刊讯｜SSCI 期刊《语言》2024年第100卷1-2期

LANGUAGE

Volume 100, Number 1-2, 2024

LANGUAGE（SSCI1区，2023 IF：1.9，排名：47/194）2024年第100卷第1期和第2期共发文21篇，其中研究性论文19篇，书评2篇。研究论文涉及多语研究、句法结构分析、语言演化研究、跨语言对比研究等领域。主题涉及协调结构中的提取不对称性、短语名词化现象、感知动词的跨语言表现、喉音对比与音变之间的关系、语言学社团的作用等等。欢迎转发扩散！

目录

VOLUME 100 NUMBER 1

■ Extraction asymmetries show that type A coordination is adjunction, by Ad Neeleman, Misako Tanaka, Pages 1-39.

■ On phrasal nominalization: A factorial analysis, by Frank Van Eynde, Pages 40-80.

■ Verbs of perception: A quantitative typological study, by Elisabeth Norcliffe, Asifa Majid, Pages 81-123.

■ Laryngeal contrast and sound change: The production and perception of plosive voicing and co-intrinsic pitch, by Jiayin Gao, James Kirby, Pages 124-158.

■ Why a linguistic society?, by Leonard Bloomfield, Pages 159-162.

■ Celebrating the LSA centennial in Language: Commentary on Bloomfield 1925, by Brian D. Joseph, Sarah Grey Thomason, Pages 163-166.

■ Classification of American Indian languages, by Franz Boas, Pages 167-171.

■ On classification, language, and American Indian scholarship: Commentary on Boas 1929, by Barbra A. Meek, Pages 172-178.

■ Before their very eyes: Enhancing the (pre)literacy skills of deaf children, by Melissa Curran, Gene Mirus, Pages e1-e26.

VOLUME 100 NUMBER 2

■ Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view, by Kadir Gökgöz, Kadir Gökgöz, Pages 179-217.

■ Gender assignment is local: On the relation between grammatical gender and inalienable possession, by Luke James Adamson, Luke James Adamson, Pages 218-264.

■ Variability, overlap, and cue trading in intonation, by Amalia Arvaniti, Amalia Arvaniti,Argyro Katsika, Pages 265-307.

■ When bases compete: A voting model of lexical conservatism, by Canaan Breiss, Canaan Breiss, Pages 308-358.

■ The phonemic principle, by Morris Swadesh, Morris Swadesh, Pages 359-367.

■ Morris Swadesh (1934), ‘The phonemic principle’, by Stephen R. AndersonStephen R. Anderson, Pages 368-371.

■ What I say, or how I say it? Ethnic accents and hiring evaluations in the Greater Toronto Area, by Samantha Jackson, Samantha Jackson, Derek Denis, Pages e27-e62.

■ Developing linguistics educators: A qualitative study of graduate linguist professional development, by Allison Taylor-Adams, Allison Taylor-Adams, Kaylynn Gunter, Pages e63-e83.

■ Irrealis expressions and modality: A response to von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka, by Thomas Grano, Thomas Grano, Grayson Ziegler, Pages e84-e93.

■ Response to Grano et al., by Kilu von Prince, Kilu von Prince, Pages e94-e98.

■ Discourse-pragmatic variation and change: Theory, innovations, contact ed. by Elizabeth Peterson, Turo Hiltunen and Joseph Kern (review), by Elizabeth Closs TraugottElizabeth Closs Traugott, Pages 372-376.

■ How to talk language science with everybody by Laura Wagner and Cecile McKee (review), by Lauren GawneLauren Gawne, Pages 376-378.

摘要

Extraction asymmetries show that type A coordination is adjunction

Ad Neeleman, University College London

Misako Tanaka, University College London

Abstract Ross (1967) observed that the coordinate structure constraint can be violated in certain semantically asymmetric structures. In this article we consider one of these structures, namely type A coordination, in detail (the terminology is from Lakoff 1986; an example is Here's the whisky I went to the store and bought). We present experimental evidence showing that the pattern of argument and adjunct extraction from type A coordinate structures matches the pattern of argument and adjunct extraction from structures containing rationale clauses in all crucial respects. This near-perfect parallel behavior suggests that, like rationale clauses, the second conjunct in a type A coordination is an adjunct (see also Brown 2017). We explore the consequences of this finding for both interpretive and syntactic analyses of asymmetric coordination.

