FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2056253981> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2056253981 endingPage "523" @default.
• W2056253981 startingPage "517" @default.
• W2056253981 abstract "Reviewed by: Comparative grammar and typology: Essays on the historical grammar of the Austronesian languagesby Alain Lemaréchal William A. Foley Alain Lemaréchal. 2010. Comparative grammar and typology: Essays on the historical grammar of the Austronesian languages. Orbis Supplementa35. Paris: Peeters. xx + 368. ISBN 978-90-429-2254-9. €79.00, paper. This is a very difficult volume to review. It consists of a series of papers previously published in French, translated into English, and now collated together here. From a number of comments in the text, it is clear that the author feels that his work has been snubbed and not given its fair due in the heavily English language dominant academic environment of Austronesian linguistics: hence this translated collection. While it is certainly true most academics based in the English-speaking world, and that includes the overwhelming majority of Austronesian specialists, only rarely read materials in languages other than English, as we shall see, there are quite likely other compelling reasons why the author’s publications in comparative and historical Austronesian linguistics have been rarely referred to. While the data collected and the breadth of the author’s reach is quite impressive, this book is in most respects very much in left field in Austronesian linguistics. The author has clearly been involved in research on comparative Austronesian linguistics for several decades, but has done this largely on his own and with little engagement with wider work in the field. His reading of its scholarly literature appears very partial. He jumps upon what will support his claims, but ignores most things that contradict them. There is little or no true argumentation. The exposition is essentially an iteration of bold claims, with no true rigorous argumentation to back them up. The text is littered with “coulds” and “mays.” Although reconstruction of the prehistory of Austronesian languages necessarily works with unattested forms, the standards of argumentation expected are still higher than mere possibilities (although it needs to be admitted that these textual laxities could simply be an artifact of translation). Further, his use of the comparative method and its central and indispensable law of regularity of sound change are lax indeed. Irregular consonantal correspondences are brushed aside with nary a comment, and vowels seem to count for nothing. Floating morphemes with slippery, almost ghost-like, meanings proliferate. His conclusions are sweeping and, if found to be true, would require a complete rethink of everything we know about the prehistory and grouping of Austronesian languages. Given such profound implications, we would demand a much higher burden of proof and solid argumentation. And all of this is not helped by the extremely terse writing and dense presentation of the book; it will take a very dedicated scholar of comparative Austronesian linguistics to wade through it. But beyond all these negative comments, Lemaréchal does highlight some very important data and brings up some central and as yet unaddressed questions in comparative Austronesian linguistics, and for this we are all in his debt. He has compiled the data, so that now these questions can be researched, and researched rigorously. In a way, he has raised a question [End Page 517]I have often asked myself. On current work in the field, we reconstruct Proto–Malayo-Polynesian as being grammatically much like Philippine languages, with their symmetrical systems of multiple voices (Riesberg 2013). But if we were to reconstruct its grammar using Dempwolff’s (1934–38) methodology, by applying the comparative method to three daughter-languages of apparently different first order subgroups, such as Nias, Makasarese, and Chamorro, I very much doubt we would reconstruct a language that looks much like Tagalog. Why is this? We are using a methodology pioneered by giants like Dempwolff or Bloomfield (1925), yet we seem to be getting the wrong results under current understandings in the field. In a way Lemaréchal’s book is an attempt to address this question. He gives the wrong answer in my opinion, but we should thank him for bringing this problem out into the open. Lemaréchal’s basic claim is that the currently accepted view of Austronesian subgrouping, the structure of Proto-Austronesian grammar, and received wisdom concerning..." @default.
• W2056253981 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2056253981 creator A5043169926 @default.
• W2056253981 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2056253981 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2056253981 title "Comparative grammar and typology: Essays on the historical grammar of the Austronesian languages by Alain Lemaréchal" @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1482449999 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1503466031 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1537957748 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1590441455 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1984431832 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W1997838790 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W2204232055 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W2320308559 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W2323816056 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W375059683 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W375102922 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W419962675 @default.
• W2056253981 cites W597212426 @default.
• W2056253981 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2014.0022" @default.
• W2056253981 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2056253981 type Work @default.
• W2056253981 sameAs 2056253981 @default.
• W2056253981 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2056253981 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2056253981 hasAuthorship W2056253981A5043169926 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C107993555 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C181925144 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C200839419 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C23987474 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C26022165 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C2777688943 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C2779065236 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C75795011 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C107993555 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C138885662 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C144024400 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C181925144 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C19165224 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C200839419 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C23987474 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C26022165 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C2777688943 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C2779065236 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C41895202 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C75795011 @default.
• W2056253981 hasConceptScore W2056253981C95457728 @default.
• W2056253981 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2056253981 hasLocation W20562539811 @default.
• W2056253981 hasOpenAccess W2056253981 @default.
• W2056253981 hasPrimaryLocation W20562539811 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W1985165168 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W2008982748 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W2015957326 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W2032962613 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W2056253981 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W2146292778 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W3208461418 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W4246677419 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W563759285 @default.
• W2056253981 hasRelatedWork W651089691 @default.
• W2056253981 hasVolume "53" @default.
• W2056253981 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2056253981 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2056253981 magId "2056253981" @default.
• W2056253981 workType "article" @default.