From r.j.freeman at usa.net Thu Apr 1 02:40:28 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:40:28 +0800 Subject: Grammar and System Message-ID: Wolfgang Schulze wrote: > Rob Freeman wrote: > > > Let's not all get so caught up in the artifacts or our art that we forget we > are all proposing systems. It's not system or not, it's one or another. > > Let me briefly ask you: Which kind of system to you talk about? Do you > refer to the cognitive reality "linguistic knowledge 'system'" or to > some kind of artefact that is established by the systematization of what > is produced by this knowledge 'system'? Both of those, I think. The first seems to me to identify with the 'God's Truth' of our discussions, and the second with the 'Hocus Pocus'. As I argued to Syd Lamb I think that even 'God's Truth' is relative, and depends on the person looking at it. My touchstone, as I have said, is the 'usefulness' of a theory (system?) 'for a given problem'. If the discussion is about the nature of reality that is all I have to say. If it is about how to explain all the linguistic facts I think that analogy provides a useful system, and I am curious to explore how it relates to the 'contrast' system of Systemic Functional Grammar. Rob From lxiaohu at CS.UST.HK Thu Apr 1 12:53:41 1999 From: lxiaohu at CS.UST.HK (Liu Xiaohu) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:53:41 +0800 Subject: Notice regarding electronic Paper Submissions for EMNLP/VLC-99 Message-ID: Electronic Submission for (EMNLP/VLC-99) Joint SIGDAT Conference On Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora June 21-22, 1999 University of Maryland As an optional alternative to hard-copy submissions, EMNLP/VLC-99 will also accept email submissions of postscript or MS Word files of the paper to emnlpvlc99 at ee.ust.hk (do not send to any other email address), with the subject line "EMNLPVLC99 submission", to arrive no later than midnight, Monday, April 5, Hong Kong time. Authors take full responsibility that their electronic submission is portable and printable on the first try in Hong Kong. We will not return or process unprintable files. Portability is best assured by using the standard fonts of the ACL latex stylesheet and ensuring that all other font definitions are embedded in the postscript. If an author uses non-standard/non-portable fonts or has doubts about their document's portability or viewability in ghostview, they should submit their paper by hard-copy as specified in the call for papers, before the deadline. Authors who have already sent in their hardcopy submissions need not send in another electronic version. Submissions received in hardcopy or printed out will be acknowledged after the deadline. ================================================= Pascale Fung Assistant Professor Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering University of Science & Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong pascale at ee.ust.hk http://www.ee.ust.hk/~pascale tel: +852 2358 8537 sec: +852 2358 7087 fax: +852 2358 1485 ================================================= From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Thu Apr 1 19:11:15 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:11:15 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote: **** I was hoping some more debate might come up on the (abstract) merits of analogy, .. But as none seems forthcoming just a final comment on 'reductionism'. I don't see basing examples on syntactic abstractions (the usual idea of G-grammar) as inherently less reductionistic than basing syntactic abstractions on examples (which is analogy). Even where 'reductionism' might be thought of as bad, which is by no means always, grounding in examples i s simply not more reductionist, if anything it is less. **** As usual, Langacker's position makes a lot of sense to me (e.g. Foundations of Cognitive grammar vol. I (1987), 445 ff.) Analogy, if examined, turns out to necessarily involve perception of a similarity, and that similarity, to the extent that it is established in the language through usage, is a rule (a schema, in Langacker's terminology) that can be used by speakers to produce new forms. You have BOTH examples produced by rule, and the rule based on examples. When the schema (rule) is not yet established, using analogy necessarily involves activating the schema, precisely the kind of usage that will establish it. It is not a reductionist account, in that both mechanisms are expected and allowed for, and it shows rule-based and analogy-based accounts to differ only in degree, not in kind. "The distinction comes down to whether the schema has previously been extracted, and whether this has occurred sufficiently often to make it a unit [=established cognitive structure]." --David Tuggy From r.j.freeman at usa.net Fri Apr 2 09:48:08 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:48:08 +0800 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG wrote: > Rob Freeman wrote: > > **** > I was hoping some more debate might come up on the (abstract) merits of analogy, > ... But as none seems forthcoming just a final comment on 'reductionism'. I don't > see basing examples on syntactic abstractions (the usual idea of G-grammar) as > inherently less reductionistic than basing syntactic abstractions on examples > (which is analogy). Even where 'reductionism' might be thought of as bad, which is > by no means always, grounding in examples is simply not more reductionist, if > anything it is less. > > **** > > As usual, Langacker's position makes a lot of sense to me (e.g. Foundations of > Cognitive grammar vol. I (1987), 445 ff.) Analogy, if examined, turns out to > necessarily involve perception of a similarity Absolutely, I think of them interchangeably. And similarity seems just the inverse of contrast, which is why I link analogy and SFG. > ...and that similarity, to the > extent that it is established in the language through usage, is a rule (a schema, > in Langacker's terminology) that can be used by speakers to produce new forms. You > have BOTH examples produced by rule, and the rule based on examples. When the > schema (rule) is not yet established, using analogy necessarily involves > activating the schema, precisely the kind of usage that will establish it. It is > not a reductionist account, in that both mechanisms are expected and allowed for, > and it shows rule-based and analogy-based accounts to differ only in degree, not > in kind. "The distinction comes down to whether the schema has previously been > extracted, and whether this has occurred sufficiently often to make it a unit > [=established cognitive structure]." This looks to me like the approach traditionally followed in the application of e.g. Neural Networks to language. The key assumption is that the structure you need to find is finite (an assumption which probably came from generative linguistics, but which suits the profile of problems appropriate for back-propagation networks and so is adopted naturally for them - the big problem with NN's, I think). My view is that this assumption of a finite number of key patterns in the data to be extracted as rules is a mistake. I think there are many generalizations which can be made about the data and we need to be able to get to any, or any level, of them. Neural Networks (back propagation nets, anyway?) work in this way by learning to segment data into a fixed number of classes. These classes would be your rules. But I see the classes, the possible groupings, as being directly synonymous with meaning (an 'organization of experience') not as just some finitely characterizable structural step on the way to meaning. Where our classification of experience is finite (like in our division of time into tenses) finite classifications work fine - hence the success of the finite classifications NN's do for modeling English Past Tense, you can count out the classes you need and train your network to recognize them. But general syntax seeks to code general meaning, so the groupings (or classifications) possible must remain open (to represent the new meaning always being created). We need to keep the examples themselves to a high level of detail so that we can shuffle their groupings (classifications) around to represent subtle shifts of meaning. If you apply 'rule-finding' protocols (usually networks) to the data you will find any number of regularities, which will be synonymous with the multiplicity of 'grammars'. But any one of these will only ever be one slice of the subtlety of structure, and thus meaning, of which the language is capable through collections of examples. So, in conclusion, you have put your finger on what I think has been the big problem with analogical models of language hitherto. They have been looking for finite classifications of the data they seek to model. Essentially still trapped by the generative grammar style of thinking about language system. We need to start to see syntactic structure as vectors of examples pointing to meaning, not as algebras of finite abstractions, then we will know what to do with our networks. Rob From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Fri Apr 2 16:12:59 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:12:59 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote (in response to me): **** This looks to me like the approach traditionally followed in the application of e.g. Neural Networks to language. The key assumption is that the structure you need to find is finite [...] My view is that this assumption of a finite number of key patterns in the data to be extracted as rules is a mistake. I think there are many generalizations which can be made about the data and we need to be able to get to any, or any level, of them. [...] I see the classes, the possible groupings, as being directly synonymous with meaning (an 'organization of experience') not