Language Serves the People, Not the Other Way Around!

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Language Serves the People, Not the Other Way Around! RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE Vuk Vukotić LANGUAGE SERVES THE PEOPLE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Ideologies of language in Lithuania, Norway, Serbia and the Baltic, Scandinavian and Ex-Yugoslav regions. A typological perspective on metalinguistic media discourses and language policies Doctoral dissertation HUMANITIES, PHILOLOGY (04 H) Vilnius, 2019 Leidinio bibliografinė informacija pateikiama Lietuvos nacionalinės Martyno Mažvydo bibliotekos Nacionalinės bibliografijos duomenų banke (NBDB). Doctoral dissertation details Author: Vuk Vukotić Title: “Language serves the people, not the other way around!” Ideologies of language in Lithuania, Norway, Serbia and the Baltic, Scandinavian and Ex-Yugoslav regions. A typological perspective on metalinguistic media discourses and language policies Department: Centre of Sociolinguistics Institution: Institute of the Lithuanian Language Supervisor: Dr Loreta Vaicekauskienė (Associate professor, Senior Research Fellow, Head of the Centre of Sociolinguistics at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language) © Vuk Vukotić, 2019 ISBN 978-609-411-231-7 © Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 2019 CONTENTS LIST OF abbreviations ..................................................................................................6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................7 1. Theory & METHOD ...................................................................................................12 1.1. What is language, what is ideology? ........................................................................12 1.2. Language ideology – the field, history, issues ..........................................................13 1.2.1. Michael Silverstein and anthropological linguistics .......................................14 1.2.2. Problem-oriented and critical sociolinguistics ................................................15 1.2.3. The public sphere and language ideologies ...................................................18 1.2.4. Terminological notes and summary ...............................................................20 1.3. Ideologies of language era of the internet – research overview ................................22 1.3.1. Research in the sociocognitive paradigm .......................................................23 1.3.2. Research in the critical paradigm ...................................................................26 1.3.3. Other relevant research – online metalinguistic commentaries ......................28 1.4. Previous research on metalinguistic discourses and language ideologies in Lithuania, Norway and Serbia .............................................................................30 1.4.1. Lithuania ........................................................................................................30 1.4.2. Norway ..........................................................................................................33 1.4.3. Serbia .............................................................................................................34 1.5. Research method ......................................................................................................37 1.5.1. Limitation of the research object. ..................................................................37 1.5.2. Representation, expertise and function as theoretical conceptions ................38 1.5.3. Data for the dissertation .................................................................................39 1.5.3.1. The ‘expert discourse’ data ................................................................40 1.5.3.2. The ‘vox populi’ (non-experts) data ..................................................43 2. THE RESEARCH CONTEXT: Language PLANNING (LP) IN THE Baltic, Scandinavian AND EX-Yugoslav REGIONS ....................................................45 2.1. The Baltic states .......................................................................................................46 2.1.1. Historical overview: “Late standards” develop and fall under Soviet rule (1900-1990) ...................................................................................................46 2.1.2. Estonia – how to teach “them” Estonian? .....................................................47 2.1.3. Latvia makes it everyone’s national duty to strengthen Latvian .....................48 2.1.4. Lithuania is reborn: new freedoms and new restrictions ................................50 2.2. The Scandinavian countries ......................................................................................53 2.2.1. Transnational language policies in Scandinavia the Nordic countries ............54 2.2.2. Denmark accepts English ...............................................................................56 3 2.2.3. Norway’s critical culture ................................................................................57 2.2.4. Sweden preserves