On phrasal nominalization: A factorial analysis

Frank Van Eynde, University of Leuven

Abstract The phenomenon of phrasal nominalization, as exemplified by the English gerund, raises a challenge for the assumption that a phrase XP is headed by a word of category X. Many proposals have been made to deal with phrasal nominalization, in both multistratal and monostratal frameworks. Some seek to fit it in the endocentric mold; others are plainly exocentric. Comparative evaluations tend to be made along partisan lines (multistratal vs. monostratal) or on the basis of methodological principles (discarding vs. allowing exocentricity). This article aims for a less aprioristic approach, taking generalizability as a criterion for evaluation. More specifically, it investigates three types of phrasal nominalization as they manifest themselves in Dutch, that is, the nominalization of infinitives, adjectives, and participles, providing first a theory-neutral description of the data and then an analysis I call 'factorial' in the sense that it captures both what the three types have in common and what differentiates them. It is cast in the framework of constructional head-driven phrase structure grammar, since the latter's hierarchy of phrase types provides a natural starting point for a factorial analysis. The resulting treatment is exocentric. In a final step I compare it to a number of endocentric alternatives, showing that it scores higher on the scale of generalizability.

Verbs of perception: A quantitative typological study

Elisabeth Norcliffe, University of Oxford

Asifa Majid, University of Oxford

Abstract Previous studies have proposed that the lexicalization of perception verbs is constrained by a biologically grounded hierarchy of the senses. Other research traditions emphasize conceptual and communicative factors instead. Drawing on a balanced sample of perception verb lexicons in 100 languages, we found that vision tends to be lexicalized with a dedicated verb, but that nonvisual modalities do not conform to the predictions of the sense-modality hierarchy. We also found strong asymmetries in which sensory meanings colexify. Rather than a universal hierarchy of the senses, we suggest that two domain-general constraints—conceptual similarity and communicative need—interact to shape lexicalization patterns.*

Laryngeal contrast and sound change: The production and perception of plosive voicing and co-intrinsic pitch

Jiayin Gao, University of Edinburgh

James Kirby, University of Edinburgh

Abstract Inspired by Beddor 2009, this article explores whether and how trading relations between coarticulatory source and effect may serve as a precursor for sound change. It aims at extending the case of vowel nasalization examined by Beddor to the relationship between closure voicing (source) and co-intrinsic pitch (effect). Through four production and perception studies, we show that the inverse source-effect relation observed for vowel nasalization is not found in the voicing contrast of French, a true-voicing language. Instead, we propose that the phonologization of co-intrinsic pitch (a.k.a. tonogenesis) originates from spontaneous devoicing (a production bias), which subsequently triggers an upweighting of pitch (a perceptual adaptation strategy).*

Why a linguistic society?

Leonard Bloomfield, Ohio State University

Abstract Students of language do not need to ask Why a linguistic society? but many laymen have asked this question. The answer, to be sure, lies really in our work and in its results; but, for this very reason, it is desirable that our motives be understood. The immediate answer is simple: of course, we seek the possibility of meeting and knowing each other. In our country are scholars who for a generation or more have worked in linguistics and have never met; some of them saw each other for the first time at our initial meeting on December 28th. For ourselves this is answer enough, but for the layman it is no answer at all, and leads him only to restate his question: Why should So-and-so want to meet So-and-so? and What have you, after all, in common? and Why will not the existing societies, Philological, Oriental, Modern Language, Anthropological, Psychological, and what not, serve you as meeting-places? The layman—natural scientist, philologian, or man in the street—does not know that there is a science of language.