as just some finitely characterizable structural step on the way to meaning. [...] you will find any number of regularities, which will be synonymous with the multiplicity of 'grammars'. But any one of these will only ever be one slice of the subtlety of structure, and thus meaning, of which the language is capable through collections of examples. [...] So, in conclusion, you have put your finger on what I think has been the big problem with analogical models of language hitherto. They have been looking for finite classifications of the data they seek to model. Essentially still trapped by the generative grammar style of thinking about language system. We need to start to see syntactic structure as vectors of examples pointing to meaning, not as algebras of finite abstractions, then we will know what to do with our networks. **** What did I say about finitude? (I wasn't aware of putting my finger on anything. Moral, don't stick your finger in the pie unless you want to risk putting it on something ?) If I understand what you're talking about, you're saying there is no predetermined number of relevant patterns (-schemas-rules), that even logically inconsistent patterns may coexist, that patterns of all levels of generality or (un)systematicity may be relevant, that the patterns themselves are meaningful and that the establishing of a pattern is establishing meaning, that low-level (highly detailed) patterns have some sort of priority over high-level (more general) ones, and so forth. If that's what you're after, Langacker's model has it all built in. From r.j.freeman at usa.net Sat Apr 3 09:03:40 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:03:40 +0800 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG wrote: > If I understand what you're talking about, you're saying there is no > predetermined number of relevant patterns (-schemas-rules), that even logically > inconsistent patterns may coexist, that patterns of all levels of generality or > (un)systematicity may be relevant, that the patterns themselves are meaningful > and that the establishing of a pattern is establishing meaning, that low-level > (highly detailed) patterns have some sort of priority over high-level (more > general) ones, and so forth. If that's what you're after, Langacker's model has > it all built in. If you really accept 'shifting schemas' then do 'rule-based and analogy-based accounts differ only in degree, not in kind' as you say in your first message? To fit my model this would mean a 'rule-based account' which had a new 'rule' for every concept - essentially infinite. Most of the time when people think of a rule-based account they think of a finite number of rules. Analogical models which seek to extract rules or label structure can only get a finite amount of it. I think that the relevant structure is essentially infinite. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight. Apart from that I agree totally with Langacker's model. An idea of '_shifting_ schemas' would seem to fit the bill precisely. Rob From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Sat Apr 3 16:34:37 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:34:37 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote: **** If you really accept 'shifting schemas' then do 'rule-based and analogy-based accounts differ only in degree, not in kind' as you say in your first message? To fit my model this would mean a 'rule-based account' which had a new 'rule' for every concept - essentially infinite. Most of the time when people think of a rule-based account they think of a finite number of rules. Analogical models which seek to extract rules or label structure can only get a finite amount of it. I think that the relevant structure is essentially infinite. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight. Apart from that I agree totally with Langacker's model. An idea of '_shifting_ schemas' would seem to fit the bill precisely. **** Again, I'm not sure what you mean. If "shifting schemas" means the generalizations people extract are constantly being adjusted (in their current computational form) by context, sometimes drastically, and (in their stored form, usually more incrementally) by such current usages, yes, the model has that built in. Or if you mean that different systematizations of low-level generalizations may coexist and rise to or fade from prominence over time, yes that is also built-in. And yes, this does imply that the grammar of the language is not something that you can ever describe exhaustively or get all of (it) down on paper. A new "rule" for every concept? I don't know about that. Not every concept by any means is part of any language, but only those that are conventionalized: shared and known to be shared by the users of that language. And conventionalization is of course a matter of degree. It does seem probable that all conventionalized concepts are schemas, generalizations over