the purity of Swedish… but not really ..............................59 2.3. The Ex-Yugoslavian countries ..................................................................................60 2.3.1. A common South Slavic language: efforts and failure (1850-1990) ..............60 2.3.2. Bosnian orientalism .......................................................................................62 2.3.3. Croatia’s infamous purism is not state-sponsored ..........................................63 2.3.4. Montenegrin – the youngest state language in Europe .................................65 2.3.5. Serbia keeps it in the academy ......................................................................66 2.4. A comparison of LP goals, ideologies, institutions and power in the three regions ....68 2.4.1. Legislation .....................................................................................................68 2.4.2. Goals (and their implementation) ..................................................................69 2.4.3. Institutions and power ...................................................................................70 2.4.4. Ideologies .......................................................................................................73 3. Metalinguistic DISCOURSES IN THE virtual SPHERE .................................77 3.1. Language experts ......................................................................................................77 3.1.1. Lithuanian expert voices: reserved for academics and institution representatives? ..............................................................................................79 3.1.2. Norwegian experts: celebs and researchers ....................................................93 3.1.3. Serbian experts are not just from Serbia .......................................................99 3.1.4. Quantitative and comparative results ...........................................................106 3.2. The online comments, or “vox populi” ..................................................................111 3.2.1. Lithuania ......................................................................................................112 3.2.1.1. Representation ................................................................................114 3.2.1.2. Expertise .........................................................................................119 3.2.1.3. Function..........................................................................................124 3.2.2. Norway ........................................................................................................126 3.2.2.1. Representation ................................................................................127 3.2.2.2. Expertise .........................................................................................130 3.2.2.3. Function..........................................................................................133 3.2.3. Serbia ...........................................................................................................135 3.2.3.1. Representation ................................................................................135 3.2.3.2. Expertise .........................................................................................140 3.2.3.3. Function..........................................................................................144 3.2.4. Quantitative and comparative results ...........................................................146 4. DISCUSSION, critique, RECOMMendations ...................................................148 4.1. Types of beliefs about language ..............................................................................148 4.2. “The big picture”: Language ideologies on the macro-societal level ...................... 150 4.2.1. Language ideologies in the Baltic, Scandinavian and Ex-Yugoslav societies, a preliminary sketch ....................................................................................150 4.2.2. European, “Western” and global context .....................................................155 4.3. Methodology critique .............................................................................................158 5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................161 6. Literature ................................................................................................................165 6.1. Primary
Recommended publications
  • Valgfrie Språkformer I Nynorsk Rettskriving
