Pub Date : 1989-01-01DOI: 10.1515/FLIH.1989.8.1-2.457
Arleta Adamska-Sałaciak
{"title":"THE TELEOLOGEN ON LANGUAGE CHANGE","authors":"Arleta Adamska-Sałaciak","doi":"10.1515/FLIH.1989.8.1-2.457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIH.1989.8.1-2.457","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/FLIH.1989.8.1-2.457","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67379872","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1986-01-01DOI: 10.1515/flih.1986.7.1.107
X. Dekeyser
0.1 The existing literature in the field cf contact clauses, i.e. relative clauses without a relative proncun in the stuface structure, is both impressive and comprehensive: it ranges from early sttidies in the last quarter of the 19th Century (see Mustanoja's Tbiblicgraphy, 206 208) to very recent contributions by Erdmann and Nagucka, both in FLH, 1980, and Van der Auwera (FLH, 1984). There are a number of reasons for which I venture to submit yet another paper on this vexed subject-matter. First, the available data have been recently extended considerably: Bourcier (1977) and Bastiaensens (1983) for OE, Chevillet (1981) for ME, and my own data for EME and EMODE. Secondly, the new perspectives opened by Keenan and Comrie's Accessibility Hierarchy, hence AH, and its application to the history of the English relative «lause, e.g. in Romaine, 1980 and 1981 and Dekeyser, 1984. Thirdly, recent cross-linguistic analyses of the relative clause, particularly Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen (1981) by Helena Kurzova. All this prompted me to look at the history of contact clauses afresh, and to try and come up with some innovating views on this matter.
0.1接触从句领域的现有文献，即在表面结构中没有相对代词的关系从句，既令人印象深刻又全面:从19世纪最后25年的早期研究(见Mustanoja的tbiblicography, 206208)到Erdmann和Nagucka最近的贡献，他们都在FLH, 1980年和Van der Auwera (FLH, 1984年)。出于若干原因，我冒昧地就这个棘手的问题再提交一篇论文。首先，可用的数据最近得到了相当大的扩展:Bourcier(1977)和Bastiaensens(1983)的OE, Chevillet(1981)的ME，以及我自己的EME和EMODE数据。其次，Keenan和Comrie的无障碍层次(即AH)开辟了新的视角，并将其应用于英语相对语言的历史，例如1980年和1981年的Romaine和1984年的Dekeyser。第三，最近对关系分句的跨语言分析，特别是海伦娜·库尔佐娃(Helena Kurzova) 1981年的《Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen》。这一切促使我重新审视合同条款的历史，并试图在这个问题上提出一些创新的观点。
{"title":"ENGLISH CONTACT CLAUSES REVISITED: A DIACHRONIC APPROACH","authors":"X. Dekeyser","doi":"10.1515/flih.1986.7.1.107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1986.7.1.107","url":null,"abstract":"0.1 The existing literature in the field cf contact clauses, i.e. relative clauses without a relative proncun in the stuface structure, is both impressive and comprehensive: it ranges from early sttidies in the last quarter of the 19th Century (see Mustanoja's Tbiblicgraphy, 206 208) to very recent contributions by Erdmann and Nagucka, both in FLH, 1980, and Van der Auwera (FLH, 1984). There are a number of reasons for which I venture to submit yet another paper on this vexed subject-matter. First, the available data have been recently extended considerably: Bourcier (1977) and Bastiaensens (1983) for OE, Chevillet (1981) for ME, and my own data for EME and EMODE. Secondly, the new perspectives opened by Keenan and Comrie's Accessibility Hierarchy, hence AH, and its application to the history of the English relative «lause, e.g. in Romaine, 1980 and 1981 and Dekeyser, 1984. Thirdly, recent cross-linguistic analyses of the relative clause, particularly Der Relativsatz in den indoeuropäischen Sprachen (1981) by Helena Kurzova. All this prompted me to look at the history of contact clauses afresh, and to try and come up with some innovating views on this matter.","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"20 1","pages":"107 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/flih.1986.7.1.107","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67379257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1985-01-01DOI: 10.1515/flih.1985.6.1.127
Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade
{"title":"DO - SUPPORT IN THE WRITINGS OF LADY MARY WORTLEY MONTAGU: A CHANGE IN PROGRESS","authors":"Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade","doi":"10.1515/flih.1985.6.1.127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1985.6.1.127","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"82 1","pages":"127 - 152"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1985-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/flih.1985.6.1.127","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67379669","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.171
J. van der Auwera
0. The literature on the history of English subject contact clauses is voluminous (see Mustanoja 1960:206-208; Visser 1963:14-15; Bourcier 1977:78), and it keeps growing, also in Folia Linguistica Historica (see Erdmann 1980; Nagucka 1980; Romaine 1981; Maxwell 1982). In this paper I will briefly comment on the four FLH analyses, and I will offer some alternative ideas. 1.1. Peter Erdmann (1980) has made a corpus-based survey of the contexts of subject contact clauses (henceforth 'SCCs') in present-day Standard British English. Bus conclusion, which is in conformity with earlier scholarship (see esp. Jespersen 1974: 144 149), is that SCCs are very colloquial, and that they are restricted to certain focus constructions. The most typical such constructions start with there isfare (äs in (1) and (2)). Another frequent SCC focus structure employs a cleft sentence (äs in (3) and (4)). (1) There's none can dodge Father Time. (2) There were three of us made the journey. (3) It was a vision brought me here. (4) It must have been the vanity of the old man made me invite you here. The restriction to focus constructions, Erdmann (1980:146) claims, following Krüger (1929: 65 73) and Strang (1970:143), came into effect in the 18th Century. Before that, SCCs had a wider usage — a Situation partially reflected in some varieties of non-standard