more-specific particular concepts that occur in the individual users' minds (which concepts of course may themselves be schematic in some degree). So in that sense, sure, there is a new "rule" for every new concept in the language. And of course any new usage can prompt a new systematization or higher-level connecting "rule" generalizing over such low-level rules; either the user tumbles to the new generalization (which wouldn't make it part of the language), or he comes to believe that he shares it with his interlocutor (which does make it conventional, and thus part of at least his version of the language--their version if he is right.) But an awful lot of what we use in communicating has already undergone this conventionalization process, and those concepts constitute grammar (and lexicon and everything else). Hey, if this discussion is boring to the rest of you, tell us so, and Rob and I can talk in private! (Or maybe we're done?) --David From john at SRVESEV.IPV.PT Sun Apr 4 16:46:06 1999 From: john at SRVESEV.IPV.PT (John) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:46:06 +0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: unsubscribe sign off -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dalid at CPS.TVER.RU Mon Apr 5 13:38:05 1999 From: dalid at CPS.TVER.RU (Dalidchik Ivan) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:38:05 +0400 Subject: SIGNOFF FUNKNET Message-ID: SIGNOFF FUNKNET -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fdehaan at UNM.EDU Tue Apr 6 22:36:21 1999 From: fdehaan at UNM.EDU (fdehaan) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:36:21 -0600 Subject: 1999 Athabaskan Conference (reminder) Message-ID: ATHABASKAN LANGUAGE CONFERENCE University of New Mexico Albuquerque May 21-23, 1999 The Organizing Committee is looking for talks and presentations from native speakers of Athabaskan languages, native non-speakers, storytellers, and linguists. Suggested Topics and Themes Language Maintenance and Language Teaching - ----------------------------------------- * Elementary, Secondary, and Post-secondary Programs * Immersion Programs: Summer Programs * Innovative Pedagogies Linguistic Research - ----------------- * The Structure of the Athabaskan Lexicon * Historical and Comparative Athabaskan Morphosyntax * Interface of Phonetics and Phonology in Athabaskan Suggestions for Panel Presentations Welcome! Please submit the following: * one-page proposal for your presentation * a 50-word abstract for the Conference Program, including: * your name * your affiliation * your e-mail and/or snail mail address Please submit your proposal and abstract via mail, fax, or e-mail by Friday, April 16, 1999. Talks will be scheduled for 20-minute slots, with 10 minutes for discussion, but longer presentations may also be arranged. E-Mail : athconf at s-leodm.unm.edu FAX : 505-277-6355 Mail : Athabaskan Language Conference Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 13 21:49:50 1999 From: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr (Sylvester OSU) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:49:50 +0200 Subject: Seriously in search of specialists in igboid languages Message-ID: Dear funknetters, I'd like to get in contact with specialists of the languages mentioned in the object rubric (i.e. igbo, ika, ikwere, izi, ogba, ukwuani and ogba) spoken mainly in the south eastern region of Nigeria, for a serious talk. If you are a specialist in one or more of these languages kindly drop me a note via: Sylvester Osu tel/fax: 03.84.43.30.21 (if calling from abroad, replace the 'o' prefix with 33) e-mail: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr or 365 av. Paul Seguin Résidence 'Les Côteaux de Richebourg' 39000 Lons-le-Saunier France. Thanking you in advance. From sstraigh at BINGHAMTON.EDU Sun Apr 18 04:21:24 1999 From: sstraigh at BINGHAMTON.EDU (H Stephen Straight) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 00:21:24 -0400 Subject: James D McCawley: A Final Remembrance Message-ID: The Westin Bonaventure ballroom was beginning to fill up when the former student, only six years Jim's junior and now a full professor himself, happened upon Jim McCawley, the man most responsible for the former student's having decided to become a linguist. Predictably, though they hadn't seen each other in nearly three years and had only crossed paths a dozen or so times since Jim had transformed himself from beloved teacher to esteemed colleague with an affirmative vote on the student's dissertation, Jim's face blossomed into a massive, wide-eyed, toothy grin as the two vigorously shook hands. After threading their way through the crowd, pausing repeatedly to acknowledge greetings for Jim, they sat together in the front row of the second bank of seats, No small talk got in the way of their moving directly to their constant joint purpose, to do linguistics: Swinging his rumpled briefcase up onto his lap, Jim leafed through