From lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Sat Feb 1 18:39:34 1997 From: lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Sydney M Lamb) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:39:34 -0600 Subject: real neurologists In-Reply-To: <3924121.3063790436@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian --- Thanks for the message. I just want to point out that I was by no means referring to ALL neural network models --- far from it, as I am a great fan of realistic NN models. I specifically singled out just the 1987 Rumelhart and McClelland model for my remarks, since it is so unrealistic and is the one that has nevertheless received that mystifying amount of favorable attention from neurologically inclined people like Kandel. Another serious attempt to be neurologically realistic in model construction is Burnod (1990), "An Adaptive Neural Network: The Cerebral Cortex". > In general, network models vary greatly in the degree to which they > attend to neurological details and known facts. Given this, it is > important to be careful when declaring that all neural network models are > egregiously out of accord with know facts of neural functioning. --- Syd . From TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sat Feb 1 21:19:04 1997 From: TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:19:04 -0800 Subject: Brian MacW/copy Message-ID: From: OREGON::TGIVON "Tom Givon" 1-FEB-1997 13:00:47.68 To: TGIVON CC: Subj: Brian McW/copy Dear Brian, That was a nice note--as far as it went. But people tend to forget that the real bridge between the level we are working at and neurology is, most likely, **not** at the level of individual neurons and their connections. With both language and other higher cognitive systems, we are dealing with much higher levels of genetically-directed and developmentally-executed complex organization. It is at this higher level that one can see the linguistic functional specificity of various sub-modules, in spite of the (undeniable) fact that the lower-level architecture is much more simple and comparatively universal (cross-modal). This is precisely the level of organization that is relevant to higher cognitive processes, including language. It is a level of connected modules rather than connected neurons. And this -- especially the detailed function-specific architectures that **never** arise from zero through learning, but rather are partially there already as precoditions for learning -- is what I have yet to find in the connectionist literature. This is also why I stopped following that literature. I figured, if I had to read one more paper about the "acquisition" of past-tense forms that somehow, conveniently, bypassed the delicate (but to me crucial) phase of learning the contexts -- semantic and pragmatic -- in which one would want to employ those alomorphs, I was in grave danger of throwing up. I stopped following this literature when it dawned on me that so much of it seemed to take it for granted that evolution has never happened; that every child/organism must starts learning from scratch (nevermind the conveniently pre-set 'weights', which can't but remind me of you- know-who's 'parameters'. And perhaps worse, that literature seemed to take it for granted that the very same architectural organization runs from the bottom (neuron) to the top (function-specific modules) of the primate brain organization. The way I saw it at the time I stopped following, there are so many prima-facie reasons why one would not want to invest too much faith in such a reductionist exercise. Thanks again and best regards, TG From colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Sat Feb 1 22:30:06 1997 From: colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Colin James Harrison) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:30:06 -0600 Subject: Brian MacW/copy In-Reply-To: <01IEWIQ1QNO28ZKIO3@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> Message-ID: A word in edgeways... In response to Tom Givon's comments, I read there an implication, probably not intentional, but nevertheless present, and one that in my opinion leads to a lot of time wasted in discussions on this and other topics, and that is what we might call "categorical thinking". It is obvioulsy true that the level at which neurological functioning becomes really interesting to linguists, psychologists etc. is an organizationally high one, but to set up a distinction therefore between modular function and the firing of individual neurons is to create a category division where there isn't one. The two levels of function are the same phenomenon viewed at different levels of organisation, and considering either is a good way to learn about both. The danger in talking with such category distinctions is that it can lead to the disjunction (in the minds of those who fail to consider it deeply enough) of phenomena that are in fact inseperable, and the maintenance of unrealistic notions such as we see reflected in the "box and arrow" type models that have predominated in the literature for years. A modular model will tell us nothing without some story about what goes on inside the modules, just as a neuron-level connectionism will tell us nothing about language, unless it acknowledges the emergent characteristics of higher-level self-organisation, and has something intelligent to say about that. I'm not for a moment sugesting that Tom Givon is unaware of this, but I have picked up on the faint suggestion of this I read in his posting to make the point anyway, as it amazes me how often such binary thinking clouds and distracts us from what would otherwise be really interesting debates. Colin Harrison Rice University From tho at NUCLEUS.HUT.FI Mon Feb 3 08:23:19 1997 From: tho at NUCLEUS.HUT.FI (Timo Honkela) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:23:19 +0200 Subject: real neurologists, Kohonen maps In-Reply-To: <3924121.3063790436@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Brian wrote: > Models that take the details of neuronal functioning seriously and which > capture the intricacy of neuroanatomical patterns are going to be tough to > build. One area where modelling and real neurological facts seem to be > coming into good contact is in regard to the details of the wiring of local > map topology. For example, models of Kohonen self-organizing feature maps > closely echo facts of lateral inhibition that are important in setting up > neuronal fields. It is my pleasure to tell you about an experiment in which we used Kohonen's self-organizing maps to process natural language input. The result was interesting compared with some neurophysiological findings. The general organization of the map reflected both syntactical and semantical categories. All verbs could be found in the top section whereas the nouns were located in the lower right corner of the map. Inside the large, syntactically based groups on the map, fine structures of semantic relationships could also be discerned. For instance, the animate and inanimate nouns formed a group of their own each. The implicit categories emerged in the unsupervised learning process the input being just the text itself. A summary as well as the full paper is available at the address http://nucleus.hut.fi/~tho/lang-som/ Best regards, Timo ------------------- --------------------------- Timo Honkela Timo.Honkela at hut.fi http://nucleus.hut.fi/~tho/ Neural Networks Research Centre, Helsinki Univ of Technology and Rakentajanaukio 2 C, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland Nat Lang Proc Tel. +358-9-451 3275, Fax +358-9-451 3277 From nori at DIRCON.CO.UK Wed Feb 5 22:50:04 1997 From: nori at DIRCON.CO.UK (nori akiho) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:50:04 -0000 Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?UXM6SmFwYW5lc2UgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYW5kIGdlbmRlcg==?= Message-ID: ** ** ** ** *** ** *** **** ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** *** *** ** ** We are preparing a presentation for our Sociopsychology and Language course in MA Applied Linguistic at Berkbeck College, UCL, and looking for ANY information regarding to Japanese Language and gender relationship, particularly in formal occasion such as at workplace, job interview. Should anyone be able to help please contact me. Thank you From TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sun Feb 9 18:41:30 1997 From: TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:41:30 -0800 Subject: reply to Brian MacW. Message-ID: Good comments, Brian. But you ascribe to me more than I said. It is not that I think evolution involves no local-level changes. It involves all levels of changes. And clearly complex structural organization evolves from more simple precoursors (see general discussion in J.T. Booner's "The Evolution of Complexity"). What I objected to only is the total obsession of (at least the early) connectionist work with the low-level stuff. And there are clearly exceptions to that. E.G., Jeff Hinton's rather inspired work on modeling the interaction between individual learning behavior and genetic evolution (reviving Lamarck but with a much more plausible mechanism based on -- guess what -- the rise of automaticity) has been a great inspi- ration to me in my own work. But -- even when adaptive steps are small and subtle, when they involve highly-organized functional modules, they cannot be explained merely by the lower-level steps (but rather by their interaction WITHIN higher-level modules). So for example, you cannot explain in toto the adaptation of the lower tip of the primary motor cortex (Broca's area) into a grammar-related module by purely local low-level chganges. Nor can you explain the extension of the hippocampus-based system of episodic memory from visual to verbal this way. Nor the adaptation of portions of the primary auditory center into a phonemic analyzer. Nor the adaptation of the object-recognition module(s) and visual semantic memory into a general verbal/visual semantic memory. Etc. etc. etc. In each case, local and low-level changes do not happen in a vacuum, they happen within the context of extant complex functional modules and the extention of extant complex behavior to related but not identical new functions. If connec- tionists would treat these realistic evolutionary problems seriously, they will, I suspect, cease to become "connectionists" in the classical (and to my mind rather restrictive) sense. So we should then welcome them back into the large community in the muddled middle where science is practiced (or at least where I think it can be practiced best). Best, TG From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Sun Feb 9 19:04:07 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:04:07 -0500 Subject: no-modularity-at-all In-Reply-To: <3937381.3064474675@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Dear FunkNet, > ... > At the best, connectionists > (myself included) have presented a system for neural-like notation > that allows one to believe that the problems of symbolic representation, > language processing, and language acquisition might eventually be solved > from an emergentist perspective. The value of this demonstration is simply > that it provides functional linguists (additional) license to dismiss > claims regarding the psychological reality of generative grammar. This is just whistling in the dark. Even if there were strong grounds for optimism on connectionism generally, this would give no warrant for the statement on psychological reality. That is a blatant non sequitur. (And I am still waiting for a reply to Ted Gibson's criticism in Language (couple of years back) of the Competition Model, since you cite your own work. If there is such a reply, I would like to look at it, to better reevaluate your own claims.) > Givon chides connectionists for > reductionism, but Nature herself is a reductionist. No, Brian, Nature is not a reductionist. This is a category mistake. Reductionism refers to the best way to explain things, not how 'they are', which could conceivably remain a mystery throughout human history. At this point, it is still the case that the best way to explain many aspects of the mind/brain is in terms of the mental and 'higher levels/orders'. It may be possible one day to restate these things in terms of the brain, but it may, alternatively, never be possible to do so. There is a lot more to learn about the brain before we will have any idea what the answer will be. In fact, as Chomsky has noted, it might even turn out that reductionism could lead in the other direction - the best statements overall may be in terms of the mental rather than the cerebral. The question is not one of ultimate substance, but the best explanations available to us. -- Dan From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Mon Feb 10 02:26:51 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 21:26:51 -0500 Subject: Language Editorial Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Perhaps it would be in order to make a brief comment on Brian MacWhinney's remark that the editor of Language refused to publish his reply to Gibson's review of the Competition Model. I am not sure that I interpreted Brian's remark accurately, but on one reading it seems to imply that the editor was unfair or arbitrary. At least at the time that I was an Associate Editor of Language, which I believe corresponds to the time of the Gibson review, it was (and I am nearly certain still is) the policy of Language not to publish replies to reviews, period. Authors wishing to respond to a review must have their rebuttals refereed like any other publication in Language. There are no free rides in the journal. I do not know if the editor of Language informed Brian of this or how he submitted his reply, but I do know that nothing is published in Language unless it is reviewed. -- Dan ****************************** ****************************** Dan Everett Department of Linguistics University of Pittsburgh 2816 CL Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: 412-624-8101; Fax: 412-624-6130 http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu/~dever From faucon at COGSCI.UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 10 03:05:16 1997 From: faucon at COGSCI.UCSD.EDU (Gilles Fauconnier) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:05:16 -0800 Subject: free rides Message-ID: Most recent exchange on funknet: Everett: ... That is a blatant non sequitur. (And I am still waiting for a reply to Ted Gibson's criticism in Language (couple of years back) of the Competition Model, since you cite your own work ...) McWhinney: Liz Bates and I sent in a reply to Gibson when the article came out, but the editor of Language refused to publish it. Everett: [...I was an Associate Editor of Language ...] it was (and I am nearly certain still is) the policy of Language not to publish replies to reviews, period. There are no free rides in the journal. So, what exactly was Everett waiting for? Another non sequitur? gilles From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Mon Feb 10 10:22:39 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 05:22:39 -0500 Subject: free rides In-Reply-To: <9702100305.AA22781@cogsci.