REPRESENTATION OF THE USA IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPERIALISM IN THE PROPAGANDA POSTERS PUBLISHED IN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

A negative process started in Sino-USA relations after establishing the People's Republic of China (PRC), PRC made policies against the USA, which it accused of being imperialist. Tensions between China and the USA led to the presentation of the USA to the masses as an imperialist country and the national enemy of Chinese people in Chinese media. The study tried to reveal how the USA was presented to the masses and through which messages it was built as an enemy country in the context of imperialism in anti-US posters in China. For this purpose, 8 posters determined within the scope of the study were analyzed in the light of the German linguist Karl Bühler's Organon Model, using the semiotic analysis method. As a result of the study, it was claimed in the posters that the USA had imperialist goals and led to war to achieve these goals. For this reason, the message that the imperialist aims of the USA posed a threat to both China and world nations, and world nations must act against the USA in order to end the danger posed by the USA was given. Thus, the Chinese administration tried to legitimize the anti-USA policies implemented during the Cold War.

Diez, Meyer-Lübke, and Co. The Founding of Romance Linguistics

The study of Romance linguistics was born in the 19th-century German university, and like all linguistics of that era it is historical in nature. With respect to Indo-European and Germanic linguistics, a difference was immediately apparent: Unlike Indo-European and Common Germanic, Latin’s attestation is extensive in duration, as well as rich and varied: Romance linguists can thus make use of reconstruction as well as documentation. Friedrich Diez, author of the first historical grammar and first etymological dictionary on Romance languages, founded Romance linguistics. His studies singlehandedly constructed the foundations of the discipline. His teaching soon spread not only across German-speaking countries, but also into France and Italy. Subsequently, the most significant contributions came from two scholars trained in the Indo-European field: the German linguist Hugo Schuchardt, whose doctoral thesis studied with sharp theoretical awareness the passage from Latin to the Romance languages, and the Italian Graziadio Isaia Ascoli, who showed how the Romance panorama could be extraordinarily enriched by the analysis of nonstandard varieties. The discipline thus developed fully and radiated out. Great issues came to be debated: models of linguistic change (genealogical tree, wave), the possibility of distinguishing dialect groups, the relative weight of phonology, and semantics in lexical reconstruction. New disciplines such as linguistic geography were born, and new instruments like the linguistic atlas were forged. Romance linguistics thus became the avant-garde of general linguistics. Meanwhile, a new synthesis of the discipline had been created by a Swiss scholar, Wilhelm Meyer-Lübke, who published a historical grammar and an etymological dictionary of the Romance languages.

Admiral Shishkov, General Akhverdov, Major Shchulepnikov and «Russian Grammar» by J. S. Vater

The article is devoted to the history of writing «Russian Grammar» by the famous German linguist J. S. Vater. It analyzes the peculiarities of his scientific activity and the prerequisites for the appearance of his Russian Grammar from the standpoint of narrative linguistic historiography. Modern narrative linguistic historiography pays particular attention to the periods right before the appearance of new linguistic paradigms. Such was the period of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when the main experts on the Russian language in the Russian Empire, for various reasons, were Germans, and Russian grammars written by German authors became the most common Russian language textbooks.J. S. Vater is known in the history of linguistics not only as a disciple and successor of J. C. Adelung, but also as one of the founders of Slavic studies, the author of «Practical Grammar of the Russian Language» and «The Book for Reading in the Russian Language». The appearance of J. S. Vater's works was associated with such Russian military and political figures as A. S. Shishkov, N. I. Akhverdov and M. S. Schulepnikov, who also contributed to the development of Russian culture and Russian linguistics, as well as with his teacher's nephew F. P. Adelung. J. S. Vater published his very first grammar of the Russian language in 1808 in Leipzig. In this work, he relied on the «Russian grammar for Germans» published in Moscow in 1789 by J. Heym, professor of the Faculty of Linguistics at Moscow University

Przemilczana rocznica. Czterechsetlecie wydania Memoriału frankfurckiego

In 1613, the German linguist Wolfgang Ratke presented to the parliament assumptions, which later became the basis for the development of the system of teaching. Pioneering the views of the organizations concerned by the learning process. He drew attention to the need for education in accordance stages of human development, called for education in the national language. The foundations of teaching principles gradation of difficulty. His views were not initially accepted mino positive reviews J. Jung and K. Helwig, who expressed appreciation for the progressive thinking of Wolfgang Ratke. It took 400 years from the moment the first time the name was used teaching. The analysis of available sources indicates that contemporary educators did not pay the anniversary of interest.