it, pulling out paper after paper in lieu of what could otherwise have required a four-hour recitation of the fruits of the last 18 months or so of his scholarly production. Most of the gifts came with the usual "Here's my chapter in the book so-and-so put together for such-and-such a press", but when he got to his favorite, an annual compendium of linguistic oddities, Jim paused to crow over a few wonderful published examples of Bach-Peters sentences, and was rewarded by his well-trained student with a neat little analogy between Bach-Peters sentences and M.C. Escher prints, such as the Belvedere, which can be captioned "The man who is climbing it doesn't realize the impossibility of getting up the ladder he is climbing." As soon as Jim had finished voraciously inscribing the delicious example in the back of the checkbook he used as an ever-ready notepad, the two faced forward to hear the plenary speaker. The topic was a familiar one to Jim -- his frequent asides included a rueful reference to the fact that he had demolished more than one of the speaker's arguments in a review he'd published several years before -- but his attention never flagged, and his good humor never diminished. When the talk was over, Jim was the first to jump to the microphone: "Can you please help me understand something that has always puzzled me about the way many linguists use the term 'universal grammar'? When you say that something is a fact of universal grammar, are you using the word grammar as a count noun or a mass noun? In my view, there may be lots of universal grammar around without their _a_ universal grammar." The speaker of course provided the standard waffling response to this question, and didn't seem to realize that many in the audience would conclude that this question undermined the entire foundation of the talk he had given. But Jim didn't press the point, and when the discussion period ended he applauded loudly, his hands raised high over his head, his sparkling eyes riveted affectionately on those of the speaker, and his mouth broadened into a winning smile. As they rose from their seats to sidle together down the center aisle and out of the room, the two -- still truly teacher and student despite the passage of time and changes of status -- exchanged remarks about how much had changed and how little had changed in the 30-plus years they'd been doing linguistics together. When they got to the foyer, the former student was turning to ask if Jim could join him for dinner when a senior figure, whose comments earlier in the day had made the student think that he might not wait another decade to come to a meeting of this professional society, pulled Jim aside to whisper about dinner arrangements for Jim and the other past presidents. Realizing instantly what he'd do with his evening, the student gave Jim a smiling wave good-bye and went up to his room to start working his way through the pile of goodies he'd greedily stuffed into his folio. Best. 'Bye. Steve H Stephen Straight -- Anthro, Ling, & Langs Across the Curric (LxC) Office: 607.777.2824 - Home: 607.723.0157 - Fax: 607.777.2889/.2477 Spring 1999 Ofc Hrs, Sci 1 Rm 220: T 2-4, W 2-3:30 & by appointment From lachler at UNM.EDU Mon Apr 19 06:11:02 1999 From: lachler at UNM.EDU (Jordan Lachler) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:11:02 -0600 Subject: 1999 Athconf Dealine Extension and Registration Message-ID: The organizers of the 1999 Athabaskan Language Conference have recently reached an informal agreement wth UNM Press to publish a selection of the papers from this year's conference. The focus of the book will be language retention, maintenance and revitalization in Athabaskan communities. In light of this recent agreement, the conference organizers have extended the deadline for the submission of abstracts to this year's conference. The new deadline is: MONDAY, APRIL 26. Abstracts on language retention, maintenance and revitalization programs are especially encouraged, along with abstracts on any other aspect of Athabaskan languages and linguistics. As before, abstracts may be e-mailed to: athconf at s-leodm.unm.edu or mailed to: Athabaskan Conference Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 or faxed to: 505-277-6355 Information on conference registration and accomodation is available at: http://s-leodm.unm.edu/~athconf/register.html --- Jordan Lachler lachler at unm.edu Co-Organizer, 1999 Athabaskan Language Conference --- Jordan From 6500frw0 at UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU Mon Apr 19 08:07:51 1999 From: 6500frw0 at UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU (Fiona Whalen) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:07:51 -0700 Subject: Announcement: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WORKSHOP ON AMERICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES Santa Barbara, CA May 14-16, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its second annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive linguistic studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. ** Invited Speaker: Sara Trechter ** * Roundtable Discussion led by Wallace Chafe and Marianne Mithun * Presentation by the UCSB American Indian Student Association * Reception and dinner Registration: $20 (see form at end of message) For further information check out our web site at: http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/wail/wail.html or contact conference coordinator at: wail at humanitas.