Celebrating the LSA centennial in Language: Commentary on Bloomfield 1925

Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University

Sarah Grey Thomason, University of Michigan

Abstract The year 2024 marks the Linguistic Society of America's centennial, dating from the founding of the Society at its first meeting, 28 December 1924, at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Work on the LSA's journal, Language, began in 1924 as well, since a Committee on Publications was constituted at that meeting, with the express purpose, as reported in the Proceedings of that meeting, of overseeing 'a regular independent publication, either quarterly or annually'.1 Thus, although the first issue of the journal appeared in March of 1925, it is appropriate to also celebrate the journal's centennial in 2024. Accordingly, the LSA's Centennial Planning Committee decided to do something special with the journal's 100th and 101st volumes: those eight issues of Language will include, in addition to the usual mix of original articles and book reviews, important articles from the past, one (or two, in some instances) from each decade since 1924—the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so on, excluding the current still-emerging decade. Each reprinted article will be accompanied by a commentary that situates the paper in its own time and place and assesses its significance then and (in many cases) now. To fit all of the decades into eight issues of the journal, a few issues will have more than one reprinted article. Moreover, the first decade has more than one entry: the present issue, 100(1), contains, in addition to a reprinted research article from the 1920s (Boas 1929), Leonard Bloomfield's 1925 article 'Why a linguistic society?', which appeared in Language 1(1).1–5. This article, the journal's very first, is included because of its status as the Society's foundational publication.2

Classification of American Indian languages

Franz Boas, Columbia University

Abstract The author points out cases in which contiguous languages, though different in structure and vocabulary, exhibit in common striking morphologic peculiarities that must have spread by borrowing from language to language. A simple genealogical classification cannot therefore adequately represent the development, but 'hybridization' must also be taken into account.

On classification, language, and American Indian scholarship: Commentary on Boas 1929

Barbra A. Meek, University of Michigan

Abstract Reflecting on the intersection of the fields of American Indian languages and linguistic anthropology through Franz Boas's brief 1929 commentary on one of the conundrums of language classification, a conundrum captured by his phrase 'hybridization',2 I am reminded of many of the challenges underscoring the relationship between the field of linguistics and Indigenous communities. Grounded in a history of colonization, Boas's piece, 'Classification of American Indian languages', neither directly names colonizing projects of forced removal nor calls out the active efforts of assimilation into and through English. In this piece, Boas remained first and foremost interested in the structural elements of languages and in the curiously similar grammatical patterns and phonological processes (presence and absence of vocalic harmony, for example) found across unrelated, though geographically contiguous, languages. While his conclusion resonates with contemporary Indigenous language research—'we have to recognize that many of the languages have multiple roots' (p. 7)—his articulation of the problem, that is, accounting for grammatical similarities across unrelated languages, suggests an approach that requires attention to both Indigenous narrative and discourse, but pointedly does not elaborate upon this in the overarching concern with 'roots' (or origins). That is, the concern remains rooted in discerning 'firstness' (as in first peoples and first colonies) and presupposing 'lastness' (as in last American Indians;3 Davis 2016, O'Brien 2010).

Before their very eyes: Enhancing the (pre)literacy skills of deaf children

Melissa Curran, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine

Gene Mirus, Gallaudet University

Donna Jo Napoli, Swarthmore College

Abstract The challenge of supporting literacy among deaf children is as much linguistic as educational, since a major stumbling block can be the lack of a firm first language foundation. It is critical to meet this challenge, given the range of serious negative correlates to illiteracy. Students on the campuses of Gallaudet University and Swarthmore College collaborate to address this issue in an inter-institutional course in which we make bimodal-bilingual videobooks designed for enjoyable shared reading activities between deaf children and their caretakers. These videobooks bring a good signing model into the home and help develop a range of essential preliteracy skills.

Verbal classifiers from a crosslinguistic and cross-modal point of view

Kadir Gökgöz, Bogazici University

Abstract Whether spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes are comparable enough to be treated similarly is a subject of debate in the literature. In this article, I first show that both spoken language verbal classifiers and sign language classifier handshapes cross-reference the internal argument in intransitive and transitive clauses. Despite differences in the modality of expression (visual-gestural vs. auditory-oral), verbal classifiers end up accomplishing this same kind of work in the grammar, which falls under absolutive alignment. From a morphosyntactic point of view, however, there is more to the story, as data from body-part classifiers reveal. I show that Turkish Sign Language (TİD) is similar to Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee with regard to classifiers cross-referencing the external or internal argument’s body part. While some of this falls outside of absolutive alignment because cross-reference is to the external argument, I show that the syntactic distributions of clauses with body-part classifiers in both modalities can be accounted for with a few modifications to recent morphosyntactic proposals originally offered for sign languages. This supports the conclusion that verbal classifiers are comparable across modalities. Along the way, I refine Benedicto and Brentari’s (2004) account and propose that there are building blocks (selected fingers and hand-parts) in the morphophonology of TİD that combine to yield the range of classifiers that researchers hitherto have tended to describe with holistic labels. Namely, all classifier types in sign languages (whole entity, handling, and body part) employ selected fingers that cross-reference the internal argument in some way, similarly to how many spoken language verbal classifiers cross-reference internal arguments. Furthermore, handling and body-part classifiers make use of hand-parts that can cross-reference the body part of the external argument. Similarities between the spoken languages Manam, Diegueño, and Cherokee and the sign language TİD in cross-referencing the body part of an argument in syntax become clear, and the morphophonological patterns of hand-parts also reveal handling and body-part classifiers in sign languages to be more similar than previously thought.*