    Valgfrie språkformer i nynorsk rettskriving En undersøkelse av grunnskoleelevers kunnskaper og bruk av valgfrie språkformer i nynorsk rettskriving, samt lærerens påvirkning på elevenes innsikt og formvalg. SERINE BAKKEN VEILEDER Elin Gunleifsen Universitetet i Agder, våren 2018 Fakultet for humaniora og pedagogikk Institutt for nordisk og mediefag Institutt for nordisk og mediefagIn 1 Forord Arbeidet med masteroppgava har vært givende. Jeg har tilegna meg ny faglig kunnskap, og har reflektert rundt flere didaktiske situasjoner i skolen. Prosessen har også gitt meg et større perspektiv på egen skriving og læring. Jeg vil gjerne takke veilederen min Elin Gunleifsen som har gitt gode faglige råd gjennom positiv og grundig veiledning. Etter våre møter har jeg alltid hatt et smil om munnen og vært motivert for å arbeide videre. Jeg vil også rette en stor takk til informantene i studien. Takk til lærerne som ville ta seg tid til undersøkelsen, og som delte oppfatninger og synspunkter på egen praksis. Og takk til alle elevene som stilte i undersøkelsen med å svare på spørreskjema og som ville dele elevtekstene sine med meg. Dette ville ikke vært mulig uten dere. Familien min fortjener også ros for at de alltid stiller opp og genuint interesserer seg for arbeidet mitt. Spesielt takk til Gunn Marit Bakken Koldal som har hjulpet med korrekturlesing. Heilt til slutt vil jeg også trekke fram at jeg har satt stor pris på faglige diskusjoner, trivelige pauser og godt samhold blant medstudenter det siste semesteret. Dere har motivert meg og gjort skrivedagene mer innholdsrike. Takk for meg, Universitetet i Agder – det har vært flotte og lærerike år! Kristiansand, mai 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Language Policy and Linguistic Reality in Former Yugoslavia and Its Successor States
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Tsukuba Repository Language Policy and Linguistic Reality in Former Yugoslavia and its Successor States 著者 POZGAJ HADZ Vesna journal or Inter Faculty publication title volume 5 page range 49-91 year 2014 URL http://doi.org/10.15068/00143222 Language Policy and Linguistic Reality in Former Yugoslavia and its Successor States Vesna POŽGAJ HADŽI Department of Slavistics Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana Abstract Turbulent social and political circumstances in the Middle South Slavic language area caused the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the formation of new countries in the 1990s, and this of course was reflected in the demise of the prestigious Serbo-Croatian language and the emergence of new standard languages based on the Štokavian dialect (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin). The Yugoslav language policy advocated a polycentric model of linguistic unity that strived for equal representation of the languages of the peoples (Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian and Slovenian), ethnicities (ethnic minorities) and ethnic groups, as well as both scripts (Latin and Cyrillic). Serbo-Croatian, spoken by 73% of people in Yugoslavia, was divided into the eastern and the western variety and two standard language expressions: Bosnian and Montenegrin. One linguistic system had sociolinguistic subsystems or varieties which functioned and developed in different socio-political, historical, religious and other circumstances. With the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the aforementioned sociolinguistic subsystems became standard languages (one linguistic system brought forth four political languages). We will describe the linguistic circumstances of the newly formed countries after 1991 in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ranko Bugarski Library**
    UDC 016:81(497.11) https://doi.org/10.18485/bells.2018.10.2 Ivan Čolović * The 20 th Century Library Belgrade, Serbia THE RANKO BUGARSKI LIBRARY ** 1. Since its foundation in 1971 the Twentieth Century Library has published the majority of Ranko Bugarski’s monographs; in total thirteen books. 1 No other author has contributed as many volumes to the edition, which means that we would be justified in calling it the Ranko Bugarski Library. This would be logical not simply because of the number of Bugarski’s works the Library contains, but also because it was with his assistance and cooperation that I was also able to introduce several other important writers in the field of linguistics and sociolinguistics. 2 When invited to give * E-mail address: [email protected] ** Translated from Serbian by Charles Robertson. 1 Lingvistika o čoveku [Linguistics on Man] (1975, 1983), Jezik u društvu [Language in Society] (1986), Jezik od mira do rata [Language from Peace to War] (1995), Lica jezika [Facets of Language] (2001, 2002), Nova lica jezika [New Facets of Language] (2002, 2009) , Žargon [Slang] (2003, 2006), Jezik i kultura [Language and Culture] (2005), Evropa u jeziku [Europe in Language] (2009), Jezik i identitet [Language and Identity] (2010), Portret jednog jezika [The Portrait of a Language] (2012), Sarmagedon u Mesopotamaniji [Sarmageddon in Mesopotamania] (2013), Putopis po sećanju [Travel Memoirs from Memory] (2014), and Jezici u potkrovlju [Languages in the Attic] (2016). 2 In two instances Bugarski collected and introduced the works of other authors: Edward Sapir , Ogledi iz kulturne antropologije [Essays in Cultural Anthropology], selection and introduction R.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Communities in the Political and Legal Systems of Post-Yugoslav Countries