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRELIMINARY PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Friday Session 1 Matthew Gordon Intonational properties of Chickasaw Eugene Buckley On the naturalness of unnatural rules Graham Horwood Anti-faithfulness and Subtractive Morphology Session 2 Loretta O'Connor Classificatory verbs of transfer in Lowland Chontal James Copeland Marking of Semantic Roles and Grammatical Relations in Tarahumara Robert Cromack Simple Forms and Multiple Functions in Cashinawa Narrative UCSB American Indian Students Association Saturday Session 3 William Weigel Referential Tracking in Yokuts Languages Anna Berge Preliminary Studies of the Distribution of Aamma in West Greenlandic Timothy Thornes Demonstratives in Northern Paiute Session 4 Keynote Address Sara Trechter Session 5 Pilar Maritza Valenzuela Transitivity, Case-Marking, and Switch-Reference in Shipibo-Konibo Nancy Mattina Toward a history of the inflectional future in Colville-Okanagan Salish Session 6 Rosa Yanez Rosales Language Replacement in a Nahuatl Speaking Community: Testimonies of the Speakers and Their Children Fred Field A quantitative look at borrowing patterns in Malinche Mexicano John Nichols Incorporative and Hyperbolic Variation in Severn Ojibwe Session 7 Roundtable Discussion Party Sunday Session 8 Randy Rightmire Native vs. borrowed grammar: Relative clauses in Santa Maria Chimalapa Zoque Jeff Rasch The grammaticization and lexicalization of Yaitepec Chatino '7o' Sergio Meira de Santa Cruz Oliveira Nominalizations in Tiriyo Session 9 Ellen Courtney Child Acquisition of the Quechua Affirmative Suffix Connie Dickinson Mirativity, Evidentiality and Semantic Verb Classes in Tsafiki (Colorado) Session 10 Rosemary G Beam de Azcona Ablaut in Coatlan-Loxicha Zapotec, a diachronic explanation Darin Howe and Patricia Shaw Prosodic Faithfulness: Vowel Syncope and Reduction as Output-Output Correspondence Suzanne Wash Immitative Sound Symbolism in Miwok Languages -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Registration Form ----------------------------------------------------------- Name: _____________________________________ Affiliation: _____________________________________ Address: _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________________ Would you be interested in purchasing a copy of the conference procedings? Yes ___ No ___ ----------------------------------------------------------- Registration for the conference is $20 per person. Make checks payable to WAIL. Send check or money order and form to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 From elc9j at UNIX.MAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU Mon Apr 19 20:35:45 1999 From: elc9j at UNIX.MAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU (Ellen L. Contini-Morava) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:35:45 -0400 Subject: 2nd Call for Papers-Columbia School Linguistics Conference Message-ID: Apologies for cross-postings. SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS 6th International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction between Linguistic Form, Meaning, and Human Behavior October 9-11, 1999 Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey Invited speakers: Ronald Langacker University of California, La Jolla Melissa Bowerman Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Wallis Reid Rutgers University EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS: 31 MAY 1999 Papers invited on any aspect of linguistic analysis in which the postulation of meaningful signals plays a central role in explaining the distribution of linguistic forms. Analyses based on data from actual discourse (spoken or written) especially encouraged. For details on submission of abstracts, registration, the Columbia School, etc., see conference web site: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~elc9j/ Please note new address for e-mail abstracts: csconf at virginia.edu For other information, contact Ellen Contini-Morava, elc9j at virginia.edu. **** **** **** **** **** The support of the conference by The Columbia School Linguistics Society is gratefully acknowledged **** **** **** **** **** From iwasaki at HUMNET.UCLA.EDU Fri Apr 30 06:09:05 1999 From: iwasaki at HUMNET.UCLA.EDU (Shoichi Iwasaki) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:09:05 -0800 Subject: Thai/Indonesian