Blocking

Blocking can be defined as the non-occurrence of some linguistic form, whose existence could be expected on general grounds, due to the existence of a rival form. *Oxes, for example, is blocked by oxen, *stealer by thief. Although blocking is closely associated with morphology, in reality the competing “forms” can not only be morphemes or words, but can also be syntactic units. In German, for example, the compound Rotwein ‘red wine’ blocks the phrasal unit *roter Wein (in the relevant sense), just as the phrasal unit rote Rübe ‘beetroot; lit. red beet’ blocks the compound *Rotrübe. In these examples, one crucial factor determining blocking is synonymy; speakers apparently have a deep-rooted presumption against synonyms. Whether homonymy can also lead to a similar avoidance strategy, is still controversial. But even if homonymy blocking exists, it certainly is much less systematic than synonymy blocking. In all the examples mentioned above, it is a word stored in the mental lexicon that blocks a rival formation. However, besides such cases of lexical blocking, one can observe blocking among productive patterns. Dutch has three suffixes for deriving agent nouns from verbal bases, -er, -der, and -aar. Of these three suffixes, the first one is the default choice, while -der and -aar are chosen in very specific phonological environments: as Geert Booij describes in The Morphology of Dutch (2002), “the suffix -aar occurs after stems ending in a coronal sonorant consonant preceded by schwa, and -der occurs after stems ending in /r/” (p. 122). Contrary to lexical blocking, the effect of this kind of pattern blocking does not depend on words stored in the mental lexicon and their token frequency but on abstract features (in the case at hand, phonological features). Blocking was first recognized by the Indian grammarian Pāṇini in the 5th or 4th century bc, when he stated that of two competing rules, the more restricted one had precedence. In the 1960s, this insight was revived by generative grammarians under the name “Elsewhere Principle,” which is still used in several grammatical theories (Distributed Morphology and Paradigm Function Morphology, among others). Alternatively, other theories, which go back to the German linguist Hermann Paul, have tackled the phenomenon on the basis of the mental lexicon. The great advantage of this latter approach is that it can account, in a natural way, for the crucial role played by frequency. Frequency is also crucial in the most promising theory, so-called statistical pre-emption, of how blocking can be learned.

Tracing the Roots of Cognitive Linguistics in Hermann Paul’s “Principles of the History of Language”

The paper examines the impact of Hermann Paul’s ideas on the development of anthropocentric cognitive linguistics in Russia and Europe. The anthropocentric and pragmatic approaches to the study of language, related, in particular, to the consideration of language as “the language of the individual” and a product of personal experience, were formulated by the German linguist Hermann Paul (1846-1921) in his Principles of the History of Language (1920). In this important work, Paul argues that language development is driven by subjective, psychological factors, acknowledging the Man’s central role in the learning process (anthropocentrism). Viewing Paul’s position from the vantage point of modern linguistics, the article seeks to establish the rightness of the cognitive school in linguistics, provides a brief overview of Paul’s key ideas and concludes that he anticipated and formulated the main principles of the cognitive approach to language, namely: language as a product of individual experience, the role of individual notions in forming a word’s meaning, analogy as a mechanism of language acquisition, metaphor as a mechanism of learning and the connection of language with other mental processes.

A Mid-18th-Century Use of [ə], [ɔ], and [ʞ] as Phonetic Symbols

According to Sweet, the German linguist Johann Andreas Schmeller was the first to use [ə] as a phonetic symbol (Sweet 1877: 175). (Although Sweet gives no bibliographical reference, the work he must have had in mind was Schmeller's Die Mundarten Bayerns of 1821; cf. also Ellis 1874: 1357.) Schmeller uses [ə] for the ‘dumpfe Vocallaut’ in words like Semmel, Nennen, Wetter, and for the second element of various diphthongs, e.g. in dialectal pronunciations of Not(h), Bruder, etc. (Schmeller 1821: 25, 72, 141, and passim). According to Abercrombie (1946), an earlier use of [ə] than Schmeller's is to be found in William Thornton's Cadmus of 1793, for the vowel in run, come, etc. However, neither the original nor the reprint of Cadmus uses a [ə], but the symbol [ℶ].

Art. V.—Contributions to the Knowledge of Parsee Literature.

On comparing with one another the two most ancient periods of development of the Iranian mind, in language as well as in literature,—that primitive one, whose witness is the Avesta, with the period of renaissance under Sasanian rule,— we find at once this striking difference, that the former is purely national and Iranian, almost wholly free from any foreign influence, whilst the latter, as it appears in the Pahlavi translations and the inscriptions of the Sasanian kings, is overwhelmed by foreign, Semitic, or more accurately speaking, Aramæan elements. The difficulties in explaining the pure Persian substratum of the language of this latter period, for even here not every problem has yet been solved, are by no means to be compared with those offered by the Semitic forms and words, which appear to the Indo-german linguist utterly unknown, to the Semitic scholar more than strange. Though a great quantity of highly valuable material has already been collected and digested by European scholars, still I do not think it sufficient to enable us to decide in a satisfactory manner the following questions:—During what time did that close intercourse between the Iranian and Semitic races take place, the existence of which we are compelled to assume as the source of the Semitic portion of the Pahlavi language? Of what kind was this intercourse? And with which of the Aramæan nations in particular? The same questions demand an answer, in order to explain the numerous Iranian words which occur in the literature of the Babylonian Jews, in Syriac, in the Koran, and the most ancient Arabic poems.