Basic vocabularies of several Khamnigan communities in China, Mongolia and Russia

Basic vocabulary lists are a popular data type in the field of phylogenetic linguistics because of the vertical signal the data carries. Interestingly, basic vocabulary also features borrowings. The horizontal influence can be understood as a proxy for population contacts as well because loanwords into basic vocabulary are most likely acquired in intimate contact situations. This is valuable information for multidisciplinary studies aiming to integrate information on contact events from various sciences to gain a better insight into the prehistory of a population. As basic vocabulary lists are widely available, they can inform of the known contact history for large groups of languages or even whole language families making wide-scale comparison possible. We call the contact history of a language reflected by its loanwords the borrowing profile. In our paper, we compare the borrowing profiles mediated by the basic vocabulary of six well-studied Uralic languages to the borrowing profiles of the whole languages represented by large vocabulary stocks. We show that basic vocabulary provides an informative snapshot of the borrowing profile; however, the trace of prehistoric loanword layers is emphasized in basic vocabulary. Known sociolinguistic circumstances explain the differences in the borrowing profiles of basic and whole vocabulary.

A set of six basic list words with corresponding lists of: I. close semantic similarity (S-words); 2, word associates (A-words); and 3. controls (C-words) with neither of the foregoing properties; was selected. Three experimental lists containing two words of each type of correspondence were constructed. A nine-scale semantic differential representing the three major factors of connotative meaning was assembled. Thirty male undergraduates were randomly assigned to an experimental list. Ss rated the basic list and the corresponding list words on the semantic differential first. Words and scales were presented individually on cards for the satiation condition, S first repeating a B-word for 15 sec., then immediately rating a corresponding word against a single scale (54 pairings altogether). Immediately after all the pairings were completed, S rated the B-words on a standard semantic differential form again. Polarity difference scores (difference between pre- and post-satiation ratings) were obtained for all words for all 5s. The binomial expansion was used to test for differences in rating change from zero for the basic and corresponding list words. Sign tests were used to contrast the different word types. There was a significant satiation effect only for B-words, but since even these were not significantly different from the controls, one hesitates to admit wordspecific satiation effects. An exact replication of Lambert and Jakobovits' experiment is dictated by the very weak support found in the present experiment. If the satiation phenomenon is found to be replicable on a Minnesota sample, then Osgood's theory of representational mediation processes should be questioned as the satiacion effect should generalize to semantically similar words-which it definitely did not in the present study.

<p>This study aims to find out the relation of language family and glottochronology of Gorontalo language and Atinggola language in Gorontalo Province. The research employed a comparative method, and the research instrument used a list of 200 basic Morris Swadesh vocabularies. The data source was from documents or gloss translation of 200 basic vocabularies and interview of two informants (speakers) of Gorontalo and Atinggola languages. Data analysis was done by using the lexicostatistic technique. The following indicators were used to determine the word family: (a) identical pairs, (b) the word pairs have phonemic correspondences, (c) phonetic similarities, and (d) a different phoneme. The results of data analysis reveal that there are 109 or 55.05% word pairs of the word family out of 200 basic vocabularies of Swadesh. The results of this study also show that the glottochronology of Gorontalo language and Atinggola language are (a) Gorontalo and Atinggola languages are one single language at 1.377 + 122 years ago, (b) Gorontalo and Atinggola languages are one single language at 1,449 - 1,255 years ago. This study concludes that (a) the relation of the kinship of these two languages is in the family group, (b) glottochronology (separation time between Gorontalo language and Atinggola language is between 1.4 to 1.2 thousand years ago or in the 12<sup>th</sup> – 14<sup>th </sup>century.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: relation, kinship level, local language, Gorontalo Province, lexicostatistics study</p>

The classification of the corpus is not confined to the genre and nature of texts. It spreads far beyond this. In this chapter, we have tried to show that a corpus can also be classified based on the type of text and the purpose of the corpus design. Based on the type of text, a corpus can be termed a ‘monolingual corpus’, which contains text samples from a single language or a dialect variety; a ‘bilingual corpus’, which carries proportional amounts of texts taken from two languages or dialect varieties (which may or may not be genealogically, typologically or geographically related); or a ‘multilingual corpus’, which stores a good amount of language data with proportional distribution across text types from more than two languages. On the other hand, based on the purpose of design, a corpus can be termed an ‘unannotated corpus’ where text samples are kept in their raw form without the addition of metadata or annotation of any kind; or an ‘annotated corpus’ where texts are annotated or tagged with various intralingual and extralingual data and information. Furthermore, we have also described the ‘maxims of corpus annotation’ proposed by earlier scholars; analyzed the issues involved in the act of corpus annotation; referred to the challenges directly and indirectly linked with corpus annotation; and finally, have referred to the state-of-the-art of corpus annotation in English and other languages across the world.