Key words Turkish Sign Language, Waris, Manam, Cherokee, Diegueño, classifiers, typology, modality

Gender assignment is local: On the relation between grammatical gender and inalienable possession

Luke James Adamson, Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft

Abstract The grammatical gender of a noun can be sensitive to a number of different factors, including the noun’s lexical semantics, nominalizing morphology, or arbitrary requirements imposed by particular roots (e.g. Corbett 1991, Kramer 2020), though the limits on possible factors are not currently understood, with some work proposing that a noun’s gender can even be valued ‘at a distance’ via agreement with other nominals. The current study explores the understudied phenomenon of gender-possession interactions (Evans 1994), investigating whether being possessed, or being possessable, can have an impact on which gender a noun is assigned. Evidence is provided from four unrelated languages supporting the existence of such interactions. Strikingly, however, these interactions are restricted to inalienable possession; no such interactions have been identified for alienable possession. I propose that this falls out from a general gender locality hypothesis (GLH), which restricts the domain of gender assignment within a phrase nP. The GLH captures the gender asymmetry between ‘local’, inalienable possessors introduced within nP and ‘nonlocal’, alienable possessors introduced outside of nP, for example, in a phrase PossP (Alexiadou 2003, Myler 2016). The GLH also makes further predictions for other features with respect to what may or may not factor into gender assignment, severely restricting or outright prohibiting gender-assignment effects from number, definiteness, and case. Broadly, the work expands our understanding of which types of elements can be relevant to gender assignment and sheds light on underexplored gender-, possession-, and agreement-related phenomena.*

Key words grammatical gender, gender assignment, possession, alienability, morphology, syntax

Variability, overlap, and cue trading in intonation

Amalia Arvaniti, Radboud University

Argyro Katsika, University of California

Na Hu, Santa Barbara

Abstract We modeled the Greek H*, L+H*, and H*+L pitch accents using functional principal component analysis, followed by statistical modeling and curve reconstruction. The accents were distinguished by F0 height and shape. The data also exhibited cue trading between F0 and duration, as well as systematic context-driven variation and general variability, which led to category overlap comparable to that reported for vowel contrasts. These findings indicate that intonation categories are more similar to segmental categories than previously thought, supporting the view that the study of intonation phonetics and phonology should follow the same principles as the study of segments.*

Key words intonation, variability, variation, F0, functional principal component analysis, cue trading, category overlap

When bases compete: A voting model of lexical conservatism

Canaan Breiss, University of Southem California

Abstract This article examines lexical conservatism (Steriade 1997), a phenomenon whereby the distribution of stem allomorphs in a morphological paradigm influences the way that paradigm accommodates derived members. Specifically, a phonological alternation applies in a derived member only if an existing form is present elsewhere in the paradigm that offers the needed phonological material. Thus illústrable undergoes stress shift because the existing word illústrative contains the illústr- stem allomorph. In contrast, *irrígable is judged worse than írrigable, since there is no existing form in *irríg-. In four experiments with speakers of English and Mexican Spanish, I demonstrate that this dependency between paradigm structure and application of phonological processes generalizes to entirely novel words in a probabilistic manner. Further, I find that a broad range of stem allomorphs in a paradigm play a role in determining the form of the novel word, rather than only those that could reduce the markedness of the novel form, contra previous studies. I propose a novel grammatical model where bases get to ‘vote’ on the shape of the novel form: all stem allomorphs in a lexical entry stand in a correspondence relation to the novel form and exert their influence via multiple faithfulness constraints, which compete with standard markedness constraints in a probabilistic phonological grammar.

