From harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK Mon Dec 1 10:11:15 1997 From: harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK (harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 04:11:15 -0600 Subject: conventional implicature Message-ID: I think Marta's question is one that has not received a terribly satisfying answer in the standard literature because of the traditional identification between 'meaning' and 'descriptive content'. The best approximation to descriptive content that one can find in 'but', i.e. 'contrast-to-expectation' is in some sense defeasible, if examples like 'he didn't succeed, but no-one expected him to' show anything. I like to think that the issue can only be understood if functionalists take their own position seriously enough to believe that coded meaning is functional rather than descriptive. As I see it, 'but' has the function (roughly) of alerting the addressee that what comes next may cancel some 'natural' inferences of the preceding utterance (something like 'hold your horses for a second!'). In this, it contrasts with 'and', which (roughly) signals that what follows collaborates with the preceding context. These coded, conventional functions (=meanings) then collaborate with the context in giving rise to variable, defeasible inferences. In order for those functions to make sense there have to be ways in which the two utterances are contrasting and collaborative, respectively. But this is not claimed, but rather presupposed in using these signals (otherwide they would make no sense), cf. 'he is Republican but honest' etc. Peter Harder, Copenhagen From lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Wed Dec 3 06:47:14 1997 From: lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (George Lakoff) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:47:14 -0800 Subject: conventional implicature? Message-ID: Dear Marta, To understand my response to your question, a bit of history is in order. In the late 1950's and 1960's, there was a split in British analytic philosophy between the ordinary language philosphers (following Austin and Strawson) and the formalist analytic philosophers, mostly followers of Russell. The Russellians claimed that "scientific philosophy" could only be done using symbolic logic, which they claimed characterized reason. The ordinary language philosophers Argued that that ordinary language was fine for doing philosophy and sought to show its regularities. Grice thought both camps were right and that there was a way to keep Russellian logic and also keep the insights of ordinary language philosophers (like himself). Grice's William James Lectures at Harvard in 1967 were titled "Logic and Conversation." I was fortunate enough to be present, since I was teaching linguistics there at the time. Grice's idea was that meaning could be split up into two parts: (1) Symbolic logic as Russellian had described it, including his classical theory of descriptions; logic was to characterize logical inferences. (2) Principles of conversation (conversational implicatures) that were to characerize other, nonlogical inferences which (so Grice claimed) arose when language was used in conversational context. Grice called them called "implicatures" to distinguish them from "implications." (1) was to define semantics; (2) was to characterize an major aspect of pragmatics. At this point, the history of manuscript of Grice's Harvard lectures becomes important. He refused to publish the lectures for two decades. I managed to distribute, through the linguistic underground in the 1960's and 70's, about 1,000 photocopies of the full book manuscript.Most of the most prominent people who have written on the subject-Steven Levinson, Georgia Green, Larry Horn, and so on-got into the subject during that period and had access to the full manuscript. The most popular version of Grice's ideas were distributed in a chapter of Logic and Conversation in Cole and Morgan's "Speech Acts" volume, which Grice has refused to publish until he got drunk at a party in 1973 at a conference in Austin. I suggested to Cole that he have a contract ready, which he did, and Grice signed on the dotted line. The entire manuscript has since been published in Studies in The Ways of Words, Harvard University Press, 1989. But there was a big gap between 1975 (when the chapter in Cole and Morgan appeared) and 1989 when the whole manuscript appeared (to little fanfare; it was largely ignored). Grice's maxims entered the published linguistic literature without their context. If you read the entire manuscript, it becomes clear that Grice's aim is very conservative: to preserve Russell's outmoded theory of symbolic logic in the face of the counterexamples presented by the ordinary language philosophers. One of those counterexamples had to do with presuppositions, brought to the fore by Strawson in the 1950's and put into logic in nonRussellian terms by Bas Van Fraassen in 1968. Grice tried bravely to preserve Russell's theory of descriptions, but he got seriously hung up on a real linguistic phenomenon: lexical presupposition. Grice discussed only one example: "but." He brought up "but" because it was a sentence connective that did not work according to Russell's theory. Russellians translated it into symbolic logic as "and". But "but" does not mean "and" and Grice knew it! (The previous sentence is an example of why.) Grice's only way to deal with cases outside of Russellian logic was his four types of implicature. But "but" did not fit any of them. Moreover, the counter-to-expectation pragmatics of "but" was not a feature of conversational context, but was part of the the conventional meaning of the word. This did not fit the neoRussellian paradigm, since the meanings of words were supposed to be in the realm of semantics, not pragmatics. So Grice resorted to what can best be referred to as a "fudge" or a "kludge," that is, an adhoc nonsolution: conventional implicature. This was a name for a problem that, strictly speaking, did not fit the theory Grice was proposing. What "conventional implicature" does is break the conventional meaning of "but" into two parts: a logical part that means "and" (so it will fit Russell's theory) and a pragmatic part that has the counter-to-expectation meaning. Since this pragmatic part is not detachable in context, as implicatures are supposed to be, it is called a "conventional implicature" and conventionally associated with the word "but". The move was made strictly to preserve Russellian logic. The reason that generative semanticists got involved with the Gricean program in 1967 and in successive years is that we too were trying to keep a version of formal logic for semantics, while trying to deal with the real facts of language, which included an enormous amounted of pragmatics. By 1969, a huge range of presuppositional phenomena, both grammatical and lexical, has been discovered by linguists, and now, almost thirty years later, the range is astronomical. Some linguists are still trying to keep to a theory in which semantics is characterized by formal semantics and pragmatics is done by different, conversational principles. Many of those scholars are still trying to make sense of a Gricean notion of "conventional implicature." Those of us who gave up on that paradigm long ago (or never had it) simply study presuppositional and other pragmatic phenomena as part of cognitive and/or functional linguistics. For us, the notion "conventional implicature" is an odd anachronism, a holdover from analytic philosophy of the 60's. But for those still trying to carry out a neoGricean program, the term is very much alive. I hope this helps. George Lakoff > Dear 'funknetters': > > I am a teacher of linguistics at the Universidad Complutense, >Madrid, and one of my subjects is pragmatics, of which my students are 5th >year undergraduates. Now I am teaching cooperation and implicature, as in >Grice's proposal, and soon I will come across the notion of 'conventional >implicature'. I am beginning to think that what comes under the label >'conventional implicature' (for instance, BUT and HOWEVER carry the >'implicature' that what follows will run counter to expectations) could >well be included in the LEXICAL MEANING of these items, since these >'implicatures' are independent of context and persist in all the uses of >these words. I would appreciate it very much if some of you could send me >messages about your views on this subject. > > Thank you very much in advance. > > >Marta Carretero >Departamento de Filologia Inglesa >Facultad de Filologia - Edificio A >Universidad Complutense >28040 - Madrid. From dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK Thu Dec 11 20:30:00 1997 From: dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK (Dick Hudson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:30:00 +0000 Subject: Conference Message-ID: I've been asked to post this to the Funknet list. RELEVANCE THEORY WORKSHOP 8-10 September 1998, University of Luton, England First Circular and Call for Papers The Second Relevance Theory Workshop aims to bring together those interested in cognitive approaches to communication, in particular (but not exclusively) Relevance Theory. The Workshop will feature refereed and invited papers, including a keynote address by Professor Deirdre Wilson. PAPERS Contributions are invited for papers on the following topics: (1) non-truth-conditional meaning; (2) conceptual and procedural encoding; (3) metarepresentation and interpretive use; (4) the nature of and relation between the distinctions: semantics/pragmatics and explicature/implicature; (5) critiques of Relevance Theory; (6) any other topic dealt with from a relevance theoretic perspective or which has some bearing on Relevance Theory. Papers on topics (1) - (5) will be presented in special topic panels and should be 20 minutes long at most. Other papers will be presented in a general session and will be allocated 40 minutes for presentation and discussion (either 20 + 20, or 30 +10). Complete papers will be distributed in advance of the Workshop in order to increase the chances for useful feedback. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS In order to distribute proceedings in advance, full-length papers are invited rather than the more usual abstracts. Papers may take the form of pre-publication drafts, and should be a MAXIMUM of 6 pages in length, including references and a short (ten line) abstract. Manuscripts should be typed (12 point font), single-spaced, with 1 inch (2.5 cm) margins on all sides, and NO page numbering. THREE copies of the manuscript should be submitted, one with the author's name and two anonymously. Please also include the following information on a seperate sheet: name, address (postal and email if available), affiliation, title of paper, the topic to which your paper relates (see (1) - (6) above), and a contact telephone number. Manuscripts should be submitted to: Dr. Steve Nicolle, Middlesex University, Trent Park, Bramley Road, London N14 4YZ, England DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: 24 APRIL 1998 Contributors will be informed of the status of their paper by the end of May 1998. REGISTRATION Registration forms will be included in the second circular (early 1998). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Second Relevance Theory Workshop is scheduled to take place immediately prior to the Autumn 1998 Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (10-12 September 1998, also at the University of Luton). The LAGB Meeting features a keynote address by Professor Dan Sperber and a workshop on experimental pragmatics. Luton is easily accessible from London and has its own international airport. Conference fees for the Relevance Theory Workshop (including meals) will be approx. 