    TRAMES, 2017, 21(71/66), 3, 251–271 JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS OF POST-YUGOSLAV COUNTRIES Boris Vukićević University of Montenegro Abstract. After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Jewish community within Yugoslavia was also split up, and now various Jewish communities exist in the seven post-Yugoslav countries. Although all of these communities are relatively small, their size, influence, and activity vary. The political and legal status of Jewish communities, normatively speaking, differs across the former Yugoslav republics. Sometimes Jews or Jewish communities are mentioned in constitutions, signed agreements with governments, or are recognized in laws that regulate religious communities. Despite normative differences, they share most of the same problems – a slow process of return of property, diminishing numbers due to emigra- tion and assimilation, and, although on a much lower scale than in many other countries, creeping anti-Semitism. They also share the same opportunities – a push for more minority rights as part of ‘Europeanization’ and the perception of Jewish communities as a link to influential investors and politicians from the Jewish diaspora and Israel. Keywords: Jewish communities, minority rights, post-communism, former Yugoslavia DOI: https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2017.3.04 1. Introduction In 1948, the first postwar census in Yugoslavia counted 6,538 people of Jewish nationality, although many Jews identified as other nationalities (e.g. Croat, Serb) in the census while identifying religiously as Jewish, as seen by the fact that Jewish municipalities (or communities) across Yugoslavia had 11,934 members (Boeckh 2006:427). The number of Jews in Yugoslavia decreased in the following years after the foundation of the State of Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Language Relationship
    Российский государственный гуманитарный университет Russian State University for the Humanities Russian State University for the Humanities Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Journal of Language Relationship International Scientific Periodical Nº 3 (16) Moscow 2018 Российский государственный гуманитарный университет Институт языкознания Российской Академии наук Вопросы языкового родства Международный научный журнал № 3 (16) Москва 2018 Advisory Board: H. EICHNER (Vienna) / Chairman W. BAXTER (Ann Arbor, Michigan) V. BLAŽEK (Brno) M. GELL-MANN (Santa Fe, New Mexico) L. HYMAN (Berkeley) F. KORTLANDT (Leiden) A. LUBOTSKY (Leiden) J. P. MALLORY (Belfast) A. YU. MILITAREV (Moscow) V. F. VYDRIN (Paris) Editorial Staff: V. A. DYBO (Editor-in-Chief) G. S. STAROSTIN (Managing Editor) T. A. MIKHAILOVA (Editorial Secretary) A. V. DYBO S. V. KULLANDA M. A. MOLINA M. N. SAENKO I. S. YAKUBOVICH Founded by Kirill BABAEV © Russian State University for the Humanities, 2018 Редакционный совет: Х. АЙХНЕР (Вена) / председатель В. БЛАЖЕК (Брно) У. БЭКСТЕР (Анн Арбор) В. Ф. ВЫДРИН (Париж) М. ГЕЛЛ-МАНН (Санта-Фе) Ф. КОРТЛАНДТ (Лейден) А. ЛУБОЦКИЙ (Лейден) Дж. МЭЛЛОРИ (Белфаст) А. Ю. МИЛИТАРЕВ (Москва) Л. ХАЙМАН (Беркли) Редакционная коллегия: В. А. ДЫБО (главный редактор) Г. С. СТАРОСТИН (заместитель главного редактора) Т. А. МИХАЙЛОВА (ответственный секретарь) А. В. ДЫБО С. В. КУЛЛАНДА М. А. МОЛИНА М. Н. САЕНКО И. С. ЯКУБОВИЧ Журнал основан К. В. БАБАЕВЫМ © Российский государственный гуманитарный университет, 2018 Вопросы языкового родства: Международный научный журнал / Рос. гос. гуманитар. ун-т; Рос. акад. наук. Ин-т языкознания; под ред. В. А. Дыбо. ― М., 2018. ― № 3 (16). ― x + 78 с. Journal of Language Relationship: International Scientific Periodical / Russian State Uni- versity for the Humanities; Russian Academy of Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction, Phonological, Morphological, Syntactic to The
    AN INTRODUCTION, PHONOLOGICAL, MORPHOLOGICAL, SYNTACTIC, TO THE GOTHIC OF ULFILAS. BY T. LE MARCHANT DOUSE. LONDON: TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. 1886, PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS, BED LION COURT, FLEET STREET. PREFACE. THIS book was originally designed to accompany an edition of Ulfilas for which I was collecting materials some eight or nine years ago, but which various con- siderations led me to lay aside. As, however, it had long seemed to me equally strange and deplorable that not a single work adapted to aid a student in acquiring a knowledge of Gothic was to be found in the English book-market, I pro- ceeded to give most of the time at my disposal to the " building up of this Introduction," on a somewhat larger scale than was at first intended, in the hope of being able to promote the study of a dialect which, apart from its native force and beauty, has special claims on the attention of more than one important class of students. By the student of linguistic science, indeed, these claims are at once admitted ; for the Gothic is one of the pillars on which rests the comparative grammar of the older both Indo-European languages in general, and also, pre-eminently, of the Teutonic cluster of dialects in particular. a But good knowledge of Gothic is scarcely less valuable to the student of the English language, at rate, of the Ancient or any English Anglo-Saxon ; upon the phonology of which, and indeed the whole grammar, the Gothic sheds a flood of light that is not to be got from any other source.