The case model of the syncretic case [xa] in the Gansu-Qinghai area came from non-Sinitic languages, while the phonetic form came from Sinitic languages (“Sinitic languages” are usually called “Chinese dialects” in the Chinese linguistic community). The paper shows that this marker [xa] may come from a topic marker and topic chain markers in Sinitic languages. The accusative/dative marker formation was motivated by pragmatic factors. This phenomenon is also found in other languages. The syncretic use of cases is commonplace in languages across the world, whereas the accusative/dative marker [xa] is one of the prominent features in Sinitic languages in the Gansu-Qinghai area. The accusative/dative case formation did not know an even speed in Sinitic languages. It seems that Wutun and Tangwang evolved rapidly while Linxia and Gangou changed with an intermediate rhythm. Qinghai languages are the closest to Tibetic languages, but paradoxically they seem to be more conservative and do not adopt dative markers in possessor and experiencer constructions which are seen overwhelmingly in Tibetic languages. However, other Sinitic languages have adopted this marking progressively and steadily. The language model of the syncretic marker [xa] is not from a single language. Amdo Tibetan as well as Mongolic languages have contributed to the case formation of [xa] in Sinitic languages. This paper proposes that an Intertwining Model helped the spread of case formation in this zone. Languages of one group or of one language family have influenced each other at different periods. The results of case formation we note today constitute a net-like relationships connected to various languages, but not a neat and linear path.

Previous articleNext article No AccessA Basic Vocabulary for Beginning ReadingDale D. JohnsonDale D. Johnson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Elementary School Journal Volume 72, Number 1Oct., 1971 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/460673 Views: 4Total views on this site Citations: 22Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1971 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Lisa M. Bowers, Ilsa Schwarz Assessing Response to Basic Concept Instruction, Communication Disorders Quarterly 34, no.44 (Jan 2013): 221–231.https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740112469662Susan Clarke-Klein, Barbara Williams Hodson A Phonologically Based Analysis of Misspellings by Third Graders With Disordered-Phonology Histories, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38, no.44 (Aug 1995): 839–849.https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3804.839Steve Graham, Karen R. Harris, Connie Loynachan The Spelling for Writing List, Journal of Learning Disabilities 27, no.44 (Aug 2016): 210–214.https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949402700402Steve Graham, Karen R. Harris, Connie Loynachan The Basic Spelling Vocabulary List, The Journal of Educational Research 86, no.66 (Jul 1993): 363–368.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941230David Beukelman, Jackie McGinnis, Deanna Morrow Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 7, no.33 (Jul 2009): 171–185.https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619112331275883Jill M. Stoefen-Fisher HEARING IMPAIRED ADOLESCENTS' COMPREHENSION OF ANAPHORIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CONJOINED SENTENCES, The Journal of Special Education 21, no.44 (Aug 2016): 85–98.https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698802100410James F. Baumann, Dale D. Johnson, Alden J. Moe AN EXTENDED BASIC SIGHT VOCABULARY FOR THE PRIMARY GRADES, Reading Psychology 5, no.1-21-2 (Aug 2006): 39–53.https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271840050105Judie Brunsen, Lois Dam, Kathy Kelly, Martha Kingsbury, Janis Morariu, Jill Stoefen Focus on Reading: A Syntactically Controlled Reading Program, Journal of Special Education Technology 3, no.33 (Aug 2016): 58–67.https://doi.org/10.1177/016264348000300315 Carol J. Hopkins The Spontaneous Oral Vocabulary of Children in Grade 1, The Elementary School Journal 79, no.44 (Oct 2015): 240–249.https://doi.org/10.1086/461154Carol M. Reich, Peter A. Reich The Construction of an Orally Based Sight-Word Vocabulary List and Its Relationship to the Vocabularies of Beginning Readers, The Journal of Educational Research 72, no.44 (Dec 2014): 198–204.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1979.10885154John N. Mangieri Dolch list revisited, Reading World 18, no.11 (Jan 2010): 91–95.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388077809557457Edward F. Ansello AGE AND AGEISM IN CHILDREN'S FIRST LITERATURE, Educational Gerontology 2, no.33 (Aug 2006): 255–274.https://doi.org/10.1080/0360127770020305 Dale Johnson , and Emily Majer Johnson's Basic Vocabulary: Words for Grades 1 and 2, The Elementary School Journal 77, no.11 (Oct 2015): 74–82.https://doi.org/10.1086/461031Jerry L. Johns Some comparisons between the dolch basic sight vocabulary and the word list for the 1970's∗, Reading World 15, no.33 (Mar 1976): 144–150.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388077609557313Patrick Groff Long versus short words in beginning reading, Reading World 14, no.44 (May 1975): 277–289.https://doi.org/10.1080/19388077509557286Nicholas S. Argyros, Reuben R. Rusch Trimodal Programmed Instruction in Reading, The Journal of Experimental Education 42, no.44 (Jan 2015): 1–5.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1974.11011485Dale D. Johnson The Teaching of Reading, The Journal of Educational Research 67, no.99 (Dec 2014): 412–420.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1974.10884671 Jerry L. Johns Should the Dolch List Be Retired, Replaced, or Revised?, The Elementary School Journal 74, no.66 (Oct 2015): 375–380.https://doi.org/10.1086/460843Wayne Otto, Thomas C. Barrett, Richard J. Smith, Kenneth L. Dulin, Dale D. Johnson Summary and Review of Investigations Relating to Reading, July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972, The Journal of Educational Research 66, no.88 (Dec 2014): 338–362.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1973.10884501 Dale D. Johnson , Richard J. Smith , and Kenneth L. Jensen Primary Children's Recognition of High-Frequency Words, The Elementary School Journal 73, no.33 (Oct 2015): 162–167.https://doi.org/10.1086/460750Wayne Otto, Robert Chester Sight Words for Beginning Readers, The Journal of Educational Research 65, no.1010 (Jan 2015): 435–443.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1972.10884372Dale D. Johnson, Thomas C. Barrett Johnson's Basic Vocabulary for Beginning Reading and Current Basal Readers: Are They Compatible?, Journal of Reading Behavior 4, no.44 (Sep 2016): 1–11.https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967109547005