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: The point is not that Language would not publish a rebuttal of any sort, but that noone has the right to a *nonrefereed* reply. I checked with the former Editor of Language - Brian was informed that if he submitted a reply it would have to be reviewed; it was reviewed; the Editor followed the referees' advice. So the point is that a reply could have been published if it had been a stand-alone piece that passed the reviewing process. -- DLE From lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Mon Feb 10 17:44:26 1997 From: lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Sydney M Lamb) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:44:26 -0600 Subject: no-modularity-at-all In-Reply-To: <3937381.3064474675@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: In response to Brian's remarks, > . . . When functionalists > look to neurology, it is equally discouraging to find no anatomical level > grounding of the human-primate discontinuity. > That ain't the way I heerd it. Two points: 1. According to Norman Geschwind, in "The development of the brain and the evolution of language" (Georgetown Round Table, 1964), (I quote just a few important summarizing passages here): "The monkey does not appear to have a suffieient basis anatomically to form extensive non-limbic intermodal assiciations." (164) "The human brain at birth is perhaps 40% of its adult size while that of the ape's is nearly 70% of full-grown size. . . . The great increase in the size of man's brain is primarily in the association areas.... The greatest relative growth of the human brain compared to that of the subhuman primates is in the inferior parietal region... . The impressive development if the inferior posterior parietal region (the region of the angular gyrus) is so great that some authors...even assert that this region is almost unique to man.... This region ... is admirably suited to [act as a] way station by which associations may be formed between these non-limbic modalities. This area may well be termed 'the asssociation cortex' of the association cortexes. By providing the basis for the formation of non-limbic associations, it provides the anatomical basis for language --- or at least for object-naming." (165) In my current hypothesis of the anatomical correlates of the components of my connectionist model, the angular gyrus is devoted mainly to lexical connections (or entirely to lexical connections if we take a broad enough view of what they are). 2. I read somewhere recently, but now can't remember where, that chimpanzees have little or no arcuate fasciculus. Is this report reliable? Does anybody know? If so, it if of great interest, as this fiber bundle is also vitally important for human language, since it connects Phonological Recognition to Phonological Production. --- Syd Lamb . From M.Durie at LINGUISTICS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU Mon Feb 10 23:59:46 1997 From: M.Durie at LINGUISTICS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU (Mark Durie) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:59:46 +1100 Subject: free rides Message-ID: I had seen no suggestion in Brian's original comments that the Editors of Language had acted improperly, so these responses by Dan have seemed defensive and un-called for, as Gilles' witty response suggested. Nevertheless, Dan has now confirmed to his satisfaction, and broadcast to us all, that Brian's response was indeed refused for publication by the Editor, just Brian has told us. I find it incredible that a previous Editor and Associate Editor of Language would be publically releasing information about a submission to their journal. It's one thing for a author to tell others their submission was knocked back, but quite another for Editors to comment publically to confirm this. Has the editorial policy of Language relaxed its confidentiality provisions? The whole point was NOT the integrity of Language's editorial policy, but the strengths and weaknesses of the Competition Model, and the history of debate on this. Let's keep the discussion focussed. Mark Durie ------------------------------------ From: Mark Durie Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics University of Melbourne Parkville 3052 Hm (03) 9380-5247 Wk (03) 9344-5191 Fax (03) 9349-4326 M.Durie at linguistics.unimelb.edu.au http://www.arts.unimelb.edu.au/Dept/LALX/staff/durie.html From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Tue Feb 11 00:07:40 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:07:40 -0500 Subject: Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The former Editor of Language made no breach of confidentiality. If it is believed that there was one, I must bear the blame. -- DLE From fletcher at HKUSUA.HKU.HK Tue Feb 11 04:05:03 1997 From: fletcher at HKUSUA.HKU.HK (Paul Fletcher) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:05:03 +0800 Subject: The K. family Message-ID: I have only just become aware of the existence of FUNKNET, and I hope subscribers will bear with me if, somewhat late in the day, I add a lengthy postscript to the recent discussion about the K. family. As a linguist who has worked with Vargha-Khadem's group in London on some of the data, I feel it's incumbent on me to make some comment. (I should point out however that the views expressed below are my own and does not represent any kind of London group view). While I can apologise for trying your patience, I can make no apologies for concentrating on the data to make some points which I think bear on the issues. 1. I think it's important to emphasise the differences between the K. family and the vast majority of subjects designated 'SLI' in the literature on grammatical impairment over the 25 years since Morehead & Ingram's initial foray into this field in 1973. First, the sex distribution in the K. family is very different to that of subjects designated SLI. A glance at the pedigree for the K. family (first published in Hurst et. al., DevMed&ChNeurol. 32, 347-55) shows that of the 30 affected members across three generations, half are female. This is in contrast to the well-attested sex ratio of approx. 3:1, boys to girls, in the SLI population as appearing in the literature. Second, while most of the SLI subjects in publihsed studies are in the 4-9 yr age-range, the K. family ranges from elementary school age individuals to a woman in her seventies. In the light of these two factors alone it would make sense to consider the K. family separately and not lump them under the general label 'SLI'. From this I think it follows that we need to be cautious about comparing the results from this family with non-familially-related, and on average much younger, Greek and Japanese language-impaired subjects. 2. Re the 'articulation problems' of the affected members of the K. family: I can assure subscribers to FUNKNET that these are real, and not an artifact of the testing situation. Let me elaborate. In a paper I presented at the Evolution of Human Language conference in Edinburgh in April, I looked in some detail at a subset of the K. family -- a second generation affected female, her two affected sons, and an unaffected daughter and granddaughter. (I showed video clips of these individuals at the conference). I was particularly interested in vowel pronunciations, (for reasons that I hope will become apparent). In the to my knowledge only published (and hence refereed) paper on the phonology of the K. family (Fee, E. (1995), Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 9, 189-209), the author acknowledges, but decides to ignore, any vowel errors on the part of affected family members. Because vowel errors are relatively rare in what are termed phonological disorders in SLI kids, and also because they have been descibed in the literature on developmental apraxia of speech (DAS), this seemed an omission which needed correction. The second and third generation affected members showed vowel problems, in addition to the consonantal problems documented by Fee; the unaffected third and fourth generation members did not. In the folowing brief illustrative extract from one of the 3G affected males (aged 22 yrs.), the vowels in caps. are mispronounced (including both occurrences of 'I'): My nAme is ------ and todAy's dAte is the EIghteenth of the second nInety-six. I am a chEf and I can tell you how to mAke a Victoria sponge mix. RIght what to do first...... About 25% of vowels here are errors. 9/10 occur in long vowel targets, of which all are diphthongs. Further, they are all diphthongs whose offset is a close front vowel. (Typically the onset is produced as the representative of the vowel). This feature of the affected family members I looked at (and I acknowledge that so far it is only one branch of the family) links with the DAS literature (see for example Morley 1957, 'Development and disorders of speech in childhood', Pollock & Hall 1991, ClinLing&Phon 5, 207-24), where similar diphthongal errors are described. Interestingly, Pollock & Hall also summarise a constellation of other problems evinced by those described as developmentally apraxic: -- family history of speech and language problems -- persistence of speech problems and their intractibility to remediation -- non-verbal oral apraxia -- 'soft' neurological signs -- language disorder -- word-finding difficulties -- academic learning problems This list of symptoms bears a remarkable similarity to the profile of performance patiently uncovered by Vargha-Khadem et al. in the K. family. The purpose of the comparison is not to label the affected members of the K. family as developmentally apraxic ( a notoriously slippery label), but to emphasise that as a group (and with the variation you would expect within a group -- morphological performance also varies from affected individual to affected individual) they display a constellation of symptoms which is similar, at first blush, to a well-attested profile in other impaired individuals. Some of the elements of this profile (in DAS) have been attributed to motor planning problems. If this is correct, it may also apply to some of the elements of the K. family profile. And it seems to me to be premature, at the very least, to attribute an ontological primacy to any single one of these symptoms. A necessary condition for ever understanding what is going on here is a precise and exhaustive description of the phenotype, and it's far too early to foreclose on that. 3. Of course you can't find out everything about the language of impaired individuals by using standardised tests. But you can find out something. I take it that the excitement caused by Gopnik's earlier reports on affected members of the K. family, among the linguistic community, had to do with the fact that they appeared to identify a selective grammatical deficit. If the fault-lines of a deficit in SLI individuals demarcate a 'natural class' of categories from the grammar, this could be taken as support for the Chomskyan view of how the LAD is structured and the role that it plays in acquisition. For this assumption of a selective 'representational' deficit to hold, I take it that there should be evidence available from both comprehension and production on the relevant deficits. In the Edinburgh paper I also reported some findings form a comprehension test, TROG (Test for the reception of Grammar, standardised in the UK by Dorothy Bishop on 4 - 12 yr. olds), which provides some indirect evidence on whether the clear evidence of a production-side morphological deficit is paralleled in comprehension. TROG is a sentence/picture matching task, addressing a range of morphosyntactic areas: gender and number in pronouns, plural, comparative, prepositions, and grammatical relations via active/passive sentences and complex sentences with embedded relative clauses. The Vargha-Khadem group applied TROG to the K. family., with the following outcomes: a) There is a significant performance difference between affected and unaffected family members, but affected members still perform at close to 90% on the task, indicating a receptive grammatical ability roughly comparable to the average 10 yr old (the average 10 yr old Brit, that is). b) Failing items on the TROG, for the affected members of the family, are not randomly distributed, but involve those items on the test which involve embedded relative clauses. Verb inflectional contrasts, the crux of the issue for Gopnik, are not included in the TROG, so we have no direct evidence on these items. However passive verb morphology IS a part of the test, in the section in which subjects have to match four reversible passives with appropriate pictures, and affected family members who have output tense problems perform well on this section. It is difficult to believe that a receptive command of the verb forms signifying passive would cooccur with a lack of command of past tense. But unless specific production limitations are identified in comprehension also, it is difficult to argue a competence-based deficit. At which point I rest my case, fearful of trying the patience of FUNKNET subscribers any further. I should point out that Myrna and I have known one another a long time, and I for one am grateful to her for playing the role that she has in bringing the issues relating to the family in particular and to SLI in general under the spotlight. It will be obvious that we disagree pretty fundamentally on tthe interpretation of the data. I am however with her unequivocally when she says 'the only way to answer this question is to look at what they do and how they do it and why they do it....'