40 pounds stirling. Accommodation (including breakfast) will be approx. 25 pounds stirling per night. For further details, please contact Steve Nicolle at the above address or email: s.nicolle at mdx.ac.uk ============================================================================== Richard (=Dick) Hudson Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT work phone: +171 419 3152; work fax: +171 383 4108 email: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk web-sites: home page = http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm unpublished papers available by ftp = ....uk/home/dick/papers.htm From kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU Thu Dec 11 21:03:06 1997 From: kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU (Suzanne E Kemmer) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:03:06 -0600 Subject: Fellowships for doctoral study Message-ID: CALL FOR FELLOWSHIP APPLICANTS Ph.D. PROGRAM IN LINGUISTICS AT RICE UNIVERSITY The Department of Linguistics at Rice University announces its Ph.D. program in Linguistics (est. 1982), a Faculty Update, and the opening of competition for its graduate fellowships for 1998-99. The doctoral program at Rice emphasizes the study of language use, the the interplay of grammatical form and context, and an empirical, data-rich approach to linguistic investigation. The basic theoretical orientation is functional and cognitive. The department offers excellent training in field studies, particularly of undocumented languages; the study of language change, including grammaticalization; and cognitive linguistics, or the study of language as embedded in cognition. Other faculty research specialties include phonological theory, corpus linguistics, language universals and typology, neurolinguistics, second language acquisition, and applied linguistics. The department hosts an annual distinguished speakers series; recent speakers include: Michael Halliday (Univ. of Sydney), Willem Levelt (Max Planck Institute), Ricardo Maldonado (Autonomous University of Mexico), Michel Paradis (McGill), Elizabeth Traugott (Stanford), and Arie Verhagen (Utrecht Institute of Linguistics). The Biennial Symposium on Language also brings distinguished researchers for close interaction with faculty and graduate students. The Spring 1997 topic was: The Interface between Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization Theory: Languages of the Americas. Invited participants included Wallace Chafe, Tom Givon, Bernd Heine, Terence Kaufman, Marianne Mithun, Aryon Rodriguez, and Alexandra Aikhenvald. FACULTY AND RESEARCH INTERESTS Michel Achard (Ph.D. Linguistics, UC San Diego) Cognitive linguistics, French syntax, second language acquisition. Michael Barlow (Ph.D. Linguistics, Stanford) Associate Director, Center for the Study of Languages. Grammatical theory, corpus linguistics, second language acquisition, language and cognition. James Copeland, Chair (Ph.D. Linguistics, Cornell) Functional linguistics, phonology, Germanic linguistics, grammaticalization, Uto-Aztecan (Tarahumara). Philip W. Davis (Ph.D. Linguistics, Cornell). Semantics and syntax, language and intelligence, language description, Amerindian (Bella Coola; Alabama), Austronesian (Atayal, Ilokano, Yogad). Spike Gildea (Ph.D. Linguistics, University of Oregon) Diachronic syntax, field methods and ethics, phonology, typological/functional linguistics, Amazonian languages. Suzanne Kemmer (Ph.D. Linguistics, Stanford) Language universals and typology, semantics, syntactic and semantic change, cognitive linguistics, Germanic, Nilo-Saharan. Sydney Lamb (Ph.D. Linguistics, UC Berkeley) Director, Cognitive Sciences Interdisciplinary Program. Cognitive linguistics, neurolinguistics, language and thought, Amerindian (Monachi). Douglas Mitchell (Ph.D. Linguistics, UT Austin) Comparative Indo-European linguistics, historical linguistics, early Germanic dialects, history of linguistics, Sanskrit. Stephen A. Tyler, (Ph.D. Anthropology, Stanford) Cognitive studies, philosophy of language, anthropological linguistics, languages of India. **Note: The Department has plans to advertise for an additional faculty position in 1998-99.** FINANCIAL AID Graduate fellowships include tuition, and typically, a cash stipend. Graduate stipends are normally renewable for four years upon satisfactory performance, and candidates can apply for a fifth year of support. (The department is fortunate to have been able so far to support all students it has admitted, through University Fellowships, Presidential Fellowships, Dean's Fellowships, other competitive university-wide Fellowships, and National Science Foundation fellowships.) APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 (January 15 for those applying for Dean's Fellowships.) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Graduate Record Examination and TOEFL (for non-native speakers of English) should be taken in time for scores to be reported by mid-February. See website below for additional application information. WEB SITE: See the departmental web site at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~ling for more information on the program, applications, support, etc. MAILING ADDRESS: Department of Linguistics Rice University P.O. Box 1892 Houston TX 77251-1892 (713) 527-6010 email: ling at ruf.rice.edu From fling11 at EMDUCMS1.SIS.UCM.ES Fri Dec 12 16:49:50 1997 From: fling11 at EMDUCMS1.SIS.UCM.ES (Marta Carretero) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:49:50 +0100 Subject: conventional implicature: summary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Marta Carretero wrote: Before I write the summary, I must thank all those of you who answered my question of whether conventional implicature could be considered, after all, as part of the lexical meaning. I am sorry in advance for not doing justice for all your suggestions, especially concerning Lakoff's and Harder's excellent contributions. For reasons of time, the summary will only pay attention to those contributions sent personally to me. If someone wishes to have access to Harder's or Lakoff's replies, I could forward the messages. > Dear 'funknetters': > > I am a teacher of linguistics at the Universidad Complutense, > Madrid, and one of my subjects is pragmatics, of which my students are 5th > year undergraduates. Now I am teaching cooperation and implicature, as in > Grice's proposal, and soon I will come across the notion of 'conventional > implicature'. I am beginning to think that what comes under the label > 'conventional implicature' (for instance, BUT and HOWEVER carry the > 'implicature' that what follows will run counter to expectations) could > well be included in the LEXICAL MEANING of these items, since these > 'implicatures' are independent of context and persist in all the uses of > these words. I would appreciate it very much if some of you could send me > messages about your views on this subject. > > Thank you very much in advance. > No 1. Yes, that's precisely why Grice clled them *conventional*. The problem is that they do not appear to contribute to the truth-conditional meaning of the sentences din which they occur - this is why he called them *implicatures*. No. 2 Yes, I (mostly) agree. I take the linguistic vs extralinguistic distinction to be the main distinction (rather than the + / - truth functional, which is what informs Grice's distinction between semantic meaning and conventional implicature)... However, cognitively, conventioonal implicatures, or a subset of them, may have a different status. It's probably due to their "late" development out of conversational implicatures. (...) I don't expect a status difference between the meaning of 'because' and 'but', but I believe I have found some distributional differences in Hebrew particles I can trace to that. I am now conducting experiments to find out whether subjects' responses to conventionally implicated meaning and to semantic meaning is different (in speed). No. 3 I think you're certainly right that conventional implicatures are part of the lexical meaning of words like 'but'. However, since Grice there has been some interesting work done on theñm, in particular by D. Blakemore. She points out the limitations of Grice's account (in a sensse all he does is label them rather than explain them). and develops a new account in terms of relevance-theory and, in particular, the relevance-theoretic notion of procedural meaning. No. 4 in my view, that is exactly what conventional implicature means.The only thing is, that the meaning is not part of the truth-functional meaning of the sentence. And that holds, in Grice's view, for 'but' and 'however'. No. 5 ... it must be noted that the semantic dimension of connectors is important. However, the work by Grice and many others has demonstrated the pragmatic character of the connectors. That is, they take their sense by context. No. 6 Your question about Gricean conventional implicature is a very reasonable one, which is usually not asked because researchers have tended to ignore conventional implicature (or to call it something else and ignore its Gricean roots). The problem is that 'implicature' has mainly been used as a shorthand for 'conversational implicature', and thus has become defined as 'defeasible aspects of meaning'. But it's clear that Grice recognized that conventional implicatures were NOT defeasible, and that he meang "implicature" to cover ALL non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning, including meaning both encoded and not encoded by linguistic form. So, among other ways, one can choose to slice up meaning using truth-conditions as the relevant parameters (as Grice did `..), or by using encoding into form (or defeasibility) as the relevant parameter. The latter way conceives meaning as gradient instead of binary (...), and thus also find a place for Grice's briefly-noted distinction between 'particularized' and 'generalized' conversational implicatures, on a scale of integration of meaning into form. Bibliography suggested: -(to appear) Jucker and Ziv, eds. 