This paper investigates the syntactic distribution and semantic interpretation of the plural marker tsho in Lhasa Tibetan, a topic that has received little attention in the literature. Based on evidence from native-speaker elicitation and previous research, the study argues that tsho should be analyzed as two distinct plural markers, labelled tsho & sup1; and tsho & sup2;. The two forms differ systematically in their distributional and semantic properties: tsho & sup1; attaches to human common nouns, is incompatible with numerals and inanimate nouns, and conveys weak definiteness; whereas tsho & sup2; occurs with demonstratives and personal pronouns, is compatible with numerals and inanimate nouns, and conveys strong definiteness. Building on a previously proposed tripartite model of plural marking, the paper argues that tsho & sup1; is merged in the Counting Projection (#P), while tsho & sup2; is merged within the Determiner Phrase (DP) domain. A cross-linguistic comparison with English plural marker -s and Mandarin men further shows that variation in the syntactic position of plural markers systematically correlates with differences in distribution and interpretation. The findings contribute to a more fine-grained understanding of plurality, referentiality, and nominal structure, and provide new empirical evidence from Lhasa Tibetan for cross-linguistic theories of plural marking.
Research on language maintenance and shift has predominantly focused on post-arrival settlement, generating rich accounts of intergenerational transmission and shift pressures while leaving pre-resettlement ideological work less examined. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with Iraqi refugees in Jordan preparing for resettlement in New Zealand, this article examines how pre-resettlement language ideologies are articulated as participants invoke, enact, extend, and at times contest chronotopic orientations to home-worlds, transit normalcy, return, anticipated settlement, and sacred futures in constructing the value, legitimacy, and future roles of Arabic, Assyrian, and English. It argues that in pre-resettlement discourse, chronotopes operate as moral grounds through which language ideologies are constructed, languages are positioned as legitimate, necessary, or acceptable across domestic, religious, and institutional domains, and their value is projected across layered temporal horizons before arrival.
In the Northern Territory, communication between (mostly non-Indigenous) lawyers and Aboriginal people is notoriously difficult and problematic. In a colonial context of unequal relations between laws and languages, legal services are under-resourced and Aboriginal people are over-criminalized. This study is based on recordings of actual lawyer-client conversations about minor criminal charges. We work together cross-culturally, bringing together different understandings and centring Aboriginal standpoints. We ask what is important about legal communication, what lawyers are doing well and what could change. Of course, people make and understand meaning in context. This study is contextualized by field work in Central Australia. This paper focuses on legal communication in English. Lawyers need to learn how to connect and communicate with Aboriginal people whether or not they work with interpreters. We explore four main examples of miscommunication. We argue that lawyers can connect with Aboriginal clients. Lawyers can focus on meaningful topics, starting with what the client allegedly did - rather than assuming that the topic of the conversation is obvious.
The present paper explores key aspects of the linguistic autonomy and the character, recognition and social embedding of "Standard Canadian English" (StCanE). Only a few studies have hitherto investigated the phenomenon of linguistic attitudes in Canada and have either focussed on impressionistic assessment or on linguistic insecurity among Canadian English (CanE) speakers. The present paper is based on a national questionnaire survey in all Canadian provinces and territories with n = 3,000, offering both quantitative-statistical and qualitative data analyses. Results show, for instance, that roughly one in two respondents knows what StCanE is, while just 13% of respondents are able to offer a definition. Knowledge about the standard is low before the age of 25-29, and it appears that the conceptual work relating to CanE is not carried out sufficiently in high school and elementary school but only at post-secondary level. This is a remarkable feature of CanE, with Canadian schools displaying a kind of laissez-faire attitude in regard to the linguistic standard (e.g. spell one way, but consistently).