{"title":"MORE ON THE HISTORY OF SUBJECT CONTACT CLAUSES IN ENGLISH","authors":"J. van der Auwera","doi":"10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.171","url":null,"abstract":"0. The literature on the history of English subject contact clauses is voluminous (see Mustanoja 1960:206-208; Visser 1963:14-15; Bourcier 1977:78), and it keeps growing, also in Folia Linguistica Historica (see Erdmann 1980; Nagucka 1980; Romaine 1981; Maxwell 1982). In this paper I will briefly comment on the four FLH analyses, and I will offer some alternative ideas. 1.1. Peter Erdmann (1980) has made a corpus-based survey of the contexts of subject contact clauses (henceforth 'SCCs') in present-day Standard British English. Bus conclusion, which is in conformity with earlier scholarship (see esp. Jespersen 1974: 144 149), is that SCCs are very colloquial, and that they are restricted to certain focus constructions. The most typical such constructions start with there isfare (äs in (1) and (2)). Another frequent SCC focus structure employs a cleft sentence (äs in (3) and (4)). (1) There's none can dodge Father Time. (2) There were three of us made the journey. (3) It was a vision brought me here. (4) It must have been the vanity of the old man made me invite you here. The restriction to focus constructions, Erdmann (1980:146) claims, following Krüger (1929: 65 73) and Strang (1970:143), came into effect in the 18th Century. Before that, SCCs had a wider usage — a Situation partially reflected in some varieties of non-standard","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"18 1","pages":"171 - 184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.171","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67379523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1984-01-01DOI: 10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.41
H. van den Bussche
O. Presque tous les traitos de phonetique historique du frangais affirment qu'avant le milieu du XII siecle, Fanden fransai^ possodait, outre les voyelles /e/ et /#/ ou /e:/ issues respectivement de / / roman tonique entrave (ß, AE latins) et de /«/ roman tonique übre (Ä, Ä latins), une troisifeme voyelle palatale non arrondie d'aperture moyenne, ä savoir la voyelle /e/ issue de /e/ roman entravo (E, latins). II semble egalement etabli que des la seconde moitio du XII siecle, cette voyelle tend ä s'ouvrir et se confondre avec la voyelle primitive /s/. Certains auteurs ajoutent que dans les patois de l'Est, cette voyelle est roduite a /a/, /o/ ou /of sana prociser la date de cette reduction. D'aucuns signalent aussi que dans certains patois d'oil, e.a. en Touraine, la voyelle a maintenu sä prononciation fermoe jusqu'ä Tepoque actuelle. Quant aux patois du Nord, on admet en goneral qu'apres la diphtongaison du /e/ primitif en /?e/, la voyelle /e/, en s'ouvrant en /e/, a pu participer occasionnellement ä la diphtongaison en /ief. Nous avons esquisse ailleurs (Van den Bussche et Van Hoecke 1982)Fhistorique
o .几乎所有的历史性phonetique traitos十二世纪中叶之前,法国人称Fanden fransai ^ possodait除了# /元音/ e /和/或/ e: / /分别取自小说看上去阻碍拉丁雌二醇(AE)和小说«/刺激(kesslerÄÄ拉丁人)、一个非圆形troisifeme元音palatale aperture软件公司,即平均后的元音/ e / e /小说entravo e(,拉丁人)。从12世纪下半叶开始，这个元音倾向于与原始元音/s/混淆。一些作者补充说，在东方方言中，这个元音被写成a/ a/， /o/或/of sana，以表示减少的日期。也有人指出，在oil和Touraine的一些方言中，元音一直保持着封闭的发音，直到现在。至于北方方言，一般认为在原始的/e/和/?e/，元音/e/，以/e/开头，偶尔也会出现在/ief中。我们在其他地方画过草图(Van den Bussche和Van Hoecke 1982)
{"title":"L’OUVERTURE DE LA VOYELLE (e) ISSUE DE (e) ROMAN ENTRAVE (Ē, Ĭ LATINS) EN ANCIEN FRANÇAIS ESSAI DE DATATION ET DE LOCALISATION","authors":"H. van den Bussche","doi":"10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.41","url":null,"abstract":"O. Presque tous les traitos de phonetique historique du frangais affirment qu'avant le milieu du XII siecle, Fanden fransai^ possodait, outre les voyelles /e/ et /#/ ou /e:/ issues respectivement de / / roman tonique entrave (ß, AE latins) et de /«/ roman tonique übre (Ä, Ä latins), une troisifeme voyelle palatale non arrondie d'aperture moyenne, ä savoir la voyelle /e/ issue de /e/ roman entravo (E, latins). II semble egalement etabli que des la seconde moitio du XII siecle, cette voyelle tend ä s'ouvrir et se confondre avec la voyelle primitive /s/. Certains auteurs ajoutent que dans les patois de l'Est, cette voyelle est roduite a /a/, /o/ ou /of sana prociser la date de cette reduction. D'aucuns signalent aussi que dans certains patois d'oil, e.a. en Touraine, la voyelle a maintenu sä prononciation fermoe jusqu'ä Tepoque actuelle. Quant aux patois du Nord, on admet en goneral qu'apres la diphtongaison du /e/ primitif en /?e/, la voyelle /e/, en s'ouvrant en /e/, a pu participer occasionnellement ä la diphtongaison en /ief. Nous avons esquisse ailleurs (Van den Bussche et Van Hoecke 1982)Fhistorique","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"18 1","pages":"41 - 90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1984-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/flih.1984.5.1.41","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67379333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"James N. Adams: Social variation and the Latin language","authors":"B. Bauer","doi":"10.1515/flih-2016-0010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2016-0010","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35126,"journal":{"name":"Folia Linguistica Historica","volume":"37 1","pages":"315 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/flih-2016-0010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67381205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：