'Discourse markers'. John Benjamins. -Levinson (1995) in Palmer ed 'Grammar and meaning' -Relevance theory people (Carston -Blakemore (1992) Understanding Utterances. Blackwell. -'Postface' to Sperber and Wilson (1995) revised ed. of 'Relevance' -Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. -Green G. (1989) Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ. -Levinson (1983) Pragmatics. CUP. -Thomas, J. (1996) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. -Articles and books by Jacques Moeschler and Jean-Marc Luscher, from the University of Geneva. -Berkeleyan Construction Grammar, e.g. in Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor (1988) paper on 'let alone' in Language, or other papers by Fillmore, Kay, Sweetser, and others. -Alternative proposal: work by Oswald Ducrot and on Argumentation theory in general. -Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers. -Kroon, Caroline (1995) on causal and adversative Discourse markers in Latin, with a survey of the existing literature (Amsterdam: Gieben). -The Way of Words, Harvard University Press, 1989 (contains Grice's entire manuscript on implicatures). > Marta Carretero > Departamento de Filologia Inglesa > Facultad de Filologia - Edificio A > Universidad Complutense > 28040 - Madrid. > > From BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK Wed Dec 17 14:22:58 1997 From: BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK (Ford Beck) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:22:58 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: >Linguistics Abstracts Online >Trial Period ends 31st Dec 1997 >Dear Colleague, > >As we hope you are now aware, Linguistics Abstracts (edited by Terry >Langendoen, University of Arizona) is now available as an internet >service, Linguistics Abstracts Online, which has been on free trial in >1997. This trial ends on the 31st December 1997 so if you haven't >already done so, sign up now. > >Simply visit the following URL : >http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/labs > >If you have been using Linguistics Abstracts Online this year, we hope >you have found it essential to your work. In order to continue using >this service, please contact your librarian and ensure your library has >taken out a subscription for 1998. > >If you need any further information about Linguistics Abstracts Online >please do not hesitate to contact me or Blackwell Publishers Customer >Services at e-help at blackwellpublishers.co.uk > >Yours Sincerely > >BECK FORD (MISS) >BLACKWELL PUBLISHERS >TEL: +44(0)1865 382340 >FAX: +44(0)1865 381340 >E-MAIL: BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK >HTTP://WWW.BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK/LABS > > > > > > From luce at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Dec 18 17:29:24 1997 From: luce at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (Paul Luce) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:29:24 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ***GRADUATE STUDY IN COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY*** The Cognitive Area in the Department of Psychology at the University at Buffalo is soliciting applications for graduate assistantships. Our area has an exciting and productive group of researchers working on current issues in cognition, perception, and language. The faculty are active participants in a dynamic cognitive science community at the University at Buffalo, which includes the internationally recognized Center for Cognitive Science. We offer full graduate student stipends at competitive levels of funding and have a highly successful record of placing our students in both academic and industrial settings. Cognitive Area Faculty at the University at Buffalo: Barbara Church (Memory, Cognitive Neuroscience), Paul A. Luce (Word Recognition, Spoken Language Comprehension), Gail Mauner (Psycholingusitics, Neurolinguistics), James R. Sawsuch (Speech Perception, Auditory Pattern Recognition), Erwin Segal (Narrative, Comprehension), J. David Smith (Categorization, Animal Cognition, Categorization). For more information, contact Graduate Admissions, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo NY 14214-9914, e-mail us at psych at acsu.buffalo.edu or paul at deuro.buffalo.edu, or visit our web site at http://wings.buffalo.edu/soc-sci/psychology/cognitive/ From hannay at LET.VU.NL Fri Dec 19 14:20:39 1997 From: hannay at LET.VU.NL (M. Hannay) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:20:39 EST Subject: 8th functional grammar conference Message-ID: Eighth International Conference on Functional Grammar SECOND AND FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 6-9 July 1998 Correspondence address: ICFG8, Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Fax: +31-20-444 6500. All e-mail enquiries to: ICFG8 at let.vu.nl Since 1984, there has been a highly successful biennial series of International Conferences on Functional Grammar: Amsterdam (1984), Antwerp (1986), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (1988), Copenhagen (1990), Antwerp (1992), York (1994), and Cordoba (1996). Each of these conferences has helped advance the theory of Functional Grammar and create an ever-growing international community of researchers. It is now time to announce the eighth in this series. CALL FOR PAPERS The Eighth International Conference on Functional Grammar (ICFG8) will be held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam from 6 to 9 July 1998 and will be organized by Mike Hannay, Caroline Kroon, Lachlan Mackenzie and Lourens de Vries. The Conference will be held in English and will be devoted to Functional Grammar (FG) as set out by the late Simon Dik. His The theory of Functional Grammar, Parts 1 and 2 has appeared posthumously with Mouton de Gruyter (Berlin) in both a paperback version (DEM 58 per part) or in hardback, as numbers 20 and 21 of the Functional Grammar Series. Papers are invited that address matters arising from that book and more generally from the tradition of work in FG. Extensive information on FG, including a bibliography of FG and information on ordering Dik's books, can be found at the following web-site: http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/FGIS/FGIS.html On Saturday 4 July 1998, there will be a one-day Colloquium on the Predicate in Functional Grammar at the Vrije Universiteit, organized jointly by the Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT; Amsterdam-Leiden) and the CNRS Nancy 2 (France); it is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO and IFOTT. Participants in ICFG8 are cordially invited to attend this Colloquium, free of charge. ABSTRACTS If you wish present a paper , you are requested to send an abstract of your presentation, preferably by e-mail to ICFG8 at let.vu.nl, or by "snail mail" to: ICFG8 Organizing Committee Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands to arrive no later than 15 January 1998. Please note that this deadline MUST be met. Please make sure that your abstract is: - no longer than 300 words - written in good English Your abstract should include the following: 1. Title of the presentation 2. Your name, postal address, institutional affiliation and (where applicable) your e-mail address and/or fax number 3. Text of the abstract 4. References, if necessary 5. An indication whether special audio-visual equipment is required 6. An indication whether you will require accommodation in the university dormitory during the Conference [see the section on accommodation below] All abstracts will be assessed by the Organizing Committee, which will put together a programme that is thematically coherent. If there are sufficient papers on (a) Predicate Formation and/or (b) the relation between Functional Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics, special workshops will be incorporated into the programme, to be led by Casper de Groot and Dik Bakker respectively. FEES All participants will be asked to pay a Conference fee of NLG (Netherlands guilders) 175; there is a reduced fee of NLG 125 for linguists who are unemployed. The fee, to be paid in full and in Dutch currency (cash) at the beginning of the Conference, will cover participation in the conference itself, the book of abstracts, the opening reception, tea and coffee during breaks, as well as an excursion on Wednesday afternoon 8 July. There will also be a banquet in the evening after the excursion, for which all participants in the Conference will be invited to sign up (for an extra charge). [Participants whose abstract has been selected for presentation or who register as non-presenters will be informed how they can, if they wish, pay in advance by credit card.] TRAVEL TO AND FROM AMSTERDAM Participants will be expected to make their own arrangements for travel to and from Amsterdam. Their attention is drawn to the possibility of arriving by Saturday 4 July 1998 and thereby benefiting from APEX air travel rates; the Saturday can be spent at the Colloquium on the Predicate, and the Sunday devoted to tourism - there will be an opening reception on Sunday evening, 5 July. EATING The university restaurants will be open to participants throughout the day and in the evening. Participants will also be provided with a list of recommended restaurants in Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS WITH NO PRESENTATION Participants wishing to attend without presenting a paper should provide the following information to the ICFG8 Organizing Committee: n name n postal address n affiliation n if available, e-mail and/or fax number ACCOMMODATION We have reserved a number of rooms in the Hospitium, the university dormitory. The Hospitium is situated on tram lines 5 and 51, which pass the Vrije Universiteit (4 minutes' ride) and continue to the Central Station (18 minutes). If you wish us to book a room for you in the Hospitium, please indicate, when submitting your abstract, which type of accommodation you require: OPTION A: a single room, sharing the use of shower, toilet and kitchen at NLG 55 per night OPTION B: a double room including shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 140 per night; please indicate with whom you will be sharing the room OPTION C: a three-person room including shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 140 per night; please indicate with which two persons you will be sharing the room OPTION D: a four-person suite with 2 bedrooms, a sitting room, a dining area, shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 180 per night; please indicate with which three persons you will be sharing the suite In all cases, breakfast is available at an additional charge of NLG 12.50. We will book accommodation for you in the Hospitium if you provide us with all the following information: * which option (A,B,C,D) you wish * your date of arrival and date of departure * on which days, if any, you wish breakfast * if you wish to share a room (options B,C,D), a complete list of the persons with whom you will be sharing If for whatever reason you book now but do not attend the Conference, we will cancel the booking at no cost to you provided you inform us of your non-attendance by 1 June 1998. If you prefer to stay in a hotel, you must make the booking yourself. Since Amsterdam is a popular tourist centre in the summer, we would recommend that you make at least a provisional booking quickly. The following hotels are either close to tram line 5 or are within easy walking distance of the Vrije Universiteit: Hotel Omega, Jacob Obrechtstraat 31, 1071 KG Amsterdam tel: +31-20-6645182; fax: +31-20-6640809 Single room with shower and toilet: NLG 115 Double room with shower and toilet: NLG 140-165 Double room with shower and toilet on the corridor: NLG 125 Hotel Trianon AMS, Jan Willem Brouwerstraat 3-7, Amsterdam Hotel Holland AMS, P.C. Hooftstraat 162, Amsterdam Single room, including breakfast: NLG 130 Double room, including breakfast: NLG 170 Hotel Terdam AMS, Tesselschadestraat 23, Amsterdam Hotel Museum AMS, P.C. Hooftstraat 2, Amsterdam Single room, including breakfast: NLG 160 Double room, including breakfast: NLG 230 Hotel Beethoven AMS, Beethovenstraat 43, Amsterdam Hotel Lairesse AMS. Lairessestraat 7, Amsterdam Single room, excluding breakfast: NLG 220 Double room, exlcluding breakfast: NLG 260 Breakfast is available at NLG 22 per person To book at any of the 6 AMS hotels listed above, phone +31-20-6831811. Make sure you ask for the corporate rate, mentioning the Vrije Universiteit (VU for short). Holiday Inn Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 2, 1083 HJ Amsterdam tel. (Holiday Inn World Wide Reservations): 0800-0221155; fax: +31-20-6065491 Approximate prices: Single room NLG 350, double room NLG 425 From GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Sat Dec 20 07:51:44 1997 From: GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ismael Gezelqash) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:21:44 +330 Subject: email address Message-ID: Dear all Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following researchers in the field of writing please let me know: J.R. Martin Mary Kalantzis Bill Cope Sunny Hyon They are all from the university of Melbourn. Thank you in advance Yours Gezelqash From mswendys at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Mon Dec 22 14:17:01 1997 From: mswendys at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Wendy Smith) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:17:01 +0300 Subject: email address In-Reply-To: <48B78B03B7@net1cs.modares.ac.ir> Message-ID: Sunny