. From cumming at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Wed Feb 12 01:58:04 1997 From: cumming at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (Susanna Cumming) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:58:04 -0800 Subject: Temporary teaching position in linguistics, UCSB Message-ID: TEMPORARY TEACHING POSITION IN LINGUISTICS The Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a linguist (lecturer rank) to teach graduate and undergraduate courses in phonetics, phonology, and/or sociocultural linguistics in 1997-98, pending budgetary approval. We hope to make a tenure-track appointment in one of these areas beginning Fall 1998. Applicants should be able to teach in their specialization as well as in introductory and general linguistics, and should have demonstrated teaching ability. Candidates must hold a PhD by the starting date. Applications should be submitted to Prof. Susanna Cumming, Chair, Department of Linguistics, UC Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (e-mail: cumming at humanitas.ucsb.edu). Applicants should send a letter, curriculum vitae, sample of written work and the names of three referees. Applications submitted by March 15, 1997 will receive the fullest consideration, but applications received later will be considered until the position is filled. UCSB is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. From colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Wed Feb 12 16:54:10 1997 From: colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Colin Harrison) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:54:10 -0700 Subject: munari Message-ID: Hi Funknetters! Here's an easy one: Does anyone out there recognise the unit 'munari' as being a meaningful string in any language? That's it! No further rules... Any glosses gratefully accepted. I don't think there's any need to clog up the newsgroup with replies - you can send them directly to me . Thanks! Colin Harrison Rice University From dlpayne at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Wed Feb 12 18:14:27 1997 From: dlpayne at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Doris Payne) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:27 -0800 Subject: Job: Visiting Assistant Professor of Linguistics Message-ID: VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS The Linguistics Department at the University of oregon announces the opening of one to three non-tenure related Visiting Assistant Professor positons for the 1997-1998 academic year, potentially renewable, ranging from .50 to 1.0 FTE depending on Departmental needs. The Linguistics Department of Oregon enjoys a long tradition of work within the functionalist tradition, concentrating in descriptive work and field work and in empirical work on language use, discourse, and language acquisition. We invite applications from qualified individuals who can contribute to the functional and typological orientation of the Department. Since the openings fill teaching gaps for faculty on leave, the candidate must show evidence of considerable teaching skill, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The successful applicant must be able to help cover our core curriculum, which includes phonetics, phonology, functional-typological morphosyntax, semantics, and second language acquisition and teaching. Additional specializations in second language acquisition, discourse, psycholinguistics, and/or historical syntax and grammaticalization will be particularly attractive, depending on department needs. In addition, the successful applicant must have an active research profile and must be able to direct graduate student research. QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. in Linguistics DUTIES: Up to two courses per term of hire (we are on a quarter system) Mentor students in research projects, as needed Participate in department life, as appropriate Please submit a letter of application, vita, and names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of three references to: VAP Search Committee, Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403. To receive fullest consideration, applications should be compete by March 15. The University of Oregon is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information, contact our web site: http://logos.uoregon.edu From Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at COLORADO.EDU Thu Feb 13 04:54:25 1997 From: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at COLORADO.EDU (FRAJZYNGIER ZYGMUNT) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:54:25 -0700 Subject: Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals Message-ID: Dear friends, There is still time to send an abstract for the Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals to be held in Boulder, CO, August 29-30. The aim of the symposium is twofold: a reconsideration of the formal and functional properties of reflexive and reciprocal markers and a discussion of languages in which the functions usually associated with reflexive and reciprocal markers are coded by unrelated means. Invited participants are: Werner Abraham, Alexandra Ajkhenvald, Martin.Everaert, Bernd Heine, Suzanne Kemmer, Ekkehard Koenig, Frantisek Lichtenberk, Elena Maslova, William McGregor, Pierre Pica, Eric Reuland, Filomena Sandalo, Mathias Schladt. There are still slots available for a few more papers. If interested in presenting a paper send an abstract by March 15 (extended deadline), 1997 to Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Dept. of Linguistics, Box 295, Univerity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 80309. e-mail: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu. From danr at INETW.NET Thu Feb 13 18:29:38 1997 From: danr at INETW.NET (Dan or Alysse Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:29:38 -0500 Subject: Urgent Info. about ISP and Phone Companies with F.C.C. Message-ID: Alysse here .... I'm going to foward this to a couple of listservs (and ask others who see it to post it on to yet other listservs). It's not a joke; I called the FCC & asked 2/13/97. There is a proposal before the FCC to start charging for internet calls. If you want the particulars (or want to file an electronic protest) go to http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html There has been so much interest generated in this that the FCC has set up a special "internet comments" page. You can file your opinion from that page. Send a message from the (red) isp at fcc.gov address. Be very specific ... the subject-line has to include the docket # 96-263. You'll need to send your snailmail name & address, too. At 11:52 AM 2/13/97 -0500, you wrote: >SPECIAL ALERT!!! - ACTION NEEDED TODAY!!! > > > INTERNET THREATENED BY GREEDY PHONE COMPANIES!!! > > >***THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ALL THOSE IN THE U.S. CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET*** > > *****LISTEN UP!!!***** > >Every regional phone company in the U.S. is asking the F.C.C. to allow them >to charge access fees to all internet service providers. ISP's have been >exempt from such charges since 1983, something that has helped keep our >monthly INET connection charges low. If the F.C.C. decides to allow phone >companies to begin charging isp's, such charges will be based upon every >minute that a customer is connected, and passed along to each customer. > >To give you an idea of how much additional you could end up paying a >month, here's one example: > >Pacific Bell says that INET surfers use it's phone lines an average of 45 >minutes a day. If PacBell was allowed to charge only 1 cent per minute, >this would increase the average customers bill $13.50 a month, over and >above what is paid now. > >Let's suppose a customer is connected for an average of 3 hours a day. The >monthly bill would then increase $54.00. That's *over and above what your >isp charges now*. If you pay $19.95 a month now for unlimited time >connected, your bill in the future (at 3 hours a day) would then be $73.95 >a month. > >It is most unusual for the F.C.C. to set up an e-mail address >for the public to comment. If we don't take advantage of it, we >will end up paying for it in the pocketbook. > >Please read the message below, and note that we have only until >February 13 (TODAY!!!) to send comments to the F.C.C. NOW IS THE TIME FOR >US TO GENERATE A MAIL FLOOD TO COMPLAIN. > >Both the President and Vice-President have touted their goal is >to have every home in the country connected by the year 2000. If >the phone companies are allowed to charge us by the minute, that >plan will be shot down in flames. It wouldn't be a bad idea either >tolet both Clinton and Gore know what you think. > > ****************** > > I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter > currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has > filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your > internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the > operation of the telephone network. > > It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were > required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an > email box for your comments, responses must be received by February > 13, 1997 (TODAY!). Send your comments to: > > isp at fcc.gov > > and tell them what you think. > > Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak > it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here > this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. > >!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isp at fcc.gov <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all >our voices may be heard! > > ****************************************** > > From copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU Fri Feb 14 15:42:55 1997 From: copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU (James E Copeland) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:42:55 -0600 Subject: Position in Linguistics at Rice University Message-ID: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS Rice University The Department of Linguistics and the Office of the Dean of Humanities is seeking to fill a tenure track position in linguistics at the level of advanced assistant professor beginning fall, 1997. The Ph.D. is required. Rice University is a small institution with undergraduate and graduate strengths in science, engineering, the social sciences, and the humanities. Evidence of excellence in classroom teaching is an imperative. The appointment will be in the Department of Linguistics, but as part of his/her duties the applicant will also be expected to assume the role of Associate Director in the emerging Center for the Study of Languages and thereby contribute directly to its development. In connection with the latter role we are seeking a person with expertise in the state of the art use of technology and multimedia in language teaching. Rice University also places strong emphasis on research, and evidence of a developing personal program of research in both theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics is expected from applicants. The Department of Linguistics takes an integrative approach to language which is sensitive to functional, cognitive, and non-formal aspects of the problem, and we expect applicants generally to share this orientation. The normal course load is two courses (six hours) per semester, one of which will be in theoretical linguistics, and the other in applied linguistics, ESL methods, or foreign language teaching methodology. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. To be eligible for consideration completed applications (including three letters of recommendation) must be received by April 15, 1997. Applicants reply to: Faculty Search, Department of Linguistics, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston TX 77251. E-mail: copeland at ruf.rice.edu. From darnell at CSD.UWM.EDU Sun Feb 16 20:07:05 1997 From: darnell at CSD.UWM.EDU (Michael Darnell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:07:05 -0600 Subject: conference announcement Message-ID: PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE 24TH UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM This announcement is being circulated simply so you may mark your calendars if you are interested. Further announcements will appear with details regarding speakers, scheduling, and the submission of abstracts. We apologize for multiple postings. The dates for the symposium are APRIL 23TH through APRIL 25TH, 1998 The theme of our 24th symposium is CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC and RHETORICAL TYPOLOGY These two areas of research constitute complementary fields of investigation into influences on text production. Contrastive Rhetoric has focused on cultural and rhetorical expectations in different languages and cultures, with an emphasis on the resulting influences on ESL composition. Rhetorical typology has investigated the effects of lexicalization typologies on the patterns of sentence and discourse content in different languages. This symposium will afford researchers in both areas the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas and information. As well, this symposium may be of importance to those interested in ESL pedagogy and/or composition and rhetoric. For further information, please contact Michael Darnell e-mail: darnell at csd.uwm.edu by post: Michael Darnell Dept. of English P. O. Box 413 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 From RSWHEELER at CC.WEBER.EDU Mon Feb 17 20:05:32 1997 From: RSWHEELER at CC.WEBER.EDU (REBECCA S. WHEELER) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:05:32 -0700 Subject: Call for papers: LANGUAGE ALIVE: Linguistics for the rest of us Message-ID: This CALL is cross-posted with LINGUIST. Check it out. rebecca s. wheeler _______________________ CALL FOR PAPERS "LANGUAGE ALIVE linguistics for the rest of us" AN EDITED VOLUME Rebecca S. Wheeler rswheeler at cc.weber.edu DEADLINES: ABSTRACT: May 1, 1997 PAPER: February 1, 1998 AUDIENCES: **Primary**: English & English Education faculty making curriculum decisions about linguistics offerings in undergraduate colleges & universities. **Secondary**: Undergraduate students in English & English Education. **Tertiary**: The educated lay public, linguists in English departments. SEEKING CONTRIBUTIONS AS FOLLOWS: * five 2500 word papers on 1. Why traditional grammar doesn't cut it 2. Language policy in America 3. Spoken language vs. written language 4. Endangered languages 5. Language and gender * 750 - 1,200 word nuggets on assorted topics, as fit into or enhance the existing layout. INVITED CONTRIBUTORS: (nota bene: many titles are dramatizations by the editor) I. English where, English how? **World Englishes, language change** David CRYSTAL: 'Out of left field? That's not cricket: The past, present, and (global) future of English language use. **Prescriptivism unseated** Steven PINKER: The Language Mavens **Dialects and their implications** Salikoko MUFWENE: Language contact yields language variety: Ebonics, dialect of the usual sort. Walt WOLFRAM: Dialect awareness for our children Johanna RUBBA: Language, power and prestige in the classroom **Language Policy** __??: Endangered languages __??: Language policies in America II. Beyond grammar encounters of the traditional kind ??