006)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Wang Li (Wang Liaoyi) was one of the three most prominent linguists in China in the 20th century. He was born August 10, 1900, in what is now Bobai County of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Area.
-
Chao Yuen Ren (1892–1982)
(2005)
-
Randy J. LaPolla
- Y. R. Chao is easily the most famous linguist to have come out of China. Born before the end of the last dynasty in China, he received a traditional Confucian education, but was also one of the first Chinese people to be sent to the West for training in modern Western science (under the Boxer Indemnity Fund). The remarkable breadth and scope of his studies included physics, mathematics, linguistics, musical and literary composition, and translation, and he was a pioneer in many of these fields.