Hyon is at California State University, San Bernardino, in the English Dept. The zip is 92407. Her e-mail address is shyon at wiley.csusb.edu and dept. phone is (909) 880-5826; fax is 909-880-7086. However, she is not a researcher in the field of writing; the closest would be reading (in a second language). Good luck!! Wendy Smith On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ismael Gezelqash wrote: > Dear all > Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following > researchers in the field of writing please let me know: > J.R. Martin > Mary Kalantzis > Bill Cope > Sunny Hyon > They are all from the university of Melbourn. > Thank you in advance > Yours > Gezelqash > From AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Sat Dec 20 06:25:55 1997 From: AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ramin Akbari) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 09:55:55 +330 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: 1-Mind 2-Thought 3-Intelligence 4-Cognition Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? I will be glad to receive your comments. Best wishes, Ramin Akbari, English Department, Tarbiat Modaress University, Tehran,Iran. From bralich at HAWAII.EDU Tue Dec 23 00:18:22 1997 From: bralich at HAWAII.EDU (Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:18:22 -1000 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: At 08:25 PM 12/19/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. Just as a casual observer it would seem to me that your order should be 1,3,2,4: where four, mind, is the basic faculty common to all and could not be quantified; three, intelligence, depends on individual endowment and is quantifiable; two, thought, is a general product or activity of mind as limited by intelligence; and four refers to directed activity of the thoughts. That is, cognition would be differentiated from thoughts in that the former was focused and directed while the latter were random and, though potentially directed, were not inherently so. Mind would also be both the source of the thoughts and the potential director of those thoughts and intelligence is the boundary of the quantity and quality of the thoughts and the direction of the thoughts. The environment then would be the source of input that determined which thoughts the mind would generate giving the equation of MIND + ENVIRONMENT over INTELLIGENCE = THOUGHT as well as THOUGHT + MIND + ENVIRONMENT over INTELLIGENCE = COGNITION Of course, the thoughts we have about our environment plus our intelligence will cause us to cognize in various ways and then react to the environment in ways that change the environment leading to the overall flow of intellegent interaction with the ever changing environment. Phil Bralich Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D. President and CEO Ergo Linguistic Technologies 2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175 Honolulu, HI 96822 Tel: (808)539-3920 Fax: (808)5393924 From edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Tue Dec 23 03:43:43 1997 From: edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Jane A. Edwards) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:43:43 -0800 Subject: language, thought, etc. Message-ID: At 08:25 PM 12/19/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. Perhaps you have specific authors in mind, but that's the issue that comes to my mind in this. These terms are defined in many different ways - many of them cross-cutting - by different authors and different disciplines. "Mind" as defined by whom? -Jane Edwards From mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Tue Dec 23 07:27:50 1997 From: mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Bella Kotik) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:27:50 +0300 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: At 09:55 AM 12/20/97 +330,Rami Akbari wrote >Dear Funknetters, >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. >Best wishes, >Ramin Akbari, >English Department, >Tarbiat Modaress University, >Tehran,Iran. I think it would be more fruitful if the aim of research would be clear, since really there is cross-cuttings and overlapping of the concepts in literature. Thus, the system you choose is dependent on the purpose. Is it research in philosophy, psychology or psycholinguistics makes difference. Best wishes Bella Kotik School of Education, Hebrew university of Jerusalem, Israel > > From GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Tue Dec 23 07:27:14 1997 From: GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ismael Gezelqash) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:57:14 +330 Subject: email address Message-ID: Dear Professor Smith, Thank you for the email addresses. Best of wishes. Regards Gezelqash Date sent: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:17:01 +0300 Send reply to: Wendy Smith From: Wendy Smith Subject: Re: email address To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU Sunny Hyon is at California State University, San Bernardino, in the English Dept. The zip is 92407. Her e-mail address is shyon at wiley.csusb.edu and dept. phone is (909) 880-5826; fax is 909-880-7086. However, she is not a researcher in the field of writing; the closest would be reading (in a second language). Good luck!! Wendy Smith On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ismael Gezelqash wrote: > Dear all > Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following > researchers in the field of writing please let me know: > J.R. Martin > Mary Kalantzis > Bill Cope > Sunny Hyon > They are all from the university of Melbourn. > Thank you in advance > Yours > Gezelqash > From mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Wed Dec 24 09:18:13 1997 From: mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Bella Kotik) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:18:13 +0300 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: >At 09:55 AM 12/20/97 +330,Rami Akbari wrote >>Dear Funknetters, >>For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >>1-Mind >>2-Thought >>3-Intelligence >>4-Cognition >>Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >>or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >>I will be glad to receive your comments. >>Best wishes, >>Ramin Akbari, >>English Department, >>Tarbiat Modaress University, >>Tehran,Iran. > >I think it would be more fruitful if the aim of research would be clear, since really there is cross-cuttings and overlapping of the concepts in literature. Thus, the system you choose is dependent on the purpose. Is it research in philosophy, psychology or psycholinguistics makes difference. >Best wishes >Bella Kotik >School of Education, >Hebrew university of Jerusalem, >Israel > >> >> > From AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Mon Dec 29 09:39:50 1997 From: AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ramin Akbari) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:09:50 +330 Subject: Intelligence and aptitude Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week I mailed a question about the relationship among some psychological concepts(mind,thought,cognition and intelligence),and I received many helpful comments and suggestions.I would like to thank you all. However,another problem has come up, and I wish to have your opinion about the relationship between Intelligence and Aptitude. In foreign language teaching,it is believed that some people "have a knack for learning languages".There are also some tests which claim to measure this aptitude.But do you think that aptitude is really different from intelligence?Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how to learn a foreign language (through his use of language learning strategies),and in a sense linguistically more talened than the others? And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude for learning a foreign language is in a sense capable of solving his problems(in this specific case,linguistic problems) ,and as a result more intelligent? I look forward to receiving your comments. Ramin Akbari, English Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,Iran From bralich at HAWAII.EDU Tue Dec 30 00:25:10 1997 From: bralich at HAWAII.EDU (Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:25:10 -1000 Subject: Intelligence and aptitude Message-ID: At 11:39 PM 12/28/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >Dear Funknetters, >Last week I mailed a question about the relationship among some >psychological concepts(mind,thought,cognition and intelligence),and I >received many helpful comments and suggestions.I would like to thank you all. >However,another problem has come up, and I wish to have your opinion about >the relationship between Intelligence and Aptitude. >In foreign language teaching,it is believed that some people "have a knack >for learning languages".There are also some tests which claim to measure >this aptitude.But do you think that aptitude is really different from >intelligence?Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how >to learn a foreign language (through his use of language learning >strategies),and in a sense linguistically more talened than the others? >And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude >for learning a foreign language is in a sense capable of solving his >problems(in this specific case,linguistic problems) ,and as a result more >intelligent? I look forward to receiving your comments. Just from a casual point of view, wouldn't intelligence be an overall measure of a variety of aptitude's while aptitude was generally focused in one particular area. Phil Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D. President and CEO Ergo Linguistic Technologies 2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175 Honolulu, HI 96822 Tel: (808)539-3920 Fax: (808)5393924 From edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Tue Dec 30 23:36:46 1997 From: edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Jane A. Edwards) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:36:46 -0800 Subject: intelligence and language learning Message-ID: >Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how >to learn a foreign language [...] >And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude >for learning a foreign language is in a sense [...] >more intelligent? I can see why this seems appealing, but not necessarily. According to Spearman (inventor of factor analysis) and his successors since the '20s, there are two types of intelligence: general and specific, and they are statistically uncorrelated. We probably all know people who are very intelligent but aren't good with foreign languages. I know someone who owns his own computer ISP company but has never gotten past beginner level proficiency in a foreign language, despite starting young and despite trying different languages. He says he always starts off being at the top of the class at the beginner level where general laws predominate, and then falls further and further behind as vocabulary and irregularities play a bigger and bigger role. (He says the arbitrariness in computers is of a different kind.) We probably also all know people who learn languages easily, but have trouble programming a VCR. Kyllonen says that Spearman's general intelligence ("g") is the same as what is now called working memory capacity ( Kyllonen, IN: Dennis & Tapsfield, 1996, Eds. Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Erlbaum). And Lenneberg points out that all children learn a first language, i.e., despite differences in general ability. It seems useful to keep the specific and the general aspects separate, and to keep specific aspects separate from each other. -Jane Edwards From harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK Mon Dec 1 10:11:15 1997 From: harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK (harder at COCO.IHI.KU.DK) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 04:11:15 -0600 Subject: conventional implicature Message-ID: I think Marta's question is one that has not received a terribly satisfying answer in the standard literature because of the traditional identification between 'meaning' and 'descriptive content'. The best approximation to descriptive content that one can find in 'but', i.e. 'contrast-to-expectation' is in some sense defeasible, if examples like 'he didn't succeed, but no-one expected him to' show anything. I like to think that the issue can only be understood if functionalists take their own position seriously enough to believe that coded meaning is functional rather than descriptive. As I see it, 'but' has the function (roughly) of alerting the addressee that what comes next may cancel some 'natural' inferences of the preceding utterance (something like 'hold your horses for a second!'). In this, it contrasts with 'and', which (roughly) signals that what follows collaborates with the preceding context. These coded, conventional functions (=meanings) then collaborate with the context in giving rise to variable, defeasible inferences. In order for those functions to make sense there have to be ways in which the two utterances are contrasting and collaborative, respectively. But this is not claimed, but rather presupposed in using these signals (otherwide they would make no sense), cf. 'he is Republican but honest' etc. Peter Harder, Copenhagen From lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Wed Dec 3 06:47:14 1997 From: lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (George Lakoff) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 22:47:14 -0800 Subject: conventional implicature? Message-ID: Dear Marta, To understand my response to your question, a bit of history is in order. In the late 1950's and 1960's, there was a split in British analytic philosophy between the ordinary language philosphers (following Austin and Strawson) and the formalist analytic philosophers, mostly followers of Russell. The Russellians claimed that "scientific philosophy" could only be done using symbolic logic, which they claimed characterized reason. The ordinary language philosophers Argued that that ordinary language was fine for doing philosophy and sought to show its regularities. Grice thought both camps were right and that there was a way to keep Russellian logic and also keep the insights of ordinary language philosophers (like himself). Grice's William James Lectures at Harvard in 1967 were titled "Logic and Conversation." I was fortunate enough to be present, since I was teaching linguistics there at the time. Grice's idea was that meaning could be split up into two parts: (1) Symbolic logic as Russellian had described it, including his classical theory of descriptions; logic was to characterize logical inferences. (2) Principles of conversation (conversational implicatures) that were to characerize other, nonlogical inferences which (so Grice claimed) arose when language was used in conversational context. Grice called them called "implicatures" to distinguish them from "implications." (1) was to define semantics; (2) was to characterize an major aspect of pragmatics. At this point, the history of manuscript of Grice's Harvard lectures becomes important. He refused to publish the lectures for two decades. I managed to distribute, through the linguistic underground in the 1960's and 70's, about 1,000 photocopies of the full book manuscript.Most of the most prominent people who have written on the subject-Steven Levinson, Georgia Green, Larry Horn, and so on-got into the subject during that period and had access to the full manuscript. The most popular version of Grice's ideas were distributed in a chapter of Logic and Conversation in Cole and Morgan's "Speech Acts" volume, which Grice has refused to publish until he got drunk at a party in 1973 at a conference in Austin. I suggested to Cole that he have a contract ready, which he did, and Grice signed on the dotted line. The entire manuscript has since been published in Studies in The Ways of Words, Harvard University Press, 1989. But there was a big gap between 1975 (when the chapter in Cole and Morgan appeared) and 1989 when the whole manuscript appeared (to little fanfare; it was largely ignored). Grice's maxims entered the published linguistic literature without their context. If you read the entire manuscript, it becomes clear that Grice's aim is very conservative: to preserve Russell's outmoded theory of symbolic logic in the face of the counterexamples presented by the ordinary language philosophers. One of those counterexamples had to do with presuppositions, brought to the fore by Strawson in the 1950's and put into logic in nonRussellian terms by Bas Van Fraassen in 1968. Grice tried bravely to preserve Russell's theory of descriptions, but he got seriously hung up on a real linguistic phenomenon: lexical presupposition. Grice discussed only one example: "but." He brought up "but" because it was a sentence connective that did not work according to Russell's theory. Russellians translated it into symbolic logic as "and". But "but" does not mean "and" and Grice knew it! (The previous sentence is an example of why.) Grice's only way to deal with cases outside of Russellian logic was his four types of implicature. But "but" did not fit any of them. Moreover, the counter-to-expectation pragmatics of "but" was not a feature of conversational context, but was part of the the conventional meaning of the word. This did not fit the neoRussellian paradigm, since the meanings of words were supposed to be in the realm of semantics, not pragmatics. So Grice resorted to what can best be referred to as a "fudge" or a "kludge," that is, an adhoc nonsolution: conventional implicature. This was a name for a problem that, strictly speaking, did not fit the theory Grice was proposing. What "conventional implicature" does is break the conventional meaning of "but" into two parts: a logical part that means "and" (so it will fit Russell's theory) and a pragmatic part that has the counter-to-expectation meaning. Since this pragmatic part is not detachable in context, as implicatures are supposed to be, it is called a "conventional implicature" and conventionally associated with the word "but". The move was made strictly to preserve Russellian logic. The reason that generative semanticists got involved with the Gricean program in 1967 and in successive years is that we too were trying to keep a version of formal logic for semantics, while trying to deal with the real facts of language, which included an enormous amounted of pragmatics. By 1969, a huge range of presuppositional phenomena, both grammatical and lexical, has been discovered by linguists, and now, almost thirty years later, the range is astronomical. Some linguists are still trying to keep to a theory in which semantics is characterized by formal semantics and pragmatics is done by different, conversational principles. Many of those scholars are still trying to make sense of a Gricean notion of "conventional implicature." Those of us who gave up on that paradigm long ago (or never had it) simply study presuppositional and other pragmatic phenomena as part of cognitive and/or functional linguistics. For us, the notion "conventional implicature" is an odd anachronism, a holdover from analytic philosophy of the 60's. But for those still trying to carry out a neoGricean program, the term is very much alive. I hope this helps. George Lakoff > Dear 'funknetters': > > I am a teacher of linguistics at the Universidad Complutense, >Madrid, and one of my subjects is pragmatics, of which my students are 5th >year undergraduates. Now I am teaching cooperation and implicature, as in >Grice's proposal, and soon I will come across the notion of 'conventional >implicature'. I am beginning to think that what comes under the label >'conventional implicature' (for instance, BUT and HOWEVER carry the >'implicature' that what follows will run counter to expectations) could >well be included in the LEXICAL MEANING of these items, since these >'implicatures' are independent of context and persist in all the uses of >these words. I would appreciate it very much if some of you could send me >messages about your views on this subject. > > Thank you very much in advance. > > >Marta Carretero >Departamento de Filologia Inglesa >Facultad de Filologia - Edificio A >Universidad Complutense >28040 - Madrid. From dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK Thu Dec 11 20:30:00 1997 From: dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK (Dick Hudson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 20:30:00 +0000 Subject: Conference Message-ID: I've been asked to post this to the Funknet list. RELEVANCE THEORY WORKSHOP 8-10 September 1998, University of Luton, England First Circular and Call for Papers The Second Relevance Theory Workshop aims to bring together those interested in cognitive approaches to communication, in particular (but not exclusively) Relevance Theory. The Workshop will feature refereed and invited papers, including a keynote address by Professor Deirdre Wilson. PAPERS Contributions are invited for papers on the following topics: (1) non-truth-conditional meaning; (2) conceptual and procedural encoding; (3) metarepresentation and interpretive use; (4) the nature of and relation between the distinctions: semantics/pragmatics and explicature/implicature; (5) critiques of Relevance Theory; (6) any other topic dealt with from a relevance theoretic perspective or which has some bearing on Relevance Theory. Papers on topics (1) - (5) will be presented in special topic panels and should be 20 minutes long at most. Other papers will be presented in a general session and will be allocated 40 minutes for presentation and discussion (either 20 + 20, or 30 +10). Complete papers will be distributed in advance of the Workshop in order to increase the chances for useful feedback. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS In order to distribute proceedings in advance, full-length papers are invited rather than the more usual abstracts. Papers may take the form of pre-publication drafts, and should be a MAXIMUM of 6 pages in length, including references and a short (ten line) abstract. Manuscripts should be typed (12 point font), single-spaced, with 1 inch (2.5 cm) margins on all sides, and NO page numbering. THREE copies of the manuscript should be submitted, one with the author's name and two anonymously. Please also include the following information on a seperate sheet: name, address (postal and email if available), affiliation, title of paper, the topic to which your paper relates (see (1) - (6) above), and a contact telephone number. Manuscripts should be submitted to: Dr. Steve Nicolle, Middlesex University, Trent Park, Bramley Road, London N14 4YZ, England DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: 24 APRIL 1998 Contributors will be informed of the status of their paper by the end of May 1998. REGISTRATION Registration forms will be included in the second circular (early 1998). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Second Relevance Theory Workshop is scheduled to take place immediately prior to the Autumn 1998 Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (10-12 September 1998, also at the University of Luton). The LAGB Meeting features a keynote address by Professor Dan Sperber and a workshop on experimental pragmatics. Luton is easily accessible from London and has its own international airport. Conference fees for the Relevance Theory Workshop (including meals) will be approx. 40 pounds stirling. Accommodation (including breakfast) will be approx. 