We examine kinship terms in three closely related Tamangic varieties: Manange, Nar, and Phu. Using Proto-Tamangic and Proto Tibeto-Burman reconstructions, we track cognate forms as well as structural innovations. Our account allows a first examination of lexico-semantic aspects of Phu, an under-documented representative of the Nar-Phu complex. While Nar-Phu is usually treated as a single language, considerable differences exist in the organization of all three kinship term systems. Kinship terms are considered to be conservative, basic vocabulary and thus indicative of close within-family relationships, but our study shows that even closely related varieties can show considerable differences in kin nomenclature.

REVIEWS565 The Celtic languages. Edited by Donald MacAulay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pp. xvii, 466. Reviewed by Nancy Stenson, University of Minnesota The ninth book in the Cambridge University Press Language Surveys series deals with the six Insular Celtic languages, with greatest attention given to the four languages surviving as community vernaculars—Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Breton, and Welsh—and shorter chapters on Cornish and Manx. The intent is to provide a descriptive overview of each modern language, a goal which is on the whole successfully achieved. The opening chapter, 'The Celtic languages: An overview', by Donald MacAulay (1-8), surveys the establishment of the Celts in their modern-day territories, their linguistic affiliations, and a few noteworthy typological features common to all the languages. Except for brief mention in the overview, Continental Celtic, or Gaulish, is not covered in this volume. The remaining chapters are 'The Irish language', by Cathair Ó Dochartaigh (11-99); 'The Manx language', by Robert L. Thomson (100-36); 'The Scottish Gaelic language', by Donald MacAulay (137-248); 'The Welsh language', by Alan R. Thomas (251-345); 'The Cornish language', by Alan R. Thomas (346-70); and 'The Breton language' by Elmar Ternes (371-452). Each chapter begins with fairly extensive, valuable sections entitled 'Historical and social perspective', covering external history of each language, areal distribution, sociolinguistic status, and dialect variation. Remaining sections are grouped under the headings 'Syntax ' (with subsections covering such topics as sentence types, word order, ellipsis, tense, aspect, and modality) 'Structure of the phrase' (constituentlevel syntax, with sections on NP, VP, and PP), 'Morphology' (inflectional and derivational), 'Sound system' (consonants, vowels, syllable structure, stress, pitch, and intonation), and 'Morphophonology' (mainly initial mutations, and a few language-specific alternations). The major strength of the volume is its presentation of comparative data for the six languages, since the grammatical information for any given language is readily available elsewhere, often in more detail. For a brief overview of the grammars, however, there is an advantage to having all six available in a single volume, with easy cross-reference, and this is what the book aims to provide. Chapters are arranged in parallel format, so that one can either read through all sections on a single language or find the six parallel sections on, say, inflected prepositions, or 'be', or vowel inventories, for immediate comparison. Some flexibility was permitted in following the chapter outlines, and this affects crosslanguage comparability in certain sections. Some departures from the common organization are justified by differences among the languages or by the lesser availability of data for Manx and Cornish, but others are harder to explain, such as the extensive reordering of the syntax sections in the Breton chapter and the complete absence of sections on ellipsis, aspect, complementation, and modality in Breton. The organizational structure itself sometimes obscures comparability. Authors clearly did not interpret all section titles uniformly, so that similar headings sometimes contain very different material, and similar 566LANGUAGE, VOLUME 70, NUMBER 3 (1994) phenomena across languages may appear in different sections. Thus, the subsection on noun morphology labelled 'Inherent classes' discusses gender in the Irish chapter and count/mass/collective distinctions in the Brittonic languages, and is omitted altogether from the Manx and Scottish Gaelic chapters, although the latter has separate sections for both gender and countability. Similarly, the syntax sections 'Parataxis and hypotaxis' all cover coordination (with and without overt conjunctions), but the Irish, Gaelic, and Breton chapters also briefly mention various forms of subordination. Ternes (Breton) and MacAulay (Gaelic) discuss the construction called 'absolute' in Breton (and introducing a nonfinite verb or verbless predicate) in this section, but the analogous construction in Irish is dealt with in the section 'Other sentential features'. The 'Verb phrases' section also produces very different results from language to language. The VP is variously identified as consisting of finite verb plus subject (Irish), auxiliary, verb, and inflection (Welsh), all major sentence constituents (Manx), and the verbal noun plus object of progressive constructions (Gaelic). Breton, the one language analyzed as SVO and thus easily describable in terms of VPs, has the longest section, covering a variety of verbal syntactic phenomena not mentioned for the other languages or covered elsewhere. Parallel structure...