___: Why traditional grammar doesn't cut it Cari SPRING: Beyond grammar workbooks to grammar discovery Dick HUDSON: Exploring ambiguity from K to 12. III. The written word, the spoken word **Language and literacy** Tom GIVON: Scouting the spectrum of literacy **Language in writing** Victor RASKIN: Writing Well in an Unknown Language: Linguistics and composition in an English department **Language in literature** Mark TURNER: Creativity Suzette Haden ELGIN: Martian plains, Elvish, and 'To be or not to be' in Klingon Victor RASKIN: Laughing At or Laughing With: The Linguistics of Humor and Humor in Literature **Spoken vs. written languge** ??___: Spoken language vs. written language **Dictionaries & thesauri** Rebecca WHEELER: "The dictionary says... " IV. Language in social settings **Language and Gender** ??___. Language and gender V. Language in the public view **Language in Politics** George LAKOFF: Metaphor in politics, why conservatives leave liberals in the dust **Language and the Law** Judith LEVI: Guilt or innocence, truth & lies: what language tells us in the courtroom __________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROBLEM: The insights of linguistics, remaining largely sequestered in the halls of technical academia, have not generally made it to the lay public. The consequences of the public's ignorance of linguistics range from damaging public policies (the English Only movement), and uninformed public reaction (the recent Ebonics debate), to the continued perpetration of linguistic falsehoods in the public schools, and the threatening of university linguistics programs around the country, just to name a few. Recent works directed to the lay public are beginning to address this lacuna. For example, readers have been well served by Deborah Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand", and "Talking from 9 to 5", Steve Pinker's "Language Instinct" and Ray Jackendoff's"Patterns in the Mind". The documentaries "The Story of English" and "American Tongues", among others, have furthered the public's awareness of matters linguistic. Within the university or college environment, we find another linguistically lay public. That's the English Departments. Like the broader American public, the English literature and writing faculty are often unfamiliar with the insights and contributions of linguistics. More perniciously, English faculty, alienated by what they perceive as a uselessly technical and theory-bound field, often relegate Linguistics to a dark corner in the English curriculum. Yet, since most colleges and universities in the US do not have separate linguistics programs or departments, it is largely within the English Departments that the insights of linguistics will be taught if they're to be taught at all. The consequence of this English department shunning of linguistics is that we continue to raise generations of students who emerge from college without an informed view of the nature of language and its function in society. Some graduates go on to perpetuate uninformed views as they teach in our primary and secondary schools while others enter public life promote language policies blind to the facts of language. PURPOSE: The purpose of this collection is twofold: (i) to demonstrate that linguistics is a key component within an undergraduate English curriculum by showing that linguistics sheds interesting light on things that English and English Education departments care about, and (ii) to make the insights of our field accessible to a broad readership (faculty, undergraduates, lay public). MAKING THE ARGUMENT: We suggest that a graduate of an English department (majoring in English or the teaching of English) should know what language is and what it isn't; they should know its workings and its playings. This understanding should reap benefits both for our society and for the graduates themselves. First, a graduate in English or English Teaching who is largely language-myth free, should be able to understand and promote linguistically informed social policies. Second, people specializing in English should be able to __do more and understand more__ in contexts where language pertains (literature, language in the school classroom, literature, conversation, advertising, politics, popular music, etc.) PROPOSED BOOK: This collection of papers will offer a linguistically informed discussion of topics interesting and relevant to the target audiences. The intent is to spark interest in linguistics as a useful tool in today's world, both in and outside academia. ***This book does not attempt to directly teach or inform about linguistics. It is not a theoretical treatise. Instead, we will approach our subject by first presenting conundra, scenarios, etc. that intrinsically grab the attention of the audience, and then by demonstrating how linguistics sheds interesting light on these phenomena. In other words, with a reluctant audience shine the beam in through the side door.*** Contributions should include a section citing further readings, and an appendix offering extracts from or suggestions for SYLLABI on the topic under discussion. A PUBLISHER: Praeger will produce this work. SUBMISSIONS: If you'd like to contribute to this work, (a) please jot me me a quick e-note signalling your interest in this project (b) please submit an abstract (200/500 words for 750/2500 wd. articles, respectively) to me at rswheeler at cc.weber.edu, or by snail mail to Rebecca S. Wheeler Department of English Weber State University Ogden, Utah 84408-1201. Papers should be either not previously published, or substantially changed from earlier published versions. SCHEDULE: Abstract submission deadline: May 1, 1997 Accepted papers submitted: February 1, 1998 Projected publication: February 1999 For more information, email me at rswheeler at cc.weber.edu cheers, Rebecca S. Wheeler From annes at HTDC.ORG Wed Feb 19 20:12:18 1997 From: annes at HTDC.ORG (Anne Sing) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:18 -1000 Subject: Ergo Parser Message-ID: We are looking for morphological NLP tools to add to our parser. Specifically, we would like recommendations for existing tools (preferably in C++) that will allow us to easily increase the number of words that we handle by correctly analyzing words with common prefixes and suffixes. We would be inerested in either public domain or for sale morphological parsers. The ideal morphological parser will be one which can work with our syntactic parser and dictionary with- out excessive increases in speed. We would even be interested in looking at morphological parsers that were limited in scope, handling only a few suffixes and prefixes, if they could increase our efficiency without slowing down the parser significantly. Sincerely, Phil Bralich From eitkonen at UTU.FI Tue Feb 25 12:10:48 1997 From: eitkonen at UTU.FI (Esa Itkonen) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:10:48 +0200 Subject: Chess vs. psychology of chess Message-ID: The discussion that took place on Funknet in January was not quite as exhaustive as it seemed first. The 'chess = language' analogy came up, but its real significance did not. In some respects this is a bad analogy, and in others it is a good one. Because chess pieces, unlike nouns and verbs, lack referential meanings (yes, verbs too 'refer'), chess it not of much use if one wishes to elucidate the form - meaning relationship; nor is it of any use if one wishes to elucidate the notion of functional motivation. (Instead, any genuine instrument will do; but notice that the 'instrument = language' analogy too has its pitfalls.) On the other hand, chess is a good analogy, if one wishes to draw attention to the fact that any given language (just like chess) is constituted by a set of socially valid or public NORMS. There is only ONE set of norms (or rules) of chess, which means that all chess-players share the knowledge of this set: it is the object of their common knowledge. And then there are millions and millions of internalizations of this set of norms, i.e. exactly as many as there are chess-players. Thus, chess as a social and normative entity (= one) is distinct from the psychology of chess (= millions). You have to know chess (although you need NOT have some complete theoretical description of it), before you can start to investigate the psychology of chess. This is a very simple truth (and yet my personal experience of more than 25 years has taught me that most linguists do not understand it). In any case, in the Funknet discussion this simple truth was perfectly captured by the person who claimed that investigating the psychological (or biological) foundation of X presupposes that one understand X. Just try to investigate HOW the Finnish relative clause is mentally processed or is stored in the psychologically real, unconscious competence (or, for that matter, HOW it has changed during the past 1000 years), without knowing WHAT is the Finnish relative clause. This distinction between WHAT (= norm) and HOW (and, ultimately, WHY) (= internalization-of-norm) is the cornerstone of my 1983 book 'Causality in Linguistic Theory'. What is the relevance of all this to the Funknet discussion? The relevance lies in the fact that, contrary to the lessons that might be learned from the 'chess = language' analogy, the primacy of the social-normative dimension is ignored in today's cognitive linguistics (just try to find a systematic account of normativity in the currect cognitivist literature); and it is flatly denied in generativism (cf. Chomsky 1976: "As for the fact that the rules of language are 'public rules', this is, indeed, a contingent fact.") It is in order to oppose this line of thinking that, instead of loose chess-type analogies, I have made use of Wittgenstein's private-language argument in my 1978 book 'Grammatical Theory and Metascience', as Kripke has in his 1982 book 'Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language'. But why should this be brought up just now? For the following reason. In the Funknet discussion on form and meaning it turned out that nowadays functionalism (and even non-discreteness) is part and parcel of generativism, and that - somehow - this has in 'reality' always been so. (Never mind Chomsky's 1976 statement to the contrary: "To account for or somehow explain the structure of UG, or of particular grammars, on the basis of functional considerations is a pretty hopeless prospect, I would think; it is, perhaps, even 'perverse' to assume otherwise.") This had me worried. I suddenly remembered Hilary Putnam mentioning a private discussion in which Chomsky had toyed with the idea that maybe "our idealized or 'competence' description is a description of correct thinking in the normative sense" (see "Reflective Reflections", p. 216 in S. Silvers (ed.): 'Rerepresentation', Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989). Of course, this is exactly what the 'competence' description is (which means, in fact, that it is NOT about any genuine or psychologically real competence); it is just that this has been officially denied so far (for details, see my 1978 and 1983 books). However, if functionalism and non-discreteness are any guide, this may soon change. Maybe it is changing right now. All discoveries have 'always already' (= 'immer schon' as Heidegger and the later Husserl would say) been made by generativists. It seems to be an inherent feature of the very notion of 'discovery' that, in a timeless sense, the (true) discoveries have been, are being, and will be made by generativists. Does there remain any notion or issue which generativism just cannot claim as its own? At least until recently, ANALOGY was precisely such an issue. But who knows what will happen? Therefore, before the wind turns and analogy too becomes a generativist property, it might be of some interest to some people to get acqainted with a recent rehabilitation (and formalization) of analogy in syntax. It can be found in a paper by Jussi Haukioja and myself. (Miraculously, some off-prints are still available; write to the following address: jhaukioj at utu.fi ) Esa Itkonen From copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU Thu Feb 27 16:00:52 1997 From: copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU (James E Copeland) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:00:52 -0600 Subject: Hebrew Language Post Message-ID: Lecturer in Modern Hebrew Rice University The Office of the Dean of Humanities is seeking to fill a position as Lecturer in Modern Hebrew beginning in the fall 1997. The position is non-tenured with annual appointments based on student demand. The Ph.D. is desirable but not required. Rice University is a small institution with undergraduate and graduate strengths in science, engineering, the social sciences, and the humanities. Evidence of excellence in classroom teaching is an imperative. The appointment will be in the Center for the Study of Languages and will contribute directly to its language program. We are seeking a person with a native or near native competence in spoken and written Hebrew. Emphasis in teaching will be on the spoken language, as well as reading skills. Candidates who also have competence in reading pre-modern Hebrew texts will be preferred. Training in applied linguistics, or foreign language teaching methodology is also desirable, but not required. The normal course load is two courses (six hours) per semester. Teaching duties will include four Hebrew language courses per year: Elementary Hebrew 1, 2 and Intermediate Hebrew 1, 2. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. To be eligible for consideration send completed applications (including, CV and three letters of recommendation) to: Hebrew language Search, Dean of Humanities, Rice University, MS 33, Houston TX 77251-1892. E-mail: humadmin at rice.edu. Applications will be considered until the position is filled. James E. Copeland Chair Department of Linguistics Rice University Houston, TX 77252-1892 From lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Sat Feb 1 18:39:34 1997 From: lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Sydney M Lamb) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:39:34 -0600 Subject: real neurologists In-Reply-To: <3924121.3063790436@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian --- Thanks for the message. I just want to point out that I was by no means referring to ALL neural network models --- far from it, as I am a great fan of realistic NN models. I specifically singled out just the 1987 Rumelhart and McClelland model for my remarks, since it is so unrealistic and is the one that has nevertheless received that mystifying amount of favorable attention from neurologically inclined people like Kandel. Another serious attempt to be neurologically realistic in model construction is Burnod (1990), "An Adaptive Neural Network: The Cerebral Cortex". > In general, network models vary greatly in the degree to which they > attend to neurological details and known facts. Given this, it is > important to be careful when declaring that all neural network models are > egregiously out of accord with know facts of neural functioning. --- Syd . From TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sat Feb 1 21:19:04 1997 From: TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:19:04 -0800 Subject: Brian MacW/copy Message-ID: From: OREGON::TGIVON "Tom Givon" 1-FEB-1997 13:00:47.68 To: TGIVON CC: Subj: Brian McW/copy Dear Brian, That was a nice note--as far as it went. But people tend to forget that the real bridge between the level we are working at and neurology is, most likely, **not** at the level of individual neurons and their connections. With both language and other higher cognitive systems, we are dealing with much higher levels of genetically-directed and developmentally-executed complex organization. It is at this higher level that one can see the linguistic functional specificity of various sub-modules, in spite of the (undeniable) fact that the lower-level architecture is much more simple and comparatively universal (cross-modal). This is precisely the level of organization that is relevant to higher cognitive processes, including language. It is a level of connected modules rather than connected neurons. And this -- especially the detailed function-specific architectures that **never** arise from zero through learning, but rather are partially there already as precoditions for learning -- is what I have yet to find in the connectionist literature. This is also why I stopped following that literature. I figured, if I had to read one more paper about the "acquisition" of past-tense forms that somehow, conveniently, bypassed the delicate (but to me crucial) phase of learning the contexts -- semantic and pragmatic -- in which one would want to employ those alomorphs, I was in grave danger of throwing up. I stopped following this literature when it dawned on me that so much of it seemed to take it for granted that evolution has never happened; that every child/organism must starts learning from scratch (nevermind the conveniently pre-set 'weights', which can't but remind me of you- know-who's 'parameters'. And perhaps worse, that literature seemed to take it for granted that the very same architectural organization runs from the bottom (neuron) to the top (function-specific modules) of the primate brain organization. The way I saw it at the time I stopped following, there are so many prima-facie reasons why one would not want to invest too much faith in such a reductionist exercise. Thanks again and best regards, TG From colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Sat Feb 1 22:30:06 1997 From: colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Colin James Harrison) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 16:30:06 -0600 Subject: Brian MacW/copy In-Reply-To: <01IEWIQ1QNO28ZKIO3@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> Message-ID: A word in edgeways... In response to Tom Givon's comments, I read there an implication, probably not intentional, but nevertheless present, and one that in my opinion leads to a lot of time wasted in discussions on this and other topics, and that is what we might call "categorical thinking". It is obvioulsy true that the level at which neurological functioning becomes really interesting to linguists, psychologists etc. is an organizationally high one, but to set up a distinction therefore between modular function and the firing of individual neurons is to create a category division where there isn't one. The two levels of function are the same phenomenon viewed at different levels of organisation, and considering either is a good way to learn about both. The danger in talking with such category distinctions is that it can lead to the disjunction (in the minds of those who fail to consider it deeply enough) of phenomena that are in fact inseperable, and the maintenance of unrealistic notions such as we see reflected in the "box and arrow" type models that have predominated in the literature for years. A modular model will tell us nothing without some story about what goes on inside the modules, just as a neuron-level connectionism will tell us nothing about language, unless it acknowledges the emergent characteristics of higher-level self-organisation, and has something intelligent to say about that. I'm not for a moment sugesting that Tom Givon is unaware of this, but I have picked up on the faint suggestion of this I read in his posting to make the point anyway, as it amazes me how often such binary thinking clouds and distracts us from what would otherwise be really interesting debates. Colin Harrison Rice University From tho at NUCLEUS.HUT.FI Mon Feb 3 08:23:19 1997 From: tho at NUCLEUS.HUT.FI (Timo Honkela) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:23:19 +0200 Subject: real neurologists, Kohonen maps In-Reply-To: <3924121.3063790436@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Brian wrote: > Models that take the details of neuronal functioning seriously and which > capture the intricacy of neuroanatomical patterns are going to be tough to > build. One area where modelling and real neurological facts seem to be > coming into good contact is in regard to the details of the wiring of local > map topology. For example, models of Kohonen self-organizing feature maps > closely echo facts of lateral inhibition that are important in setting up > neuronal fields. It is my pleasure to tell you about an experiment in which we used Kohonen's self-organizing maps to process natural language input. The result was interesting compared with some neurophysiological findings. The general organization of the map reflected both syntactical and semantical categories. All verbs could be found in the top section whereas the nouns were located in the lower right corner of the map. Inside the large, syntactically based groups on the map, fine structures of semantic relationships could also be discerned. For instance, the animate and inanimate nouns formed a group of their own each. The implicit categories emerged in the unsupervised learning process the input being just the text itself. A summary as well as the full paper is available at the address http://nucleus.hut.fi/~tho/lang-som/ Best regards, Timo ------------------- --------------------------- Timo Honkela Timo.Honkela at hut.fi http://nucleus.hut.fi/~tho/ Neural Networks Research Centre, Helsinki Univ of Technology and Rakentajanaukio 2 C, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland Nat Lang Proc Tel. +358-9-451 3275, Fax +358-9-451 3277 From nori at DIRCON.CO.UK Wed Feb 5 22:50:04 1997 From: nori at DIRCON.CO.UK (nori akiho) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:50:04 -0000 Subject: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?UXM6SmFwYW5lc2UgbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYW5kIGdlbmRlcg==?= Message-ID: ** ** ** ** *** ** *** **** ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** *** *** ** ** We are preparing a presentation for our Sociopsychology and Language course in MA Applied Linguistic at Berkbeck College, UCL, and looking for ANY information regarding to Japanese Language and gender relationship, particularly in formal occasion such as at workplace, job interview. Should anyone be able to help please contact me. Thank you From TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Sun Feb 9 18:41:30 1997 From: TGIVON at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:41:30 -0800 Subject: reply to Brian MacW. Message-ID: Good comments, Brian. But you ascribe to me more than I said. It is not that I think evolution involves no local-level changes. It involves all levels of changes. And clearly complex structural organization evolves from more simple precoursors (see general discussion in J.T. Booner's "The Evolution of Complexity"). What I objected to only is the total obsession of (at least the early) connectionist work with the low-level stuff. And there are clearly exceptions to that. E.G., Jeff Hinton's rather inspired work on modeling the interaction between individual learning behavior and genetic evolution (reviving Lamarck but with a much more plausible mechanism based on -- guess what -- the rise of automaticity) has been a great inspi- ration to me in my own work. But -- even when adaptive steps are small and subtle, when they involve highly-organized functional modules, they cannot be explained merely by the lower-level steps (but rather by their interaction WITHIN higher-level modules). So for example, you cannot explain in toto the adaptation of the lower tip of the primary motor cortex (Broca's area) into a grammar-related module by purely local low-level chganges. Nor can you explain the extension of the hippocampus-based system of episodic memory from visual to verbal this way. Nor the adaptation of portions of the primary auditory center into a phonemic analyzer. Nor the adaptation of the object-recognition module(s) and visual semantic memory into a general verbal/visual semantic memory. Etc. etc. etc. In each case, local and low-level changes do not happen in a vacuum, they happen within the context of extant complex functional modules and the extention of extant complex behavior to related but not identical new functions. If connec- tionists would treat these realistic evolutionary problems seriously, they will, I suspect, cease to become "connectionists" in the classical (and to my mind rather restrictive) sense. So we should then welcome them back into the large community in the muddled middle where science is practiced (or at least where I think it can be practiced best). Best, TG From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Sun Feb 9 19:04:07 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:04:07 -0500 Subject: no-modularity-at-all In-Reply-To: <3937381.3064474675@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, 9 Feb 1997, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Dear FunkNet, > ... > At the best, connectionists > (myself included) have presented a system for neural-like notation > that allows one to believe that the problems of symbolic representation, > language processing, and language acquisition might eventually be solved > from an emergentist perspective. The value of this demonstration is simply > that it provides functional linguists (additional) license to dismiss > claims regarding the psychological reality of generative grammar. This is just whistling in the dark. Even if there were strong grounds for optimism on connectionism generally, this would give no warrant for the statement on psychological reality. That is a blatant non sequitur. (And I am still waiting for a reply to Ted Gibson's criticism in Language (couple of years back) of the Competition Model, since you cite your own work. If there is such a reply, I would like to look at it, to better reevaluate your own claims.) > Givon chides connectionists for > reductionism, but Nature herself is a reductionist. No, Brian, Nature is not a reductionist. This is a category mistake. Reductionism refers to the best way to explain things, not how 'they are', which could conceivably remain a mystery throughout human history. At this point, it is still the case that the best way to explain many aspects of the mind/brain is in terms of the mental and 'higher levels/orders'. It may be possible one day to restate these things in terms of the brain, but it may, alternatively, never be possible to do so. There is a lot more to learn about the brain before we will have any idea what the answer will be. In fact, as Chomsky has noted, it might even turn out that reductionism could lead in the other direction - the best statements overall may be in terms of the mental rather than the cerebral. The question is not one of ultimate substance, but the best explanations available to us. -- Dan From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Mon Feb 10 02:26:51 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 21:26:51 -0500 Subject: Language Editorial Policy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Perhaps it would be in order to make a brief comment on Brian MacWhinney's remark that the editor of Language refused to publish his reply to Gibson's review of the Competition Model. I am not sure that I interpreted Brian's remark accurately, but on one reading it seems to imply that the editor was unfair or arbitrary. At least at the time that I was an Associate Editor of Language, which I believe corresponds to the time of the Gibson review, it was (and I am nearly certain still is) the policy of Language not to publish replies to reviews, period. Authors wishing to respond to a review must have their rebuttals refereed like any other publication in Language. There are no free rides in the journal. I do not know if the editor of Language informed Brian of this or how he submitted his reply, but I do know that nothing is published in Language unless it is reviewed. -- Dan ****************************** ****************************** Dan Everett Department of Linguistics University of Pittsburgh 2816 CL Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: 412-624-8101; Fax: 412-624-6130 http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu/~dever From faucon at COGSCI.UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 10 03:05:16 1997 From: faucon at COGSCI.UCSD.EDU (Gilles Fauconnier) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 19:05:16 -0800 Subject: free rides Message-ID: Most recent exchange on funknet: Everett: ... That is a blatant non sequitur. (And I am still waiting for a reply to Ted Gibson's criticism in Language (couple of years back) of the Competition Model, since you cite your own work ...) McWhinney: Liz Bates and I sent in a reply to Gibson when the article came out, but the editor of Language refused to publish it. Everett: [...I was an Associate Editor of Language ...] it was (and I am nearly certain still is) the policy of Language not to publish replies to reviews, period. There are no free rides in the journal. So, what exactly was Everett waiting for? Another non sequitur? gilles From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Mon Feb 10 10:22:39 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 05:22:39 -0500 Subject: free rides In-Reply-To: <9702100305.AA22781@cogsci.