    [Show full text]
  • Eight Fragments Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian
    EIGHT FRAGMENTS FROM THE WORLD OF MONTENEGRIN LANGUAGES AND SERBIAN, CROATIAN, SERBIAN, CROATIAN, BOSNIAN SERBIAN, CROATIAN, BOSNIAN AND FROM THE WORLD OF MONTENEGRIN EIGHT FRAGMENTS LANGUAGES Pavel Krejčí PAVEL KREJČÍ PAVEL Masaryk University Brno 2018 EIGHT FRAGMENTS FROM THE WORLD OF SERBIAN, CROATIAN, BOSNIAN AND MONTENEGRIN LANGUAGES Selected South Slavonic Studies 1 Pavel Krejčí Masaryk University Brno 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this e-book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of copyright administrator which can be contacted at Masaryk University Press, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno. Scientific reviewers: Ass. Prof. Boryan Yanev, Ph.D. (Plovdiv University “Paisii Hilendarski”) Roman Madecki, Ph.D. (Masaryk University, Brno) This book was written at Masaryk University as part of the project “Slavistika mezi generacemi: doktorská dílna” number MUNI/A/0956/2017 with the support of the Specific University Research Grant, as provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic in the year 2018. © 2018 Masarykova univerzita ISBN 978-80-210-8992-1 ISBN 978-80-210-8991-4 (paperback) CONTENT ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 7 CHAPTER 1 SOUTH SLAVONIC LANGUAGES (GENERAL OVERVIEW) ............................... 9 CHAPTER 2 SELECTED CZECH HANDBOOKS OF SERBO-CROATIAN
    [Show full text]
  • Ћирилица Из Нот Дед: Cyrillic Script from a Sociolinguistic Perspective in Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
    1 Ћирилица из нот дед: Cyrillic Script from a Sociolinguistic Perspective in Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia Aleksandra Salamurović (Jena)1 1. Introduction During 2012 and 2013 the question of script use in Serbia, specifically, the fact that Latin script prevails in public use, moved into the spotlight of public discussion, especially in multicultural Novi Sad (Salamurović 2015). After several months-long debates over scripts used on the building of the Center for Culture in Novi Sad, on bus displays and other public facilities, one creative citizen was obviously motivated to express their revolt by posting the following graffiti: Ћирилица из нот дед (“Cyrillics is not dead”), transcribing parts of English text into Serbian using the Cyrillic alphabet. On the other hand, in his current typological study on biscriptality in Slavic and non-Slavic languages, Slavist Daniel Bunčić proclaims in aphoristic form: “Monoscriptality can be cured - learn Cyrillic!” (Bunčić 2016a:16)2 emphasizing an additional value of learning and using the Cyrillic script. Besides both statements relating to Cyrillic script, they also have the common trait that they assign particular attitudes and values to the script. Those socio-cultural attributions are one of the most important features of the script and are of primary importance in selecting the script within biscriptal situations. Moreover, they are of particular interest for language policy and sociolinguistics of script. This paper will examine the current status of Cyrillic script in three South-Slavic countries: Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia3, the first two being biscriptal in the sense of what Bunčić typologically describes as bigraphism (one language using two scripts, Bunčić 2016c:54), and the last, Macedonia, being typologically monoscriptal but still dealing with two different scripts.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrastive Analysis at Work: Theoretical Considerations and Their Practical Application
    Contrastive Analysis at work: theoretical considerations and their practical application Svetlana KURTEŠ University of Cambridge, UK Doutora em Lingüística Contrastiva pela University of Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro Instituição à qual está vinculada como docente: University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Principais linhas de pesquisa: • Lingüística Contrastiva com fins pedagógicos. • Gramática Contrastiva baseada em corpus oriundos de contextos bilíngües. Principais publicações: “Grammaticalization of reflexivity and middleness: a contribution to Serbo-Croat-English Contrastive Grammar”. In Ivana Trbojevic and Katarina Rasulic (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference ’English Language and Literature Studies: Interfaces and Integrations’, Department of English, Faculty of Philology, Belgrade. “Contrastive analysis”. In Enclyclopaedia of the Arts, Lagos State University, Lagos. Outras publicações relevantes: “Contrastive linguistics: a 21st century perspective”. In: Sophia Marmaridou et al. (eds) 2005. Reviewing linguistic thought: converging trends for the 21st century, Mouton, Berlin, pp. 255-278. “Semantics of hate speech: a model of analysis”. In: Martin Pütz et al. (eds.) 2004. Communicating ideologies: language, discourse and social practice, Duisburg Papers on Research in Language and Culture, vol. 53, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 579-596. Review of Humphrey Tonkin et al. (eds) 2003. Language in the Twenty-first Century, http:/ /test.linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-1651.html “Genus verbi in Serbo-Croat: a reanalysis of se-verbs”. In: Peter Kosta et al. (eds) 2003. Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics: contributions of the Fourth European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages, Linguistik International, Vol. 10/part II, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 617-631. “Contrastive linguistics: possibilities and perspectives of the 21st century” [In Serbo-Croat], Zbornik 8 [Collection of papers, 8], College for Teacher-Training, Vrsac, Serbia and Montenegro; Universitatea Banatul, Timisoara, Romania, 2003, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • On Passives of Passives Julie Anne Legate, Faruk Akkuş, Milena Šereikaitė, Don Ringe