Current research on curriculum-based textbooks indicates that there is a lack of comprehensive corpus-based studies of textbooks in the Korean EFL context. This recognition prompted us to investigate the vocabulary levels of elementary and secondary curriculum-based English textbooks. A corpus of 5,628,795 running words from a total of 140 different textbooks with the inclusion of the activity books was compiled for analysis. The operational measures for comparison involved the 2,000 General Service List(GSL), the 570 Academic Word List(AWL), the British National Corpus, the Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English, and the Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English. Our results indicated that 68% of the textbook words were beyond the 2,570 word level (i.e., total of word families of the GSL & AWL). Further corpus-based analysis indicated that textbooks of secondary schools presented word lists as large as 7,430 words compared to the 3,000 words that are permitted at the high school level by the National Curriculum. In the second part of the study, views and opinions of 600 stakeholders (i.e., learners, teachers, and experts) on a revision of the Basic Word List of the National Curriculum are presented. The results provide implications for the development of a revised Basic Word List.

Free recall of trilingual lists

Two experiments are reported that examine the nature of the processing of frequency information in Spanish-English bilinguals. In the first study, subjects studied a list of English-only, Spanish-only, and mixed-language words varying in their frequency of occurrence, and under conditions of being either informed or uninformed about the later frequency test. Subjects were then shown pictures represeting the nominally presented items and had to give frequency judgments for the words depicting the objects. Frequency judgments were significantly faster when the words had been presented in a single language, suggesting a summation of access times for the mixed-language words. Instructional conditions had no effect on frequency judgments, but the latency to judge was significantly reduced for the informed subjects. In the second study, using similar acquisition procedures, subjects were shown test words in either the same or the different language from the one in which the words were originally experienced. Subjects demonstrated a clear ability to assign frequencies according to the relationship between acquisition and test language. The data were discussed in terms of supporting the hypothesis of separate bilingual language processing, and implications for the automatic nature of frequency acquisition were also addressed.

In the MLA Study of 1924-1928, considerable effort was devoted to the formulation of instructional objectives of modern foreign languages. Among the many results that came of this study were badly needed vocabulary counts in French, German, and Spanish which were used for the development of language curricula, reading materials and objective tests. [The earliest frequency count of this type was Kaeding's Hi~ufigkeitsw6rterbuch der deutschen Sprache (1898). Later investigations were Volume Nine of the MLA Study (1924-1928), which was based on Kaeding's study; the Chicago German Frequency List (1925); the New York State Basic Word List (1933); Vail's Basic Word and Idiom List (1933); the AATG study of Wadepuhl and Morgan (1934); and Purin's A Standard German Vocabulary (1937).] However, these eminently useful frequency counts can hardly be considered valid today in view of the changed goals and objectives in FL teaching.