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: The point is not that Language would not publish a rebuttal of any sort, but that noone has the right to a *nonrefereed* reply. I checked with the former Editor of Language - Brian was informed that if he submitted a reply it would have to be reviewed; it was reviewed; the Editor followed the referees' advice. So the point is that a reply could have been published if it had been a stand-alone piece that passed the reviewing process. -- DLE From lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Mon Feb 10 17:44:26 1997 From: lamb at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Sydney M Lamb) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:44:26 -0600 Subject: no-modularity-at-all In-Reply-To: <3937381.3064474675@patience.psy.cmu.edu> Message-ID: In response to Brian's remarks, > . . . When functionalists > look to neurology, it is equally discouraging to find no anatomical level > grounding of the human-primate discontinuity. > That ain't the way I heerd it. Two points: 1. According to Norman Geschwind, in "The development of the brain and the evolution of language" (Georgetown Round Table, 1964), (I quote just a few important summarizing passages here): "The monkey does not appear to have a suffieient basis anatomically to form extensive non-limbic intermodal assiciations." (164) "The human brain at birth is perhaps 40% of its adult size while that of the ape's is nearly 70% of full-grown size. . . . The great increase in the size of man's brain is primarily in the association areas.... The greatest relative growth of the human brain compared to that of the subhuman primates is in the inferior parietal region... . The impressive development if the inferior posterior parietal region (the region of the angular gyrus) is so great that some authors...even assert that this region is almost unique to man.... This region ... is admirably suited to [act as a] way station by which associations may be formed between these non-limbic modalities. This area may well be termed 'the asssociation cortex' of the association cortexes. By providing the basis for the formation of non-limbic associations, it provides the anatomical basis for language --- or at least for object-naming." (165) In my current hypothesis of the anatomical correlates of the components of my connectionist model, the angular gyrus is devoted mainly to lexical connections (or entirely to lexical connections if we take a broad enough view of what they are). 2. I read somewhere recently, but now can't remember where, that chimpanzees have little or no arcuate fasciculus. Is this report reliable? Does anybody know? If so, it if of great interest, as this fiber bundle is also vitally important for human language, since it connects Phonological Recognition to Phonological Production. --- Syd Lamb . From M.Durie at LINGUISTICS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU Mon Feb 10 23:59:46 1997 From: M.Durie at LINGUISTICS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU (Mark Durie) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:59:46 +1100 Subject: free rides Message-ID: I had seen no suggestion in Brian's original comments that the Editors of Language had acted improperly, so these responses by Dan have seemed defensive and un-called for, as Gilles' witty response suggested. Nevertheless, Dan has now confirmed to his satisfaction, and broadcast to us all, that Brian's response was indeed refused for publication by the Editor, just Brian has told us. I find it incredible that a previous Editor and Associate Editor of Language would be publically releasing information about a submission to their journal. It's one thing for a author to tell others their submission was knocked back, but quite another for Editors to comment publically to confirm this. Has the editorial policy of Language relaxed its confidentiality provisions? The whole point was NOT the integrity of Language's editorial policy, but the strengths and weaknesses of the Competition Model, and the history of debate on this. Let's keep the discussion focussed. Mark Durie ------------------------------------ From: Mark Durie Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics University of Melbourne Parkville 3052 Hm (03) 9380-5247 Wk (03) 9344-5191 Fax (03) 9349-4326 M.Durie at linguistics.unimelb.edu.au http://www.arts.unimelb.edu.au/Dept/LALX/staff/durie.html From dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU Tue Feb 11 00:07:40 1997 From: dever at VERB.LINGUIST.PITT.EDU (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:07:40 -0500 Subject: Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The former Editor of Language made no breach of confidentiality. If it is believed that there was one, I must bear the blame. -- DLE From fletcher at HKUSUA.HKU.HK Tue Feb 11 04:05:03 1997 From: fletcher at HKUSUA.HKU.HK (Paul Fletcher) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:05:03 +0800 Subject: The K. family Message-ID: I have only just become aware of the existence of FUNKNET, and I hope subscribers will bear with me if, somewhat late in the day, I add a lengthy postscript to the recent discussion about the K. family. As a linguist who has worked with Vargha-Khadem's group in London on some of the data, I feel it's incumbent on me to make some comment. (I should point out however that the views expressed below are my own and does not represent any kind of London group view). While I can apologise for trying your patience, I can make no apologies for concentrating on the data to make some points which I think bear on the issues. 1. I think it's important to emphasise the differences between the K. family and the vast majority of subjects designated 'SLI' in the literature on grammatical impairment over the 25 years since Morehead & Ingram's initial foray into this field in 1973. First, the sex distribution in the K. family is very different to that of subjects designated SLI. A glance at the pedigree for the K. family (first published in Hurst et. al., DevMed&ChNeurol. 32, 347-55) shows that of the 30 affected members across three generations, half are female. This is in contrast to the well-attested sex ratio of approx. 3:1, boys to girls, in the SLI population as appearing in the literature. Second, while most of the SLI subjects in publihsed studies are in the 4-9 yr age-range, the K. family ranges from elementary school age individuals to a woman in her seventies. In the light of these two factors alone it would make sense to consider the K. family separately and not lump them under the general label 'SLI'. From this I think it follows that we need to be cautious about comparing the results from this family with non-familially-related, and on average much younger, Greek and Japanese language-impaired subjects. 2. Re the 'articulation problems' of the affected members of the K. family: I can assure subscribers to FUNKNET that these are real, and not an artifact of the testing situation. Let me elaborate. In a paper I presented at the Evolution of Human Language conference in Edinburgh in April, I looked in some detail at a subset of the K. family -- a second generation affected female, her two affected sons, and an unaffected daughter and granddaughter. (I showed video clips of these individuals at the conference). I was particularly interested in vowel pronunciations, (for reasons that I hope will become apparent). In the to my knowledge only published (and hence refereed) paper on the phonology of the K. family (Fee, E. (1995), Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 9, 189-209), the author acknowledges, but decides to ignore, any vowel errors on the part of affected family members. Because vowel errors are relatively rare in what are termed phonological disorders in SLI kids, and also because they have been descibed in the literature on developmental apraxia of speech (DAS), this seemed an omission which needed correction. The second and third generation affected members showed vowel problems, in addition to the consonantal problems documented by Fee; the unaffected third and fourth generation members did not. In the folowing brief illustrative extract from one of the 3G affected males (aged 22 yrs.), the vowels in caps. are mispronounced (including both occurrences of 'I'): My nAme is ------ and todAy's dAte is the EIghteenth of the second nInety-six. I am a chEf and I can tell you how to mAke a Victoria sponge mix. RIght what to do first...... About 25% of vowels here are errors. 9/10 occur in long vowel targets, of which all are diphthongs. Further, they are all diphthongs whose offset is a close front vowel. (Typically the onset is produced as the representative of the vowel). This feature of the affected family members I looked at (and I acknowledge that so far it is only one branch of the family) links with the DAS literature (see for example Morley 1957, 'Development and disorders of speech in childhood', Pollock & Hall 1991, ClinLing&Phon 5, 207-24), where similar diphthongal errors are described. Interestingly, Pollock & Hall also summarise a constellation of other problems evinced by those described as developmentally apraxic: -- family history of speech and language problems -- persistence of speech problems and their intractibility to remediation -- non-verbal oral apraxia -- 'soft' neurological signs -- language disorder -- word-finding difficulties -- academic learning problems This list of symptoms bears a remarkable similarity to the profile of performance patiently uncovered by Vargha-Khadem et al. in the K. family. The purpose of the comparison is not to label the affected members of the K. family as developmentally apraxic ( a notoriously slippery label), but to emphasise that as a group (and with the variation you would expect within a group -- morphological performance also varies from affected individual to affected individual) they display a constellation of symptoms which is similar, at first blush, to a well-attested profile in other impaired individuals. Some of the elements of this profile (in DAS) have been attributed to motor planning problems. If this is correct, it may also apply to some of the elements of the K. family profile. And it seems to me to be premature, at the very least, to attribute an ontological primacy to any single one of these symptoms. A necessary condition for ever understanding what is going on here is a precise and exhaustive description of the phenotype, and it's far too early to foreclose on that. 3. Of course you can't find out everything about the language of impaired individuals by using standardised tests. But you can find out something. I take it that the excitement caused by Gopnik's earlier reports on affected members of the K. family, among the linguistic community, had to do with the fact that they appeared to identify a selective grammatical deficit. If the fault-lines of a deficit in SLI individuals demarcate a 'natural class' of categories from the grammar, this could be taken as support for the Chomskyan view of how the LAD is structured and the role that it plays in acquisition. For this assumption of a selective 'representational' deficit to hold, I take it that there should be evidence available from both comprehension and production on the relevant deficits. In the Edinburgh paper I also reported some findings form a comprehension test, TROG (Test for the reception of Grammar, standardised in the UK by Dorothy Bishop on 4 - 12 yr. olds), which provides some indirect evidence on whether the clear evidence of a production-side morphological deficit is paralleled in comprehension. TROG is a sentence/picture matching task, addressing a range of morphosyntactic areas: gender and number in pronouns, plural, comparative, prepositions, and grammatical relations via active/passive sentences and complex sentences with embedded relative clauses. The Vargha-Khadem group applied TROG to the K. family., with the following outcomes: a) There is a significant performance difference between affected and unaffected family members, but affected members still perform at close to 90% on the task, indicating a receptive grammatical ability roughly comparable to the average 10 yr old (the average 10 yr old Brit, that is). b) Failing items on the TROG, for the affected members of the family, are not randomly distributed, but involve those items on the test which involve embedded relative clauses. Verb inflectional contrasts, the crux of the issue for Gopnik, are not included in the TROG, so we have no direct evidence on these items. However passive verb morphology IS a part of the test, in the section in which subjects have to match four reversible passives with appropriate pictures, and affected family members who have output tense problems perform well on this section. It is difficult to believe that a receptive command of the verb forms signifying passive would cooccur with a lack of command of past tense. But unless specific production limitations are identified in comprehension also, it is difficult to argue a competence-based deficit. At which point I rest my case, fearful of trying the patience of FUNKNET subscribers any further. I should point out that Myrna and I have known one another a long time, and I for one am grateful to her for playing the role that she has in bringing the issues relating to the family in particular and to SLI in general under the spotlight. It will be obvious that we disagree pretty fundamentally on tthe interpretation of the data. I am however with her unequivocally when she says 'the only way to answer this question is to look at what they do and how they do it and why they do it....'. From cumming at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Wed Feb 12 01:58:04 1997 From: cumming at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (Susanna Cumming) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:58:04 -0800 Subject: Temporary teaching position in linguistics, UCSB Message-ID: TEMPORARY TEACHING POSITION IN LINGUISTICS The Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to hire a linguist (lecturer rank) to teach graduate and undergraduate courses in phonetics, phonology, and/or sociocultural linguistics in 1997-98, pending budgetary approval. We hope to make a tenure-track appointment in one of these areas beginning Fall 1998. Applicants should be able to teach in their specialization as well as in introductory and general linguistics, and should have demonstrated teaching ability. Candidates must hold a PhD by the starting date. Applications should be submitted to Prof. Susanna Cumming, Chair, Department of Linguistics, UC Santa Barbara, CA 93106 (e-mail: cumming at humanitas.ucsb.edu). Applicants should send a letter, curriculum vitae, sample of written work and the names of three referees. Applications submitted by March 15, 1997 will receive the fullest consideration, but applications received later will be considered until the position is filled. UCSB is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. From colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU Wed Feb 12 16:54:10 1997 From: colinh at OWLNET.RICE.EDU (Colin Harrison) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:54:10 -0700 Subject: munari Message-ID: Hi Funknetters! Here's an easy one: Does anyone out there recognise the unit 'munari' as being a meaningful string in any language? That's it! No further rules... Any glosses gratefully accepted. I don't think there's any need to clog up the newsgroup with replies - you can send them directly to me . Thanks! Colin Harrison Rice University From dlpayne at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Wed Feb 12 18:14:27 1997 From: dlpayne at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU (Doris Payne) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:14:27 -0800 Subject: Job: Visiting Assistant Professor of Linguistics Message-ID: VISITING ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS The Linguistics Department at the University of oregon announces the opening of one to three non-tenure related Visiting Assistant Professor positons for the 1997-1998 academic year, potentially renewable, ranging from .50 to 1.0 FTE depending on Departmental needs. The Linguistics Department of Oregon enjoys a long tradition of work within the functionalist tradition, concentrating in descriptive work and field work and in empirical work on language use, discourse, and language acquisition. We invite applications from qualified individuals who can contribute to the functional and typological orientation of the Department. Since the openings fill teaching gaps for faculty on leave, the candidate must show evidence of considerable teaching skill, at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The successful applicant must be able to help cover our core curriculum, which includes phonetics, phonology, functional-typological morphosyntax, semantics, and second language acquisition and teaching. Additional specializations in second language acquisition, discourse, psycholinguistics, and/or historical syntax and grammaticalization will be particularly attractive, depending on department needs. In addition, the successful applicant must have an active research profile and must be able to direct graduate student research. QUALIFICATIONS: Ph.D. in Linguistics DUTIES: Up to two courses per term of hire (we are on a quarter system) Mentor students in research projects, as needed Participate in department life, as appropriate Please submit a letter of application, vita, and names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of three references to: VAP Search Committee, Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403. To receive fullest consideration, applications should be compete by March 15. The University of Oregon is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information, contact our web site: http://logos.uoregon.edu From Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at COLORADO.EDU Thu Feb 13 04:54:25 1997 From: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at COLORADO.EDU (FRAJZYNGIER ZYGMUNT) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:54:25 -0700 Subject: Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals Message-ID: Dear friends, There is still time to send an abstract for the Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals to be held in Boulder, CO, August 29-30. The aim of the symposium is twofold: a reconsideration of the formal and functional properties of reflexive and reciprocal markers and a discussion of languages in which the functions usually associated with reflexive and reciprocal markers are coded by unrelated means. Invited participants are: Werner Abraham, Alexandra Ajkhenvald, Martin.Everaert, Bernd Heine, Suzanne Kemmer, Ekkehard Koenig, Frantisek Lichtenberk, Elena Maslova, William McGregor, Pierre Pica, Eric Reuland, Filomena Sandalo, Mathias Schladt. There are still slots available for a few more papers. If interested in presenting a paper send an abstract by March 15 (extended deadline), 1997 to Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Dept. of Linguistics, Box 295, Univerity of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 80309. e-mail: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu. From danr at INETW.NET Thu Feb 13 18:29:38 1997 From: danr at INETW.NET (Dan or Alysse Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:29:38 -0500 Subject: Urgent Info. about ISP and Phone Companies with F.C.C. Message-ID: Alysse here .... I'm going to foward this to a couple of listservs (and ask others who see it to post it on to yet other listservs). It's not a joke; I called the FCC & asked 2/13/97. There is a proposal before the FCC to start charging for internet calls. If you want the particulars (or want to file an electronic protest) go to http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html There has been so much interest generated in this that the FCC has set up a special "internet comments" page. You can file your opinion from that page. Send a message from the (red) isp at fcc.gov address. Be very specific ... the subject-line has to include the docket # 96-263. You'll need to send your snailmail name & address, too. At 11:52 AM 2/13/97 -0500, you wrote: >SPECIAL ALERT!!! - ACTION NEEDED TODAY!!! > > > INTERNET THREATENED BY GREEDY PHONE COMPANIES!!! > > >***THIS IS IMPORTANT TO ALL THOSE IN THE U.S. CONNECTING TO THE INTERNET*** > > *****LISTEN UP!!!***** > >Every regional phone company in the U.S. is asking the F.C.C. to allow them >to charge access fees to all internet service providers. ISP's have been >exempt from such charges since 1983, something that has helped keep our >monthly INET connection charges low. If the F.C.C. decides to allow phone >companies to begin charging isp's, such charges will be based upon every >minute that a customer is connected, and passed along to each customer. > >To give you an idea of how much additional you could end up paying a >month, here's one example: > >Pacific Bell says that INET surfers use it's phone lines an average of 45 >minutes a day. If PacBell was allowed to charge only 1 cent per minute, >this would increase the average customers bill $13.50 a month, over and >above what is paid now. > >Let's suppose a customer is connected for an average of 3 hours a day. The >monthly bill would then increase $54.00. That's *over and above what your >isp charges now*. If you pay $19.95 a month now for unlimited time >connected, your bill in the future (at 3 hours a day) would then be $73.95 >a month. > >It is most unusual for the F.C.C. to set up an e-mail address >for the public to comment. If we don't take advantage of it, we >will end up paying for it in the pocketbook. > >Please read the message below, and note that we have only until >February 13 (TODAY!!!) to send comments to the F.C.C. NOW IS THE TIME FOR >US TO GENERATE A MAIL FLOOD TO COMPLAIN. > >Both the President and Vice-President have touted their goal is >to have every home in the country connected by the year 2000. If >the phone companies are allowed to charge us by the minute, that >plan will be shot down in flames. It wouldn't be a bad idea either >tolet both Clinton and Gore know what you think. > > ****************** > > I am writing you this to inform you of a very important matter > currently under review by the FCC. Your local telephone company has > filed a proposal with the FCC to impose per minute charges for your > internet service. They contend that your usage has or will hinder the > operation of the telephone network. > > It is my belief that internet usage will diminish if users were > required to pay additional per minute charges. The FCC has created an > email box for your comments, responses must be received by February > 13, 1997 (TODAY!). Send your comments to: > > isp at fcc.gov > > and tell them what you think. > > Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to sneak > it in just under the wire for litiagation. Let everyone you know here > this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can think of. > >!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> isp at fcc.gov <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Please forward this email to all your friends on the internet so all >our voices may be heard! > > ****************************************** > > From copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU Fri Feb 14 15:42:55 1997 From: copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU (James E Copeland) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:42:55 -0600 Subject: Position in Linguistics at Rice University Message-ID: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LINGUISTICS Rice University The Department of Linguistics and the Office of the Dean of Humanities is seeking to fill a tenure track position in linguistics at the level of advanced assistant professor beginning fall, 1997. The Ph.D. is required. Rice University is a small institution with undergraduate and graduate strengths in science, engineering, the social sciences, and the humanities. Evidence of excellence in classroom teaching is an imperative. The appointment will be in the Department of Linguistics, but as part of his/her duties the applicant will also be expected to assume the role of Associate Director in the emerging Center for the Study of Languages and thereby contribute directly to its development. In connection with the latter role we are seeking a person with expertise in the state of the art use of technology and multimedia in language teaching. Rice University also places strong emphasis on research, and evidence of a developing personal program of research in both theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics is expected from applicants. The Department of Linguistics takes an integrative approach to language which is sensitive to functional, cognitive, and non-formal aspects of the problem, and we expect applicants generally to share this orientation. The normal course load is two courses (six hours) per semester, one of which will be in theoretical linguistics, and the other in applied linguistics, ESL methods, or foreign language teaching methodology. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. To be eligible for consideration completed applications (including three letters of recommendation) must be received by April 15, 1997. Applicants reply to: Faculty Search, Department of Linguistics, Rice University, P.O. Box 1892, Houston TX 77251. E-mail: copeland at ruf.rice.edu. From darnell at CSD.UWM.EDU Sun Feb 16 20:07:05 1997 From: darnell at CSD.UWM.EDU (Michael Darnell) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:07:05 -0600 Subject: conference announcement Message-ID: PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE 24TH UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE LINGUISTICS SYMPOSIUM This announcement is being circulated simply so you may mark your calendars if you are interested. Further announcements will appear with details regarding speakers, scheduling, and the submission of abstracts. We apologize for multiple postings. The dates for the symposium are APRIL 23TH through APRIL 25TH, 1998 The theme of our 24th symposium is CONTRASTIVE RHETORIC and RHETORICAL TYPOLOGY These two areas of research constitute complementary fields of investigation into influences on text production. Contrastive Rhetoric has focused on cultural and rhetorical expectations in different languages and cultures, with an emphasis on the resulting influences on ESL composition. Rhetorical typology has investigated the effects of lexicalization typologies on the patterns of sentence and discourse content in different languages. This symposium will afford researchers in both areas the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas and information. As well, this symposium may be of importance to those interested in ESL pedagogy and/or composition and rhetoric. For further information, please contact Michael Darnell e-mail: darnell at csd.uwm.edu by post: Michael Darnell Dept. of English P. O. Box 413 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 From RSWHEELER at CC.WEBER.EDU Mon Feb 17 20:05:32 1997 From: RSWHEELER at CC.WEBER.EDU (REBECCA S. WHEELER) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:05:32 -0700 Subject: Call for papers: LANGUAGE ALIVE: Linguistics for the rest of us Message-ID: This CALL is cross-posted with LINGUIST. Check it out. rebecca s. wheeler _______________________ CALL FOR PAPERS "LANGUAGE ALIVE linguistics for the rest of us" AN EDITED VOLUME Rebecca S. Wheeler rswheeler at cc.weber.edu DEADLINES: ABSTRACT: May 1, 1997 PAPER: February 1, 1998 AUDIENCES: **Primary**: English & English Education faculty making curriculum decisions about linguistics offerings in undergraduate colleges & universities. **Secondary**: Undergraduate students in English & English Education. **Tertiary**: The educated lay public, linguists in English departments. SEEKING CONTRIBUTIONS AS FOLLOWS: * five 2500 word papers on 1. Why traditional grammar doesn't cut it 2. Language policy in America 3. Spoken language vs. written language 4. Endangered languages 5. Language and gender * 750 - 1,200 word nuggets on assorted topics, as fit into or enhance the existing layout. INVITED CONTRIBUTORS: (nota bene: many titles are dramatizations by the editor) I. English where, English how? **World Englishes, language change** David CRYSTAL: 'Out of left field? That's not cricket: The past, present, and (global) future of English language use. **Prescriptivism unseated** Steven PINKER: The Language Mavens **Dialects and their implications** Salikoko MUFWENE: Language contact yields language variety: Ebonics, dialect of the usual sort. Walt WOLFRAM: Dialect awareness for our children Johanna RUBBA: Language, power and prestige in the classroom **Language Policy** __??: Endangered languages __??: Language policies in America II. Beyond grammar encounters of the traditional kind ??