25 pounds stirling per night. For further details, please contact Steve Nicolle at the above address or email: s.nicolle at mdx.ac.uk ============================================================================== Richard (=Dick) Hudson Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT work phone: +171 419 3152; work fax: +171 383 4108 email: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk web-sites: home page = http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm unpublished papers available by ftp = ....uk/home/dick/papers.htm From kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU Thu Dec 11 21:03:06 1997 From: kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU (Suzanne E Kemmer) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:03:06 -0600 Subject: Fellowships for doctoral study Message-ID: CALL FOR FELLOWSHIP APPLICANTS Ph.D. PROGRAM IN LINGUISTICS AT RICE UNIVERSITY The Department of Linguistics at Rice University announces its Ph.D. program in Linguistics (est. 1982), a Faculty Update, and the opening of competition for its graduate fellowships for 1998-99. The doctoral program at Rice emphasizes the study of language use, the the interplay of grammatical form and context, and an empirical, data-rich approach to linguistic investigation. The basic theoretical orientation is functional and cognitive. The department offers excellent training in field studies, particularly of undocumented languages; the study of language change, including grammaticalization; and cognitive linguistics, or the study of language as embedded in cognition. Other faculty research specialties include phonological theory, corpus linguistics, language universals and typology, neurolinguistics, second language acquisition, and applied linguistics. The department hosts an annual distinguished speakers series; recent speakers include: Michael Halliday (Univ. of Sydney), Willem Levelt (Max Planck Institute), Ricardo Maldonado (Autonomous University of Mexico), Michel Paradis (McGill), Elizabeth Traugott (Stanford), and Arie Verhagen (Utrecht Institute of Linguistics). The Biennial Symposium on Language also brings distinguished researchers for close interaction with faculty and graduate students. The Spring 1997 topic was: The Interface between Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization Theory: Languages of the Americas. Invited participants included Wallace Chafe, Tom Givon, Bernd Heine, Terence Kaufman, Marianne Mithun, Aryon Rodriguez, and Alexandra Aikhenvald. FACULTY AND RESEARCH INTERESTS Michel Achard (Ph.D. Linguistics, UC San Diego) Cognitive linguistics, French syntax, second language acquisition. Michael Barlow (Ph.D. Linguistics, Stanford) Associate Director, Center for the Study of Languages. Grammatical theory, corpus linguistics, second language acquisition, language and cognition. James Copeland, Chair (Ph.D. Linguistics, Cornell) Functional linguistics, phonology, Germanic linguistics, grammaticalization, Uto-Aztecan (Tarahumara). Philip W. Davis (Ph.D. Linguistics, Cornell). Semantics and syntax, language and intelligence, language description, Amerindian (Bella Coola; Alabama), Austronesian (Atayal, Ilokano, Yogad). Spike Gildea (Ph.D. Linguistics, University of Oregon) Diachronic syntax, field methods and ethics, phonology, typological/functional linguistics, Amazonian languages. Suzanne Kemmer (Ph.D. Linguistics, Stanford) Language universals and typology, semantics, syntactic and semantic change, cognitive linguistics, Germanic, Nilo-Saharan. Sydney Lamb (Ph.D. Linguistics, UC Berkeley) Director, Cognitive Sciences Interdisciplinary Program. Cognitive linguistics, neurolinguistics, language and thought, Amerindian (Monachi). Douglas Mitchell (Ph.D. Linguistics, UT Austin) Comparative Indo-European linguistics, historical linguistics, early Germanic dialects, history of linguistics, Sanskrit. Stephen A. Tyler, (Ph.D. Anthropology, Stanford) Cognitive studies, philosophy of language, anthropological linguistics, languages of India. **Note: The Department has plans to advertise for an additional faculty position in 1998-99.** FINANCIAL AID Graduate fellowships include tuition, and typically, a cash stipend. Graduate stipends are normally renewable for four years upon satisfactory performance, and candidates can apply for a fifth year of support. (The department is fortunate to have been able so far to support all students it has admitted, through University Fellowships, Presidential Fellowships, Dean's Fellowships, other competitive university-wide Fellowships, and National Science Foundation fellowships.) APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 (January 15 for those applying for Dean's Fellowships.) APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: Graduate Record Examination and TOEFL (for non-native speakers of English) should be taken in time for scores to be reported by mid-February. See website below for additional application information. WEB SITE: See the departmental web site at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~ling for more information on the program, applications, support, etc. MAILING ADDRESS: Department of Linguistics Rice University P.O. Box 1892 Houston TX 77251-1892 (713) 527-6010 email: ling at ruf.rice.edu From fling11 at EMDUCMS1.SIS.UCM.ES Fri Dec 12 16:49:50 1997 From: fling11 at EMDUCMS1.SIS.UCM.ES (Marta Carretero) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 17:49:50 +0100 Subject: conventional implicature: summary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Marta Carretero wrote: Before I write the summary, I must thank all those of you who answered my question of whether conventional implicature could be considered, after all, as part of the lexical meaning. I am sorry in advance for not doing justice for all your suggestions, especially concerning Lakoff's and Harder's excellent contributions. For reasons of time, the summary will only pay attention to those contributions sent personally to me. If someone wishes to have access to Harder's or Lakoff's replies, I could forward the messages. > Dear 'funknetters': > > I am a teacher of linguistics at the Universidad Complutense, > Madrid, and one of my subjects is pragmatics, of which my students are 5th > year undergraduates. Now I am teaching cooperation and implicature, as in > Grice's proposal, and soon I will come across the notion of 'conventional > implicature'. I am beginning to think that what comes under the label > 'conventional implicature' (for instance, BUT and HOWEVER carry the > 'implicature' that what follows will run counter to expectations) could > well be included in the LEXICAL MEANING of these items, since these > 'implicatures' are independent of context and persist in all the uses of > these words. I would appreciate it very much if some of you could send me > messages about your views on this subject. > > Thank you very much in advance. > No 1. Yes, that's precisely why Grice clled them *conventional*. The problem is that they do not appear to contribute to the truth-conditional meaning of the sentences din which they occur - this is why he called them *implicatures*. No. 2 Yes, I (mostly) agree. I take the linguistic vs extralinguistic distinction to be the main distinction (rather than the + / - truth functional, which is what informs Grice's distinction between semantic meaning and conventional implicature)... However, cognitively, conventioonal implicatures, or a subset of them, may have a different status. It's probably due to their "late" development out of conversational implicatures. (...) I don't expect a status difference between the meaning of 'because' and 'but', but I believe I have found some distributional differences in Hebrew particles I can trace to that. I am now conducting experiments to find out whether subjects' responses to conventionally implicated meaning and to semantic meaning is different (in speed). No. 3 I think you're certainly right that conventional implicatures are part of the lexical meaning of words like 'but'. However, since Grice there has been some interesting work done on the?m, in particular by D. Blakemore. She points out the limitations of Grice's account (in a sensse all he does is label them rather than explain them). and develops a new account in terms of relevance-theory and, in particular, the relevance-theoretic notion of procedural meaning. No. 4 in my view, that is exactly what conventional implicature means.The only thing is, that the meaning is not part of the truth-functional meaning of the sentence. And that holds, in Grice's view, for 'but' and 'however'. No. 5 ... it must be noted that the semantic dimension of connectors is important. However, the work by Grice and many others has demonstrated the pragmatic character of the connectors. That is, they take their sense by context. No. 6 Your question about Gricean conventional implicature is a very reasonable one, which is usually not asked because researchers have tended to ignore conventional implicature (or to call it something else and ignore its Gricean roots). The problem is that 'implicature' has mainly been used as a shorthand for 'conversational implicature', and thus has become defined as 'defeasible aspects of meaning'. But it's clear that Grice recognized that conventional implicatures were NOT defeasible, and that he meang "implicature" to cover ALL non-truth-conditional aspects of meaning, including meaning both encoded and not encoded by linguistic form. So, among other ways, one can choose to slice up meaning using truth-conditions as the relevant parameters (as Grice did `..), or by using encoding into form (or defeasibility) as the relevant parameter. The latter way conceives meaning as gradient instead of binary (...), and thus also find a place for Grice's briefly-noted distinction between 'particularized' and 'generalized' conversational implicatures, on a scale of integration of meaning into form. Bibliography suggested: -(to appear) Jucker and Ziv, eds. 'Discourse markers'. John Benjamins. -Levinson (1995) in Palmer ed 'Grammar and meaning' -Relevance theory people (Carston -Blakemore (1992) Understanding Utterances. Blackwell. -'Postface' to Sperber and Wilson (1995) revised ed. of 'Relevance' -Blakemore, D. (1987) Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. -Green G. (1989) Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale NJ. -Levinson (1983) Pragmatics. CUP. -Thomas, J. (1996) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman. -Articles and books by Jacques Moeschler and Jean-Marc Luscher, from the University of Geneva. -Berkeleyan Construction Grammar, e.g. in Fillmore, Kay and O'Connor (1988) paper on 'let alone' in Language, or other papers by Fillmore, Kay, Sweetser, and others. -Alternative proposal: work by Oswald Ducrot and on Argumentation theory in general. -Schiffrin, D. Discourse markers. -Kroon, Caroline (1995) on causal and adversative Discourse markers in Latin, with a survey of the existing literature (Amsterdam: Gieben). -The Way of Words, Harvard University Press, 1989 (contains Grice's entire manuscript on implicatures). > Marta Carretero > Departamento de Filologia Inglesa > Facultad de Filologia - Edificio A > Universidad Complutense > 28040 - Madrid. > > From BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK Wed Dec 17 14:22:58 1997 From: BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK (Ford Beck) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 14:22:58 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: >Linguistics Abstracts Online >Trial Period ends 31st Dec 1997 >Dear Colleague, > >As we hope you are now aware, Linguistics Abstracts (edited by Terry >Langendoen, University of Arizona) is now available as an internet >service, Linguistics Abstracts Online, which has been on free trial