File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Things people speak?: A response to Orman's 'Linguistic diversity and language loss: A view from integrational linguistics' with rejoinder

TitleThings people speak?: A response to Orman's 'Linguistic diversity and language loss: A view from integrational linguistics' with rejoinder
Authors
KeywordsIntegrational linguistics
Ecolinguistics
Ways of speaking
Norf'k
Linguistic diversity
Language loss
Issue Date2013
Citation
Language Sciences, 2013, v. 41, n. PB, p. 222-226 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article is presented in two parts. The first is a response to Orman's integrationist critique of orthodox theorising of linguistic diversity and language loss. It asks how integrationist claims might be empiricised and translated into a practical research programme. A discussion of the ontology of Norf'k and the pitfalls of employing metalinguistic terminology is followed by the second part: an argument claiming an integrationist investigation of language loss/death is possible if conceived as a lay-oriented enquiry. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/219725
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.79
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.377

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorNash, Joshua-
dc.contributor.authorOrman, Jon-
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-23T02:57:49Z-
dc.date.available2015-09-23T02:57:49Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationLanguage Sciences, 2013, v. 41, n. PB, p. 222-226-
dc.identifier.issn0388-0001-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/219725-
dc.description.abstractThis article is presented in two parts. The first is a response to Orman's integrationist critique of orthodox theorising of linguistic diversity and language loss. It asks how integrationist claims might be empiricised and translated into a practical research programme. A discussion of the ontology of Norf'k and the pitfalls of employing metalinguistic terminology is followed by the second part: an argument claiming an integrationist investigation of language loss/death is possible if conceived as a lay-oriented enquiry. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofLanguage Sciences-
dc.subjectIntegrational linguistics-
dc.subjectEcolinguistics-
dc.subjectWays of speaking-
dc.subjectNorf'k-
dc.subjectLinguistic diversity-
dc.subjectLanguage loss-
dc.titleThings people speak?: A response to Orman's 'Linguistic diversity and language loss: A view from integrational linguistics' with rejoinder-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.langsci.2013.09.001-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84887532200-
dc.identifier.volume41-
dc.identifier.issuePB-
dc.identifier.spage222-
dc.identifier.epage226-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats