In a recent article I attempted to establish a more concise definition both of palatalized consonants and of palatal consonants. The process of defining the latter involved the elucidation of the distinction between lamino-palatal and centro-palatal consonants.

There is still some confusion about the meanings and uses of the derivatives of the term palatal. The term is derived from palate, and it refers in compound forms to a consonant, the point of articulation of which is on the hard palate. From the form palatal the verb palatalize is derived; this causes some confusion, since it refers to two different events, i.e., it has two formal meanings in the same way that nationalize has at least two formal meanings. In one sense the latter means “to make national in character” and in a second sense “to make into a nation,” among other meanings. Although Webster’s only recognizes one definition of palatalize it is possible to establish a twofold definition for it analogous to nationalize.

Le Prefixe ge- compte parmi les préfixes les plus employés en vieil anglais. Réduit à i- (y-) en moyen anglais, il a disparu aujourd’hui, ne subsistant que dans une demi-douzaine de mots: enough, handiwork, either, everywhere et, dans une certaine mesure, alike, aware, among, afford.

Son origine est obscure et les nombreuses études qui lui ont été consacrées ne permettent pas de se faire une idée exacte de son sens véritable et de sa fonction. La raison principale en est que les linguistes qui se sont intéressés à ge- ont presque uniquement examiné sa fonction de préverbe. Or les composés en ge-peuvent aussi être des substantifs, des adjectifs, des adverbes, des prépositions et des conjonctions. C’est donc se limiter considérablement que de retenir le composé verbal comme seul objet d’étude.

The Aim of this paper is to define a form class of English (the sentence morpheme) and to try to determine whether or not this form class may be incorporated into the traditional linguistic system of English. Various criteria—phonological, morphological and syntactic—will be applied to establish the formal characteristics of this class.

The forms considered here deserve serious treatment by any school of linguistics that claims to give priority to the spoken language, since quite a large proportion of colloquial speech consists of just such forms. Apart from any consideration of their linguistic marginality, they are surely important if only because of their frequency in English speech.

For Three-Quarters of a century, scholars have had to rely for a general survey of the dialects of England either upon Volume V of On Early English Pronunciation by A. J. Ellis, published in 1889, or upon J. Wright’s The English Dialect Grammar, published in 1905. These two works have merit as pioneer studies but their accuracy and reliability are questioned today.

Studies in linguistic geography in Britain made an important step forward in 1962 with the publication of the first volume of a new, scientifically-conducted dialect survey, Survey of English Dialects (hereafter SED). This survey, when completed, will provide an extensive corpus of primary dialect material but as yet, because it would be largely premature, interpretative study of this material has not been attempted. Despite this, as the basic material for Northumberland, Durham, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, the six northern counties of England, has been published, a study of questions confined to these counties is valid. It is the purpose of this paper to examine briefly four consonantal features of northern English dialects in the light of this newly-published material.

In 1924 Otto Jespersen pointed out the difficulty of finding an adequate term for a type of indirect speech which is not dependent on an immediately preceding verb like ‘he said’ or ‘he thought.’ He suggested that previous terms such as ‘erlebte Rede’ be replaced by the term ‘represented speech,’ because the writer “does not experience or ‘live’ these thoughts or speeches, but represents them to us….” Since then the terminology problem has by no means become smaller. Jespersen’s term is almost forgotten today, having been replaced by completely new terms, or by terms previously in use, among them ‘erlebte Rede.’ Some of the more common terms presently in use are: ‘style indirect libre,’ ‘monologue intérieur indirect,’ ‘indirect interior monologue,’ ‘narrated speech,’ ‘nesobstvenno-prjamaja reč’, and ‘quasi-direct discourse.’ The last two are direct translations of the German term ‘uneigentliche direkte Rede.’ One of them, viz. quasi-direct discourse, will be used in the present paper only tentatively, since it will be shown later that there is actually no need for having a special term in the grammar of Russian.

On Possède des renseignements précieux sur les dialectes franco-canadiens et d’excellentes informations sur les tendances phonétiques qui apparaissent dans l’uniformisation de la langue parlée de ce pays. Mais il ne semble pas, lorsqu’on parle “d’accent canadien” par rapport à la norme standard, qu’on ait tenté depuis l’article de René Charbonneau de chiffrer l’écart entre les deux systèmes phoniques. Le but de cette étude est justement d’essayer de montrer comment il est possible d’évaluer, à l’aide de tests psycho-acoustiques, les différences de prononciation entre le français et le canadien français. On n’a pas cherché à apprécier ou à critiquer les différences non pertinentes qui peuvent d’ailleurs faire partie des variantes phoniques du français. Il ne s’agit ici que de trouver ce qui, dans un certain type d’accent canadien, peut présenter des difficultés de compréhension pour un francophone. Cette étude concerne donc essentiellement l’aspect phonémique des systèmes en présence.

Le verbe, qui a été, de tout temps, l’objet de nombreuses spéculations philosophiques et poétiques, s’est vu accorder aussi une place privilégiée dans les études linguistiques. Par contre, le groupe du nom a été quelque peu négligé, et l’on ne s’est tourné que récemment vers cet important champ de recherches. Nous nous proposons ici d’étudier la question en appliquant systématiquement les méthodes distributionnelles à la langue française, que nous considérerons à notre tour comme étant “exotique.”

Cet exposé s’inspire, dans une certaine mesure, des travaux de deux linguistes français, A. Greimas et H. Mitterand, qui ont tous les deux abordé un sujet analogue. On pourrait reprocher, toutefois, au premier d’avoir écrit un article dont on voit mal le côté pratique ou “appliqué,” et au second d’avoir un peu trop simplifié la réalité des faits.

The purpose of this note is to introduce a restricted class of transformational grammars, the deletion grammars, and to use them to discuss the names of natural numbers in Chinese. Hereafter these names are referred to as Chinese number names.

Transformations and transformational grammars were introduced into linguistics by N. Chomsky. By now a vast literature on transformations has grown up. However, many of the transformational grammars appearing in this literature lack precision and rigor. In particular, it is not always clear what corpus they generate because of the multiplicity, complexity, and inadequate definition of the transformations contained in these grammars.

I propose to present here the findings of an analysis of a limited corpus of English loanwords as found in four Canadian weekly newspapers published in the Serbo-Croatian language. Though interference in written language is a secondary phenomenon in a situation of languages in contact, instances of such interference are interesting and important since they may contribute to the adoption and spread of the corresponding instances of interference in spoken language. In addition, kinds of interference, as well as the total amount of interference in an immigrant language contact situation, may be usefully compared with interference phenomena in the corresponding standard language (in which very often, as is the case with E and SC in contact, almost all borrowing is done from a written model language). The linguistic analysis of the interference in written language seems therefore to be worth while.

Orthography of E Loanwords. Faced with the task of writing down E loanwords (which he uses so often in speech), the bilingual chooses one among a multitude of ways ranging from one extreme, i.e. writing loanwords the way they are written in E, to another, i.e. writing loanwords the way they are pronounced by him, using one of the two SC alphabets. The range of possibilities is almost limitless (cf. Table 6), since the biningual may use all orthographical means and devices that are at his disposal in both E and SC. The existence of the two SC alphabets (latinica, with the Roman characters, and ćirilica, with the Cyrillic characters) makes the situation even more complicated, though, generally speaking, the E spelling is favoured by those who use latinica, and the pronunciation spelling is favoured in ćirilica.