The phonemic principle

Morris Swadesh, Yale University

Abstract As basic as the phonemic principle is to linguistic science, it is only quite recently that it has had the serious attention of linguists. In studying the phonemes of Chitimacha (an Indian language of Louisiana) I knew of no single source from which I could learn to understand all the phenomena that I observed. There seemed to be a need for an adequate and complete exposition of the phonemic principle including, especially, an account of how it applies to the more marginal and difficult types of phenomena. I at first intended to include this discussion in my paper on the Chitimacha phonemes, but the wider interest of the general discussion makes it more appropriate that it be published separately. The specific treatment of Chitimacha, which can now appear without theoretical digressions, will serve to illustrate many of the points discussed here. I do not attempt to cite previous authors1 on all of the points treated in this paper, though I recognize fully my dependence on them. On a few points my treatment attempts to avoid weaknesses in previous treatments, and a point or two are perhaps introduced here for the first time. However, the chief ideals of this paper are theoretical comprehensiveness, consistency of treatment, and brevity.

Morris Swadesh (1934), ‘The phonemic principle’

Stephen R. Anderson, Yale University

Abstract The article being reprinted in this issue, Swadesh 1934a (initially a paper presented at the December 1933 annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America), is generally considered one of the foundational works in the development of the American theory of the phoneme. Joos (1957:37) describes its significance thus: At this time the only Americans who had a fair chance to learn linguistic method were apprentices under one of the few leaders in anthropological linguistics: there were no textbooks. The appearance of this paper by one of [Edward] Sapir’s most noted pupils therefore meant a very great advance in public knowledge of its subject. Somewhat more anodyne than most of Joos’s (1957) comments, this evaluates Swadesh’s contribution as an apt and concise summary of existing knowledge of phonemic theory at the time. While the article certainly served this purpose, we shall see that its contribution to the field went beyond that.

What I say, or how I say it? Ethnic accents and hiring evaluations in the Greater Toronto Area

Samantha Jackson, University of Toronto Mississauga

Derek Denis, University of Toronto Mississauga

Abstract This study investigated accent bias against job applicants with extralocal (non-Canadian) English accents in the Greater Toronto Area. Verbal guises recorded by British, Chinese, German, Indian, Jamaican, and Nigerian women and by Canadian women with at least one parent from these countries were evaluated by forty-eight human resources students, who rated the content of job interview responses and the candidates’ ‘expression’ and ‘employability’, determined what job they should be interviewed for, and provided commentary. Canadian voices were especially privileged in comments on speech. Quantitative analysis of responses reflected bias against extralocal voices. Consequently, we provide recommendations for relevant stakeholders.*

Key words linguistic discrimination, discrimination policy, immigrant experience, hiring, Toronto, accent

Developing linguistics educators: A qualitative study of graduate linguist professional development

Allison Taylor-Adams, University of Oregon

Kaylynn Gunter, Independent researcher

Abstract In this article, we report on findings from an ongoing study of graduate students in linguistics regarding the approaches they take to develop as professional educators and how faculty and programs in linguistics can better support graduate student teaching professionalization. In focus groups with current linguistics graduate students, we identified three key themes: formal institutional training, mentor relationships (i.e. instructor and TA relationships), and peer relationships. Mentor relationships provide students with a range of experiences and degrees of support across faculty, which influences how they develop as educators. Peer socialization is also a critical component of growth and well-being, providing graduate student teachers with both practical guidance and ongoing emotional support. We illustrate this point with a case study—a weekly teaching journal club for graduate students within our own Linguistics program, which became an important space for pedagogical development. While our results point to graduate student success and resilience through socialization, they also illustrate a common issue of professionalization in academia: students gain professional skills through noninstitutional mechanisms. Teaching professionalization largely falls to the ‘hidden curriculum’, which puts students at a disadvantage, especially those from minoritized backgrounds (Smith 2013). We join other scholars in our field in calling for greater institutionalized mechanisms for professionalization to promote equitable access to vital skills for graduate students (Calhoun 2020). To that end, we conclude by suggesting ways in which faculty and departments can close this gap in graduate training.

