JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE CONTACT.

The Journal of Language Contact has as its subhead “Evolution of languages, contact and discourse” and as its motto the excellent quote (from Hugo Schuchardt, specialist in mixed languages, pidgins, creoles, and lingua franca) “Es gibt keine völlig ungemischte Sprache” (‘There is no completely unmixed language’):

We wish JLC to focus on the study of language use and language change in accordance with a view of language contact whereby both, empirical data (the precise description of languages and how they are used) and the resulting theoretical elaborations (hence the statement and analysis of new problems) become the primary engines for advancing our understanding of the nature of language. This will also involve associating linguistic, anthropological, historical, and cognitive factors. We believe that such an approach would make a major new contribution to understanding language change at a time when there is a notable increase of interest and activity in this field.

Hey, maybe they can solve the problem of the newest language!

Comments

  1. michael farris says:

    Infuriating website. I’m so pissed at it’s unhelpfulness I’m going to restrain from downloading anything for a while (at’ll learn ‘em!)

  2. Yeah, I have to agree. I like the idea, but the execution…

  3. Give ‘em a chance. Language contact is a huge subject, and hasn’t had enough attention, apart from pre-conceived ideas about who influenced who – the incomers or the residents?
    Eff the access problems – that is almost certianly due to whatever software they used to set up the website. If they used Microsoft Front Page, then they’re doomed.
    Hopefully (which I know isn’t correct) we’ll get some useful stuff from this journal.
    I could do with it – I’m wrestling with opinions about who gave what to who along the New Guinea coast.
    regards
    Richard

  4. Who gave what to whom … ?

  5. A prescriptivist! Burn them!!!

  6. Who gave what to whom … ?
    Yes of course, but do you say that in real life?
    regards
    Richard

  7. John J Emerson says:

    Bulbul, if the singular antecedent is clearly male, as “Paul” can be assumed to be, an anti-prescriptivist can say “Burn him!”. Only in ambiguous cases is it required that they say “Burn them!”
    The Anti-Prescriptivist Academy ruled on this some time ago, and I’m surprised and disappointed that you, of all people, failed to keep yourself up to date on this important question.

  8. John J Emerson says:

    Bulbul, if the singular antecedent is clearly male, as “Paul” can be assumed to be, an anti-prescriptivist can say “Burn him!”. Only in ambiguous cases is it required that they say “Burn them!”
    The Anti-Prescriptivist Academy ruled on this some time ago, and I’m surprised and disappointed that you, of all people, failed to keep yourself up to date on this important question.

  9. “The Anti-Prescriptivist Academy ruled on this some time ago”
    Can non-linguists get some sort of associate membership?

  10. michael farris says:

    I understood “Burn them!” as “Burn them all! Starting with Paul!”
    But even if he’s only referring to Paul it seems okay to me (my idiolect accepts ‘they’ with any human antecedent singular or plural, gender known or unknown). There are some restrictions on this (maybe in the same clause I couldn’t) but here it seems okay.
    Perhaps John J Emerson is not quite as up on the precise and unalterable rulings of the academy as they would like us to believe, eh?
    (hat, bulbul, quick! more wood!)
    Stuart: No.

  11. The Anti-Prescriptivist Academy ruled on this some time ago
    Ha! I’ll be in the cold hard ground before I accept the authority of your so-called academy. The Institute for the Applied Counter-Prescriptivism has been quite clear on this issue: any singular human antedecent can be referred to by “they”, even if their sex is clearly stated or can be inferred.
    Really, the Academy? It suprises me that a man of your qualities would associate themselves with a bunch of losers like the APA…

  12. Yes of course, but do you say that in real life?
    Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t, but that’s not the point. The point is even if he does say that in real life, why should everyone else?

  13. John Emerson says:

    Ha! I’ll be in the cold hard ground before I accept the authority of your so-called academy.
    After passing through the hot flame of anti-prescriptivist justice, maybe.

  14. Now boys, we don’t have gang fights in this here town.
    *takes out revolver and places it meaningfully on table*

  15. michael farris says:

    Oh hat, there are no gang fights going on, just a little friendly burning of heretics at the stake.
    Who could be against that?

  16. … except for the heretics, naturally. But hey, who cares about what they think – they’re heretics, after all!

  17. Fair enough. Carry on, but be sure to clean up after the burnin’!

Speak Your Mind

*