This study is a corpus-driven study that aims to explore the use of words in Coxhead’s Academic Word List (AWL) and West’s General Service List (GSL) and also non- GSL and non- AWL in journal articles in the field of physical education and sport science. A 1.1 million-word corpus called the Physical Education and Sport Science Research Articles Corpus is created for this study. The corpus consists of 280 research articles that have been published in seven international journals in the field of physical education and sport science. The result suggests that both GSL and AWL can help students focus on the right vocabulary when learningTechnical English. The corpus helps students to directly focus on the words that they will see the most in the text they have to study. Moreover field specific word list is conducted in this research. Field specific word lists can help students learn necessary words which are also important for their field of study.

Reviewed by: Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70thbirthday ed. by Leonid Kulikov, Heinz Vater Lindsay J. Whaley Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday. Ed. by Leonid Kulikov and Heinz Vater. (Linguistische Arbeiten 382.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 1998. Pp. 310. In the introduction to this book, the editors highlight two important contributions to the field of linguistics made by Vladimir Nedjalkov. First, he has helped to expand the interaction between linguists working in Russia and those working in the western world. Second, he has added greatly to the understanding of sundry verbal categories, especially causatives, resultatives, and tense/aspect/mood. To these I might add a third, that Nedjalkov has furnished careful research on several understudied languages including Evenki, Nivkh, and Chuckchi. The 22 papers in the volume are cast in the spirit of Nedjalkov’s work and serve as a fitting acknowledgment of his achievements. The articles, written primarily in English but also with three in German and three in French, are arranged into four sections: ‘Ergativity and transitivity’; ‘Voice, causative and valency’; ‘Tense and mood’; and ‘Verbal categories and language universals’. The quadripartite structure serves much more as a matter of convenience than a significant division as many of the papers might properly have appeared in more than one section, e.g. ‘Causalité, causativité, and transitivité’ (7–27) by Jean-Pierre Desclés and Zlatka Guentchéva, and the fourth section contains papers that have little to do with one another, cf. ‘Defining converbs’ (273–82) by Johan van der Auwera and ‘Die Verneinung als funktional-semantische Kategorie (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Streckformen des Deutschen und Russischen)’ (287–308) by Ronald L ötzsch. Though differing greatly in style, subject matter, and length, the contributions to this book supply plenty of substantive analyses and data. There is no way to summarize them all adequately here, so I have selected just three articles which to me best capture the character of the book. In ‘Transitivity increasing operations in Tariana’ (47–59), A lexandra Y. Aikhenvald describes four causative constructions [End Page 417] found in this North Arawak language: a morphological causative, a serial causative construction, and two periphrastic causative constructions. The choice of which causative to use is based on a complex of properties. These include the transitivity of the verb being causativized, the degree of control being assigned to the causee, and the nature of the causer’s effort. While none of these parameters is unusual, Aikhenvald points out that they rarely give rise to four distinct causative structures in a single language. Masayoshi Shibatani’s contribution, ‘Voice parameters’ (117–38), proposes that the confluence of several semantic parameters can be used to account for the voice oppositions found in particular languages. Of particular importance is the principle of maximization, which states ‘Maximize the contrast in grammatical meaning as much as possible’. Shibatani intends this principle to capture the fact that certain voice oppositions, e.g. active vs. passive, are common whereas others (e.g. active vs. middle with no passive in the language) are highly unusual. He notes a variety of other parameters as well such as whether a language allows passive forms on intransitive bases and whether volitionality is required of the agent in passive constructions. He then demonstrates how the parameters can be employed to account for the existence of impersonal passives in some languages. In ‘Verb formation in Leko: Causatives, reflexives, and reciprocals’ (195–203), Simon van de Kerke furnishes data about verbal categories in Leko, a largely unresearched language isolate in Bolivia. K describes a system of verb formation that evinces many correspondences to Quechua, which leads him to wonder whether the similarity may be due to extended contact between the languages. This turns out to be a query that must be left unanswered because of the lack of information about other neighboring languages spoken in the area, all of them still awaiting detailed study. Lindsay J. Whaley Dartmouth College Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Encouraged by ongoing discussion of the classification of the Uralic languages, we investigate the family quantitatively using Bayesian phylogenetics and basic vocabulary from seventeen languages. To estimate the heterogeneity within this family and the robustness of its subgroupings, we analyse ten divergent sets of basic vocabulary, including basic vocabulary lists from the literature, lists that exclude borrowing-susceptible meanings, lists with varying degrees of borrowing-susceptible meanings and a list combining all of the examined items. The results show that the Uralic phylogeny has a fairly robust shape from the perspective of basic vocabulary, and is not dramatically altered by borrowing-susceptible meanings. The results differ to some extent from the ‘standard paradigm’ classification of these languages, such as the lack of firm evidence for Finno-Permian.