in >1997. This trial ends on the 31st December 1997 so if you haven't >already done so, sign up now. > >Simply visit the following URL : >http://www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/labs > >If you have been using Linguistics Abstracts Online this year, we hope >you have found it essential to your work. In order to continue using >this service, please contact your librarian and ensure your library has >taken out a subscription for 1998. > >If you need any further information about Linguistics Abstracts Online >please do not hesitate to contact me or Blackwell Publishers Customer >Services at e-help at blackwellpublishers.co.uk > >Yours Sincerely > >BECK FORD (MISS) >BLACKWELL PUBLISHERS >TEL: +44(0)1865 382340 >FAX: +44(0)1865 381340 >E-MAIL: BFORD at BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK >HTTP://WWW.BLACKWELLPUBLISHERS.CO.UK/LABS > > > > > > From luce at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Dec 18 17:29:24 1997 From: luce at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (Paul Luce) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:29:24 -0500 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ***GRADUATE STUDY IN COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY*** The Cognitive Area in the Department of Psychology at the University at Buffalo is soliciting applications for graduate assistantships. Our area has an exciting and productive group of researchers working on current issues in cognition, perception, and language. The faculty are active participants in a dynamic cognitive science community at the University at Buffalo, which includes the internationally recognized Center for Cognitive Science. We offer full graduate student stipends at competitive levels of funding and have a highly successful record of placing our students in both academic and industrial settings. Cognitive Area Faculty at the University at Buffalo: Barbara Church (Memory, Cognitive Neuroscience), Paul A. Luce (Word Recognition, Spoken Language Comprehension), Gail Mauner (Psycholingusitics, Neurolinguistics), James R. Sawsuch (Speech Perception, Auditory Pattern Recognition), Erwin Segal (Narrative, Comprehension), J. David Smith (Categorization, Animal Cognition, Categorization). For more information, contact Graduate Admissions, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, Buffalo NY 14214-9914, e-mail us at psych at acsu.buffalo.edu or paul at deuro.buffalo.edu, or visit our web site at http://wings.buffalo.edu/soc-sci/psychology/cognitive/ From hannay at LET.VU.NL Fri Dec 19 14:20:39 1997 From: hannay at LET.VU.NL (M. Hannay) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:20:39 EST Subject: 8th functional grammar conference Message-ID: Eighth International Conference on Functional Grammar SECOND AND FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 6-9 July 1998 Correspondence address: ICFG8, Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Fax: +31-20-444 6500. All e-mail enquiries to: ICFG8 at let.vu.nl Since 1984, there has been a highly successful biennial series of International Conferences on Functional Grammar: Amsterdam (1984), Antwerp (1986), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (1988), Copenhagen (1990), Antwerp (1992), York (1994), and Cordoba (1996). Each of these conferences has helped advance the theory of Functional Grammar and create an ever-growing international community of researchers. It is now time to announce the eighth in this series. CALL FOR PAPERS The Eighth International Conference on Functional Grammar (ICFG8) will be held at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam from 6 to 9 July 1998 and will be organized by Mike Hannay, Caroline Kroon, Lachlan Mackenzie and Lourens de Vries. The Conference will be held in English and will be devoted to Functional Grammar (FG) as set out by the late Simon Dik. His The theory of Functional Grammar, Parts 1 and 2 has appeared posthumously with Mouton de Gruyter (Berlin) in both a paperback version (DEM 58 per part) or in hardback, as numbers 20 and 21 of the Functional Grammar Series. Papers are invited that address matters arising from that book and more generally from the tradition of work in FG. Extensive information on FG, including a bibliography of FG and information on ordering Dik's books, can be found at the following web-site: http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/FGIS/FGIS.html On Saturday 4 July 1998, there will be a one-day Colloquium on the Predicate in Functional Grammar at the Vrije Universiteit, organized jointly by the Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use (IFOTT; Amsterdam-Leiden) and the CNRS Nancy 2 (France); it is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO and IFOTT. Participants in ICFG8 are cordially invited to attend this Colloquium, free of charge. ABSTRACTS If you wish present a paper , you are requested to send an abstract of your presentation, preferably by e-mail to ICFG8 at let.vu.nl, or by "snail mail" to: ICFG8 Organizing Committee Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands to arrive no later than 15 January 1998. Please note that this deadline MUST be met. Please make sure that your abstract is: - no longer than 300 words - written in good English Your abstract should include the following: 1. Title of the presentation 2. Your name, postal address, institutional affiliation and (where applicable) your e-mail address and/or fax number 3. Text of the abstract 4. References, if necessary 5. An indication whether special audio-visual equipment is required 6. An indication whether you will require accommodation in the university dormitory during the Conference [see the section on accommodation below] All abstracts will be assessed by the Organizing Committee, which will put together a programme that is thematically coherent. If there are sufficient papers on (a) Predicate Formation and/or (b) the relation between Functional Grammar and Cognitive Linguistics, special workshops will be incorporated into the programme, to be led by Casper de Groot and Dik Bakker respectively. FEES All participants will be asked to pay a Conference fee of NLG (Netherlands guilders) 175; there is a reduced fee of NLG 125 for linguists who are unemployed. The fee, to be paid in full and in Dutch currency (cash) at the beginning of the Conference, will cover participation in the conference itself, the book of abstracts, the opening reception, tea and coffee during breaks, as well as an excursion on Wednesday afternoon 8 July. There will also be a banquet in the evening after the excursion, for which all participants in the Conference will be invited to sign up (for an extra charge). [Participants whose abstract has been selected for presentation or who register as non-presenters will be informed how they can, if they wish, pay in advance by credit card.] TRAVEL TO AND FROM AMSTERDAM Participants will be expected to make their own arrangements for travel to and from Amsterdam. Their attention is drawn to the possibility of arriving by Saturday 4 July 1998 and thereby benefiting from APEX air travel rates; the Saturday can be spent at the Colloquium on the Predicate, and the Sunday devoted to tourism - there will be an opening reception on Sunday evening, 5 July. EATING The university restaurants will be open to participants throughout the day and in the evening. Participants will also be provided with a list of recommended restaurants in Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS WITH NO PRESENTATION Participants wishing to attend without presenting a paper should provide the following information to the ICFG8 Organizing Committee: n name n postal address n affiliation n if available, e-mail and/or fax number ACCOMMODATION We have reserved a number of rooms in the Hospitium, the university dormitory. The Hospitium is situated on tram lines 5 and 51, which pass the Vrije Universiteit (4 minutes' ride) and continue to the Central Station (18 minutes). If you wish us to book a room for you in the Hospitium, please indicate, when submitting your abstract, which type of accommodation you require: OPTION A: a single room, sharing the use of shower, toilet and kitchen at NLG 55 per night OPTION B: a double room including shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 140 per night; please indicate with whom you will be sharing the room OPTION C: a three-person room including shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 140 per night; please indicate with which two persons you will be sharing the room OPTION D: a four-person suite with 2 bedrooms, a sitting room, a dining area, shower, toilet and kitchenette at NLG 180 per night; please indicate with which three persons you will be sharing the suite In all cases, breakfast is available at an additional charge of NLG 12.50. We will book accommodation for you in the Hospitium if you provide us with all the following information: * which option (A,B,C,D) you wish * your date of arrival and date of departure * on which days, if any, you wish breakfast * if you wish to share a room (options B,C,D), a complete list of the persons with whom you will be sharing If for whatever reason you book now but do not attend the Conference, we will cancel the booking at no cost to you provided you inform us of your non-attendance by 1 June 1998. If you prefer to stay in a hotel, you must make the booking yourself. Since Amsterdam is a popular tourist centre in the summer, we would recommend that you make at least a provisional booking quickly. The following hotels are either close to tram line 5 or are within easy walking distance of the Vrije Universiteit: Hotel Omega, Jacob Obrechtstraat 31, 1071 KG Amsterdam tel: +31-20-6645182; fax: +31-20-6640809 Single room with shower and toilet: NLG 115 Double room with shower and toilet: NLG 140-165 Double room with shower and toilet on the corridor: NLG 125 Hotel Trianon AMS, Jan Willem Brouwerstraat 3-7, Amsterdam Hotel Holland AMS, P.C. Hooftstraat 162, Amsterdam Single room, including breakfast: NLG 130 Double room, including breakfast: NLG 170 Hotel Terdam AMS, Tesselschadestraat 23, Amsterdam Hotel Museum AMS, P.C. Hooftstraat 2, Amsterdam Single room, including breakfast: NLG 160 Double room, including breakfast: NLG 230 Hotel Beethoven AMS, Beethovenstraat 43, Amsterdam Hotel Lairesse AMS. Lairessestraat 7, Amsterdam Single room, excluding breakfast: NLG 220 Double room, exlcluding breakfast: NLG 260 Breakfast is available at NLG 22 per person To book at any of the 6 AMS hotels listed above, phone +31-20-6831811. Make sure you ask for the corporate rate, mentioning the Vrije Universiteit (VU for short). Holiday Inn Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 2, 1083 HJ Amsterdam tel. (Holiday Inn World Wide Reservations): 0800-0221155; fax: +31-20-6065491 Approximate prices: Single room NLG 350, double room NLG 425 From GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Sat Dec 20 07:51:44 1997 From: GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ismael Gezelqash) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:21:44 +330 Subject: email address Message-ID: Dear all Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following researchers in the field of writing please let me know: J.R. Martin Mary Kalantzis Bill Cope Sunny Hyon They are all from the university of Melbourn. Thank you in advance Yours Gezelqash From mswendys at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Mon Dec 22 14:17:01 1997 From: mswendys at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Wendy Smith) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:17:01 +0300 Subject: email address In-Reply-To: <48B78B03B7@net1cs.modares.ac.ir> Message-ID: Sunny Hyon is at California State University, San Bernardino, in the English Dept. The zip is 92407. Her e-mail