___: Why traditional grammar doesn't cut it Cari SPRING: Beyond grammar workbooks to grammar discovery Dick HUDSON: Exploring ambiguity from K to 12. III. The written word, the spoken word **Language and literacy** Tom GIVON: Scouting the spectrum of literacy **Language in writing** Victor RASKIN: Writing Well in an Unknown Language: Linguistics and composition in an English department **Language in literature** Mark TURNER: Creativity Suzette Haden ELGIN: Martian plains, Elvish, and 'To be or not to be' in Klingon Victor RASKIN: Laughing At or Laughing With: The Linguistics of Humor and Humor in Literature **Spoken vs. written languge** ??___: Spoken language vs. written language **Dictionaries & thesauri** Rebecca WHEELER: "The dictionary says... " IV. Language in social settings **Language and Gender** ??___. Language and gender V. Language in the public view **Language in Politics** George LAKOFF: Metaphor in politics, why conservatives leave liberals in the dust **Language and the Law** Judith LEVI: Guilt or innocence, truth & lies: what language tells us in the courtroom __________________ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROBLEM: The insights of linguistics, remaining largely sequestered in the halls of technical academia, have not generally made it to the lay public. The consequences of the public's ignorance of linguistics range from damaging public policies (the English Only movement), and uninformed public reaction (the recent Ebonics debate), to the continued perpetration of linguistic falsehoods in the public schools, and the threatening of university linguistics programs around the country, just to name a few. Recent works directed to the lay public are beginning to address this lacuna. For example, readers have been well served by Deborah Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand", and "Talking from 9 to 5", Steve Pinker's "Language Instinct" and Ray Jackendoff's"Patterns in the Mind". The documentaries "The Story of English" and "American Tongues", among others, have furthered the public's awareness of matters linguistic. Within the university or college environment, we find another linguistically lay public. That's the English Departments. Like the broader American public, the English literature and writing faculty are often unfamiliar with the insights and contributions of linguistics. More perniciously, English faculty, alienated by what they perceive as a uselessly technical and theory-bound field, often relegate Linguistics to a dark corner in the English curriculum. Yet, since most colleges and universities in the US do not have separate linguistics programs or departments, it is largely within the English Departments that the insights of linguistics will be taught if they're to be taught at all. The consequence of this English department shunning of linguistics is that we continue to raise generations of students who emerge from college without an informed view of the nature of language and its function in society. Some graduates go on to perpetuate uninformed views as they teach in our primary and secondary schools while others enter public life promote language policies blind to the facts of language. PURPOSE: The purpose of this collection is twofold: (i) to demonstrate that linguistics is a key component within an undergraduate English curriculum by showing that linguistics sheds interesting light on things that English and English Education departments care about, and (ii) to make the insights of our field accessible to a broad readership (faculty, undergraduates, lay public). MAKING THE ARGUMENT: We suggest that a graduate of an English department (majoring in English or the teaching of English) should know what language is and what it isn't; they should know its workings and its playings. This understanding should reap benefits both for our society and for the graduates themselves. First, a graduate in English or English Teaching who is largely language-myth free, should be able to understand and promote linguistically informed social policies. Second, people specializing in English should be able to __do more and understand more__ in contexts where language pertains (literature, language in the school classroom, literature, conversation, advertising, politics, popular music, etc.) PROPOSED BOOK: This collection of papers will offer a linguistically informed discussion of topics interesting and relevant to the target audiences. The intent is to spark interest in linguistics as a useful tool in today's world, both in and outside academia. ***This book does not attempt to directly teach or inform about linguistics. It is not a theoretical treatise. Instead, we will approach our subject by first presenting conundra, scenarios, etc. that intrinsically grab the attention of the audience, and then by demonstrating how linguistics sheds interesting light on these phenomena. In other words, with a reluctant audience shine the beam in through the side door.*** Contributions should include a section citing further readings, and an appendix offering extracts from or suggestions for SYLLABI on the topic under discussion. A PUBLISHER: Praeger will produce this work. SUBMISSIONS: If you'd like to contribute to this work, (a) please jot me me a quick e-note signalling your interest in this project (b) please submit an abstract (200/500 words for 750/2500 wd. articles, respectively) to me at rswheeler at cc.weber.edu, or by snail mail to Rebecca S. Wheeler Department of English Weber State University Ogden, Utah 84408-1201. Papers should be either not previously published, or substantially changed from earlier published versions. SCHEDULE: Abstract submission deadline: May 1, 1997 Accepted papers submitted: February 1, 1998 Projected publication: February 1999 For more information, email me at rswheeler at cc.weber.edu cheers, Rebecca S. Wheeler From annes at HTDC.ORG Wed Feb 19 20:12:18 1997 From: annes at HTDC.ORG (Anne Sing) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:12:18 -1000 Subject: Ergo Parser Message-ID: We are looking for morphological NLP tools to add to our parser. Specifically, we would like recommendations for existing tools (preferably in C++) that will allow us to easily increase the number of words that we handle by correctly analyzing words with common prefixes and suffixes. We would be inerested in either public domain or for sale morphological parsers. The ideal morphological parser will be one which can work with our syntactic parser and dictionary with- out excessive increases in speed. We would even be interested in looking at morphological parsers that were limited in scope, handling only a few suffixes and prefixes, if they could increase our efficiency without slowing down the parser significantly. Sincerely, Phil Bralich From eitkonen at UTU.FI Tue Feb 25 12:10:48 1997 From: eitkonen at UTU.FI (Esa Itkonen) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:10:48 +0200 Subject: Chess vs. psychology of chess Message-ID: The discussion that took place on Funknet in January was not quite as exhaustive as it seemed first. The 'chess = language' analogy came up, but its real significance did not. In some respects this is a bad analogy, and in others it is a good one. Because chess pieces, unlike nouns and verbs, lack referential meanings (yes, verbs too 'refer'), chess it not of much use if one wishes to elucidate the form - meaning relationship; nor is it of any use if one wishes to elucidate the notion of functional motivation. (Instead, any genuine instrument will do; but notice that the 'instrument = language' analogy too has its pitfalls.) On the other hand, chess is a good analogy, if one wishes to draw attention to the fact that any given language (just like chess) is constituted by a set of socially valid or public NORMS. There is only ONE set of norms (or rules) of chess, which means that all chess-players share the knowledge of this set: it is the object of their common knowledge. And then there are millions and millions of internalizations of this set of norms, i.e. exactly as many as there are chess-players. Thus, chess as a social and normative entity (= one) is distinct from the psychology of chess (= millions). You have to know chess (although you need NOT have some complete theoretical description of it), before you can start to investigate the psychology of chess. This is a very simple truth (and yet my personal experience of more than 25 years has taught me that most linguists do not understand it). In any case, in the Funknet discussion this simple truth was perfectly captured by the person who claimed that investigating the psychological (or biological) foundation of X presupposes that one understand X. Just try to investigate HOW the Finnish relative clause is mentally processed or is stored in the psychologically real, unconscious competence (or, for that matter, HOW it has changed during the past 1000 years), without knowing WHAT is the Finnish relative clause. This distinction between WHAT (= norm) and HOW (and, ultimately, WHY) (= internalization-of-norm) is the cornerstone of my 1983 book 'Causality in Linguistic Theory'. What is the relevance of all this to the Funknet discussion? The relevance lies in the fact that, contrary to the lessons that might be learned from the 'chess = language' analogy, the primacy of the social-normative dimension is ignored in today's cognitive linguistics (just try to find a systematic account of normativity in the currect cognitivist literature); and it is flatly denied in generativism (cf. Chomsky 1976: "As for the fact that the rules of language are 'public rules', this is, indeed, a contingent fact.") It is in order to oppose this line of thinking that, instead of loose chess-type analogies, I have made use of Wittgenstein's private-language argument in my 1978 book 'Grammatical Theory and Metascience', as Kripke has in his 1982 book 'Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language'. But why should this be brought up just now? For the following reason. In the Funknet discussion on form and meaning it turned out that nowadays functionalism (and even non-discreteness) is part and parcel of generativism, and that - somehow - this has in 'reality' always been so. (Never mind Chomsky's 1976 statement to the contrary: "To account for or somehow explain the structure of UG, or of particular grammars, on the basis of functional considerations is a pretty hopeless prospect, I would think; it is, perhaps, even 'perverse' to assume otherwise.") This had me worried. I suddenly remembered Hilary Putnam mentioning a private discussion in which Chomsky had toyed with the idea that maybe "our idealized or 'competence' description is a description of correct thinking in the normative sense" (see "Reflective Reflections", p. 216 in S. Silvers (ed.): 'Rerepresentation', Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989). Of course, this is exactly what the 'competence' description is (which means, in fact, that it is NOT about any genuine or psychologically real competence); it is just that this has been officially denied so far (for details, see my 1978 and 1983 books). However, if functionalism and non-discreteness are any guide, this may soon change. Maybe it is changing right now. All discoveries have 'always already' (= 'immer schon' as Heidegger and the later Husserl would say) been made by generativists. It seems to be an inherent feature of the very notion of 'discovery' that, in a timeless sense, the (true) discoveries have been, are being, and will be made by generativists. Does there remain any notion or issue which generativism just cannot claim as its own? At least until recently, ANALOGY was precisely such an issue. But who knows what will happen? Therefore, before the wind turns and analogy too becomes a generativist property, it might be of some interest to some people to get acqainted with a recent rehabilitation (and formalization) of analogy in syntax. It can be found in a paper by Jussi Haukioja and myself. (Miraculously, some off-prints are still available; write to the following address: jhaukioj at utu.fi ) Esa Itkonen From copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU Thu Feb 27 16:00:52 1997 From: copelan at RUF.RICE.EDU (James E Copeland) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:00:52 -0600 Subject: Hebrew Language Post Message-ID: Lecturer in Modern Hebrew Rice University The Office of the Dean of Humanities is seeking to fill a position as Lecturer in Modern Hebrew beginning in the fall 1997. The position is non-tenured with annual appointments based on student demand. The Ph.D. is desirable but not required. Rice University is a small institution with undergraduate and graduate strengths in science, engineering, the social sciences, and the humanities. Evidence of excellence in classroom teaching is an imperative. The appointment will be in the Center for the Study of Languages and will contribute directly to its language program. We are seeking a person with a native or near native competence in spoken and written Hebrew. Emphasis in teaching will be on the spoken language, as well as reading skills. Candidates who also have competence in reading pre-modern Hebrew texts will be preferred. Training in applied linguistics, or foreign language teaching methodology is also desirable, but not required. The normal course load is two courses (six hours) per semester. Teaching duties will include four Hebrew language courses per year: Elementary Hebrew 1, 2 and Intermediate Hebrew 1, 2. Rice University is committed to affirmative action and equal opportunity in education and employment. Rice does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual preference, national or ethnic origin, age, disability or veteran status. To be eligible for consideration send completed applications (including, CV and three letters of recommendation) to: Hebrew language Search, Dean of Humanities, Rice University, MS 33, Houston TX 77251-1892. E-mail: humadmin at rice.edu. Applications will be considered until the position is filled. James E. Copeland Chair Department of Linguistics Rice University Houston, TX 77252-1892