    On passives of passives Julie Anne Legate, Faruk Akkuş, Milena Šereikaitė, Don Ringe Language, Volume 96, Number 4, December 2020, pp. 771-818 (Article) Published by Linguistic Society of America For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/775365 [ Access provided at 15 Dec 2020 15:14 GMT from University Of Pennsylvania Libraries ] ON PASSIVES OF PASSIVES Julie Anne Legate Faruk Akku s¸ University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Milena Šereikait e˙ Don Ringe University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Perlmutter and Postal (1977 and subsequent) argued that passives cannot passivize. Three prima facie counterexamples have come to light, found in Turkish, Lithuanian, and Sanskrit. We reex - amine these three cases and demonstrate that rather than counterexemplifying Perlmutter and Postal’s generalization, these confirm it. The Turkish construction is an impersonal of a passive, the Lithuanian is an evidential of a passive, and the Sanskrit is an unaccusative with an instru - mental case-marked theme. We provide a syntactic analysis of both the Turkish impersonal and the Lithuanian evidential. Finally, we develop an analysis of the passive that captures the general - ization that passives cannot passivize.* Keywords : passive, impersonal, voice, evidential, Turkish, Lithuanian, Sanskrit 1. Introduction . In the 1970s and 1980s, Perlmutter and Postal (Perlmutter & Postal 1977, 1984, Perlmutter 1982, Postal 1986) argued that passive verbs cannot un - dergo passivization. In the intervening decades, three languages have surfaced as prima facie counterexamples—Turkish (Turkic: Turkey), Lithuanian (Baltic: Lithuania), and Classical Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) (see, inter alia, Ostler 1979, Timberlake 1982, Keenan & Timberlake 1985, Özkaragöz 1986, Baker et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grammar of Fear: Morphosyntactic Metaphor
    THE GRAMMAR OF FEAR: MORPHOSYNTACTIC METAPHOR IN FEAR CONSTRUCTIONS by HOLLY A. LAKEY A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Linguistics and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2016 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Holly A. Lakey Title: The Grammar of Fear: Morphosyntactic Metaphor in Fear Constructions This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Linguistics by: Dr. Cynthia Vakareliyska Chairperson Dr. Scott DeLancey Core Member Dr. Eric Pederson Core Member Dr. Zhuo Jing-Schmidt Institutional Representative and Dr. Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded March 2016. ii © 2016 Holly A. Lakey iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Holly A. Lakey Doctor of Philosophy Department of Linguistics March 2016 Title: The Grammar of Fear: Morphosyntactic Metaphor in Fear Constructions This analysis explores the reflection of semantic features of emotion verbs that are metaphorized on the morphosyntactic level in constructions that express these emotions. This dissertation shows how the avoidance or distancing response to fear is mirrored in the morphosyntax of fear constructions (FCs) in certain Indo-European languages through the use of non-canonical grammatical markers. This analysis looks at both simple FCs consisting of a single clause and complex FCs, which feature a subordinate clause that acts as a complement to the fear verb in the main clause. In simple FCs in some highly-inflected Indo-European languages, the complement of the fear verb (which represents the fear source) is case-marked not accusative but genitive (Baltic and Slavic languages, Sanskrit, Anglo-Saxon) or ablative (Armenian, Sanskrit, Old Persian).
    [Show full text]
  • Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1970
    Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1970 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 7 970 Bilingualism and Language Contact James E. Alatis Editor Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 20007 Bibliographical Notice Since this series has been variously, and confusingly, cited as Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, Reports of the Annual Round Table Meetings on Linguistics and Language Study, etc., beginning with the 1973 volume the title of the series was changed. The new title of the series includes the year of a Round Table and omits both the monograph number and the meeting number, thus: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1970, with the regular abbreviation GURT 1970. Full bibliographical references should show the form: Fishman, Joshua A. 1970. The politics of bilingual education. In: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1970. Edited by James E. Alatis. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press. 47-58. Copyright © 1970 by Georgetown University Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-31607 ISBN 0-87840-105-9 CONTENTS Introduction vii WELCOMING REMARKS Reverend Frank Fadner, S. J. Regent, School of Languages and Linguistics ix Robert Lado Dean, School of Languages and Linguistics xi James E. Alatis Associate Dean, School of Languages and Linguistics xiii Chairman, 21st Annual Round Table Meeting FIRST SESSION Chairman: Mrs. Julia Petrov, U.S. Office of Education Einar Haugen Linguistics and Dialinguistics 1 Robert J. Di Pietro The Discovery of Universals in Multilingualism 13 John Macnamara Bilingualism and Thought 25 SECOND SESSION Chairman: Miss Elizabeth Keesee, U.
    [Show full text]