address is shyon at wiley.csusb.edu and dept. phone is (909) 880-5826; fax is 909-880-7086. However, she is not a researcher in the field of writing; the closest would be reading (in a second language). Good luck!! Wendy Smith On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ismael Gezelqash wrote: > Dear all > Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following > researchers in the field of writing please let me know: > J.R. Martin > Mary Kalantzis > Bill Cope > Sunny Hyon > They are all from the university of Melbourn. > Thank you in advance > Yours > Gezelqash > From AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Sat Dec 20 06:25:55 1997 From: AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ramin Akbari) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 09:55:55 +330 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: 1-Mind 2-Thought 3-Intelligence 4-Cognition Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? I will be glad to receive your comments. Best wishes, Ramin Akbari, English Department, Tarbiat Modaress University, Tehran,Iran. From bralich at HAWAII.EDU Tue Dec 23 00:18:22 1997 From: bralich at HAWAII.EDU (Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:18:22 -1000 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: At 08:25 PM 12/19/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. Just as a casual observer it would seem to me that your order should be 1,3,2,4: where four, mind, is the basic faculty common to all and could not be quantified; three, intelligence, depends on individual endowment and is quantifiable; two, thought, is a general product or activity of mind as limited by intelligence; and four refers to directed activity of the thoughts. That is, cognition would be differentiated from thoughts in that the former was focused and directed while the latter were random and, though potentially directed, were not inherently so. Mind would also be both the source of the thoughts and the potential director of those thoughts and intelligence is the boundary of the quantity and quality of the thoughts and the direction of the thoughts. The environment then would be the source of input that determined which thoughts the mind would generate giving the equation of MIND + ENVIRONMENT over INTELLIGENCE = THOUGHT as well as THOUGHT + MIND + ENVIRONMENT over INTELLIGENCE = COGNITION Of course, the thoughts we have about our environment plus our intelligence will cause us to cognize in various ways and then react to the environment in ways that change the environment leading to the overall flow of intellegent interaction with the ever changing environment. Phil Bralich Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D. President and CEO Ergo Linguistic Technologies 2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175 Honolulu, HI 96822 Tel: (808)539-3920 Fax: (808)5393924 From edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Tue Dec 23 03:43:43 1997 From: edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Jane A. Edwards) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:43:43 -0800 Subject: language, thought, etc. Message-ID: At 08:25 PM 12/19/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. Perhaps you have specific authors in mind, but that's the issue that comes to my mind in this. These terms are defined in many different ways - many of them cross-cutting - by different authors and different disciplines. "Mind" as defined by whom? -Jane Edwards From mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Tue Dec 23 07:27:50 1997 From: mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Bella Kotik) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:27:50 +0300 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: At 09:55 AM 12/20/97 +330,Rami Akbari wrote >Dear Funknetters, >For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >1-Mind >2-Thought >3-Intelligence >4-Cognition >Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >I will be glad to receive your comments. >Best wishes, >Ramin Akbari, >English Department, >Tarbiat Modaress University, >Tehran,Iran. I think it would be more fruitful if the aim of research would be clear, since really there is cross-cuttings and overlapping of the concepts in literature. Thus, the system you choose is dependent on the purpose. Is it research in philosophy, psychology or psycholinguistics makes difference. Best wishes Bella Kotik School of Education, Hebrew university of Jerusalem, Israel > > From GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Tue Dec 23 07:27:14 1997 From: GEZELQ_I at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ismael Gezelqash) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:57:14 +330 Subject: email address Message-ID: Dear Professor Smith, Thank you for the email addresses. Best of wishes. Regards Gezelqash Date sent: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 17:17:01 +0300 Send reply to: Wendy Smith From: Wendy Smith Subject: Re: email address To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU Sunny Hyon is at California State University, San Bernardino, in the English Dept. The zip is 92407. Her e-mail address is shyon at wiley.csusb.edu and dept. phone is (909) 880-5826; fax is 909-880-7086. However, she is not a researcher in the field of writing; the closest would be reading (in a second language). Good luck!! Wendy Smith On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Ismael Gezelqash wrote: > Dear all > Would any of you happening to know the email address of the following > researchers in the field of writing please let me know: > J.R. Martin > Mary Kalantzis > Bill Cope > Sunny Hyon > They are all from the university of Melbourn. > Thank you in advance > Yours > Gezelqash > From mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL Wed Dec 24 09:18:13 1997 From: mskotik at PLUTO.MSCC.HUJI.AC.IL (Bella Kotik) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 12:18:13 +0300 Subject: Language,thought,... Message-ID: >At 09:55 AM 12/20/97 +330,Rami Akbari wrote >>Dear Funknetters, >>For a research proposal, I am suggesting the following hierarchy: >>1-Mind >>2-Thought >>3-Intelligence >>4-Cognition >>Do you think that this hierarchy is valid ?Is intelligence part of thought >>or vice versa?Do you believe that cognition is part of intelligence? >>I will be glad to receive your comments. >>Best wishes, >>Ramin Akbari, >>English Department, >>Tarbiat Modaress University, >>Tehran,Iran. > >I think it would be more fruitful if the aim of research would be clear, since really there is cross-cuttings and overlapping of the concepts in literature. Thus, the system you choose is dependent on the purpose. Is it research in philosophy, psychology or psycholinguistics makes difference. >Best wishes >Bella Kotik >School of Education, >Hebrew university of Jerusalem, >Israel > >> >> > From AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR Mon Dec 29 09:39:50 1997 From: AKBARI_R at NET1CS.MODARES.AC.IR (Ramin Akbari) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 13:09:50 +330 Subject: Intelligence and aptitude Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week I mailed a question about the relationship among some psychological concepts(mind,thought,cognition and intelligence),and I received many helpful comments and suggestions.I would like to thank you all. However,another problem has come up, and I wish to have your opinion about the relationship between Intelligence and Aptitude. In foreign language teaching,it is believed that some people "have a knack for learning languages".There are also some tests which claim to measure this aptitude.But do you think that aptitude is really different from intelligence?Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how to learn a foreign language (through his use of language learning strategies),and in a sense linguistically more talened than the others? And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude for learning a foreign language is in a sense capable of solving his problems(in this specific case,linguistic problems) ,and as a result more intelligent? I look forward to receiving your comments. Ramin Akbari, English Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,Iran From bralich at HAWAII.EDU Tue Dec 30 00:25:10 1997 From: bralich at HAWAII.EDU (Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:25:10 -1000 Subject: Intelligence and aptitude Message-ID: At 11:39 PM 12/28/97 -1000, Ramin Akbari wrote: >Dear Funknetters, >Last week I mailed a question about the relationship among some >psychological concepts(mind,thought,cognition and intelligence),and I >received many helpful comments and suggestions.I would like to thank you all. >However,another problem has come up, and I wish to have your opinion about >the relationship between Intelligence and Aptitude. >In foreign language teaching,it is believed that some people "have a knack >for learning languages".There are also some tests which claim to measure >this aptitude.But do you think that aptitude is really different from >intelligence?Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how >to learn a foreign language (through his use of language learning >strategies),and in a sense linguistically more talened than the others? >And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude >for learning a foreign language is in a sense capable of solving his >problems(in this specific case,linguistic problems) ,and as a result more >intelligent? I look forward to receiving your comments. Just from a casual point of view, wouldn't intelligence be an overall measure of a variety of aptitude's while aptitude was generally focused in one particular area. Phil Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D. President and CEO Ergo Linguistic Technologies 2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175 Honolulu, HI 96822 Tel: (808)539-3920 Fax: (808)5393924 From edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Tue Dec 30 23:36:46 1997 From: edwards at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Jane A. Edwards) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:36:46 -0800 Subject: intelligence and language learning Message-ID: >Don't you think that a person who is intelligent also knows how >to learn a foreign language [...] >And is it not the case that a person who is claimed to have a high aptitude >for learning a foreign language is in a sense [...] >more intelligent? I can see why this seems appealing, but not necessarily. According to Spearman (inventor of factor analysis) and his successors since the '20s, there are two types of intelligence: general and specific, and they are statistically uncorrelated. We probably all know people who are very intelligent but aren't good with foreign languages. I know someone who owns his own computer ISP company but has never gotten past beginner level proficiency in a foreign language, despite starting young and despite trying different languages. He says he always starts off being at the top of the class at the beginner level where general laws predominate, and then falls further and further behind as vocabulary and irregularities play a bigger and bigger role. (He says the arbitrariness in computers is of a different kind.) We probably also all know people who learn languages easily, but have trouble programming a VCR. Kyllonen says that Spearman's general intelligence ("g") is the same as what is now called working memory capacity ( Kyllonen, IN: Dennis & Tapsfield, 1996, Eds. Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Erlbaum). And Lenneberg points out that all children learn a first language, i.e., despite differences in general ability. It seems useful to keep the specific and the general aspects separate, and to keep specific aspects separate from each other. -Jane Edwards