Irrealis expressions and modality: A response to von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka

Thomas Grano, Indiana University

Grayson Ziegler, Indiana University

AMANDA BOHNERT, Indiana University

EMILY HANINK, Indiana University

KELLY H.BERKSON, Indiana University

SHOBHANA CHELLIAH, Indiana University

Abstract Von Prince, Krajinović, and Krifka (2022) argue that irrealis is a crosslinguistically legitimate semantic category, and they define it in terms of a domain encompassing both future possibility and counterfactuality. In this response, we argue that this definition is too narrow, because it excludes past and present possibility and necessity. We suggest instead that the correct characterization is that irrealis expressions correlate with quantification over possible worlds—or in simpler terms, with modality. We then ask a compositional question: do irrealis expressions signal the presence of modality contributed by other morphemes in the clause, or do they contribute modality themselves? Based on a comparison between the languages in von Prince et al.’s sample and preliminary data from Lutuv (Lautu) Chin (South Central Tibeto-Burman, formerly called Kuki-Chin), we suggest that the answer to this question may vary from one language to the next, thereby contributing to a richer picture of how modal meaning is reflected and encoded crosslinguistically.

Key words 

Response to Grano et al.

Kilu von Prince, Heinrich-Heine-Universitat

Abstract Grano et al. (2024, henceforth Grano et al.) present original data from Lutuv in order to explore the relationship of the irrealis category to notions of possibility and necessity. They make the following argument: possibilities and necessities of the past and the present can indeed involve quantification over both the actual and the counterfactual branches. Markers of typical irrealis contexts (future and counterfactual domains) are often found in expressions of necessity and possibility of the past and present. Grano et al. conclude that any statement that includes a reference to any index of the irrealis domain should qualify as an irrealis statement, even if the tense-aspect-mood (TAM) marker involved also includes a reference to actual indices.

Discourse-pragmatic variation and change: Theory, innovations, contact ed. by Elizabeth Peterson, Turo Hiltunen and Joseph Kern (review)

Elizabeth Closs Traugott, University of California at Berkeley

Abstract This edited volume showcases contemporary research on pragmatic variables above the level of the phoneme. The book begins with a foreword by Jan-Ola Östman that situates the papers in a tradition of interactional sociolinguistics that emerged in the mid-1970s and has flourished in the Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change (DiPVaC) research network. This is followed by an Introduction by the editors, who outline the focus of the volume, discuss intertwining links among the papers, and emphasize the importance of the interdisciplinary perspective taken.

How to talk language science with everybody by Laura Wagner and Cecile McKee (review)

Lauren Gawne, La Trobe University

Abstract Communicating about linguistics to nonspecialist audiences (lingcomm) is a specialist skill set in its own right. Equipping more linguists with these skills is vital if linguistics is going to stake a claim for its relevance to people’s lives as more than a passing curiosity. Until now, this skill set had to be learned mostly through emulation of existing practitioners, online resources, and informal networks. Thankfully, Laura Wagner (Ohio State University) and Cecile McKee (University of Arizona) have distilled their extensive experience running lingcomm activities and events into a clear and practical book. How to talk language science with everyone illustrates the best of lingcomm practice; it is informed by linguistic research as well as by insights from related fields, including psychology, education, and anthropology. It also illustrates the best of the lingcomm community more broadly; it is accessible to those new to the practice, encouraging in tone, and passionate about introducing more people to how great linguistics is (a fact taken as given in this book). I served with Laura Wagner on the organizing committee for the 2023 International Conference on Linguistics Communication. I note this by way of disclosure, but also to acknowledge that this book exemplifies Laura’s commitment to lingcomm and captures her earnest, supportive, and energetic approach. I read a physical copy of this book, and I am glad that Cambridge University Press is publishing it as a more affordable paperback, which should hopefully help it find its way into the hands of aspiring lingcommers.

期刊简介

Language, a journal of the Linguistic Society of America, is published quarterly and contains articles, short reports, and book reviews on all aspects of linguistics, focusing on the area of theoretical linguistics. Since 2013, Language features online content in addition to the print edition, including supplemental materials and articles presented in various sections: Teaching Linguistics; Language and Public Policy; Commentaries; Research Reports; and Perspectives. Language has been the primary literary vehicle for the Society since 1924.

《语言》是美国语言学会的期刊，每季度出版一次，包含关于语言学各个方面的文章、短篇报告和书评，重点关注理论语言学领域。自2013年以来，《语言》除了印刷版外，还提供在线内容，包括补充材料以及在不同栏目中呈现的文章：语言学教学、语言与公共政策、评论、研究报告和视角。《语言》自1924年以来一直是该学会的主要学术出版物。

官网地址：

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/24/journal/112

推  荐

今日小编：有     常

审     核：心得小蔓

转载&合作请联系