Lecturer Positions Message-ID: The Program in South and Southeast Asian Languages at UCLA seeks applicants for one lecturer position each in Thai and Indonesian for the academic year 1999-2000 with possibility of renewal. The lecturer will be responsible for first year instruction (and possibly second year instruction pending budgetary approval). Applications are invited from qualified individuals. Candidates with native or near-native fluency in the target language, advanced degrees, some background in Linguistics, and previous experience in language teaching in the American educational setting, are preferred. Review of candidates will begin May 30, 1999. Applications should include a letter of interest, CV, and three letters of recommendation. Applications should be sent to: Shoichi Iwasaki, Director of South and Southeast Asian Languages Program, c/o Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, 290 Royce Hall, Box 951540, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540. UCLA is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply. AA/EOE. From r.j.freeman at usa.net Thu Apr 1 02:40:28 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 10:40:28 +0800 Subject: Grammar and System Message-ID: Wolfgang Schulze wrote: > Rob Freeman wrote: > > > Let's not all get so caught up in the artifacts or our art that we forget we > are all proposing systems. It's not system or not, it's one or another. > > Let me briefly ask you: Which kind of system to you talk about? Do you > refer to the cognitive reality "linguistic knowledge 'system'" or to > some kind of artefact that is established by the systematization of what > is produced by this knowledge 'system'? Both of those, I think. The first seems to me to identify with the 'God's Truth' of our discussions, and the second with the 'Hocus Pocus'. As I argued to Syd Lamb I think that even 'God's Truth' is relative, and depends on the person looking at it. My touchstone, as I have said, is the 'usefulness' of a theory (system?) 'for a given problem'. If the discussion is about the nature of reality that is all I have to say. If it is about how to explain all the linguistic facts I think that analogy provides a useful system, and I am curious to explore how it relates to the 'contrast' system of Systemic Functional Grammar. Rob From lxiaohu at CS.UST.HK Thu Apr 1 12:53:41 1999 From: lxiaohu at CS.UST.HK (Liu Xiaohu) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 20:53:41 +0800 Subject: Notice regarding electronic Paper Submissions for EMNLP/VLC-99 Message-ID: Electronic Submission for (EMNLP/VLC-99) Joint SIGDAT Conference On Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Very Large Corpora June 21-22, 1999 University of Maryland As an optional alternative to hard-copy submissions, EMNLP/VLC-99 will also accept email submissions of postscript or MS Word files of the paper to emnlpvlc99 at ee.ust.hk (do not send to any other email address), with the subject line "EMNLPVLC99 submission", to arrive no later than midnight, Monday, April 5, Hong Kong time. Authors take full responsibility that their electronic submission is portable and printable on the first try in Hong Kong. We will not return or process unprintable files. Portability is best assured by using the standard fonts of the ACL latex stylesheet and ensuring that all other font definitions are embedded in the postscript. If an author uses non-standard/non-portable fonts or has doubts about their document's portability or viewability in ghostview, they should submit their paper by hard-copy as specified in the call for papers, before the deadline. Authors who have already sent in their hardcopy submissions need not send in another electronic version. Submissions received in hardcopy or printed out will be acknowledged after the deadline. ================================================= Pascale Fung Assistant Professor Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering University of Science & Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong pascale at ee.ust.hk http://www.ee.ust.hk/~pascale tel: +852 2358 8537 sec: +852 2358 7087 fax: +852 2358 1485 ================================================= From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Thu Apr 1 19:11:15 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:11:15 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote: **** I was hoping some more debate might come up on the (abstract) merits of analogy, .. But as none seems forthcoming just a final comment on 'reductionism'. I don't see basing examples on syntactic abstractions (the usual idea of G-grammar) as inherently less reductionistic than basing syntactic abstractions on examples (which is analogy). Even where 'reductionism' might be thought of as bad, which is by no means always, grounding in examples i s simply not more reductionist, if anything it is less. **** As usual, Langacker's position makes a lot of sense to me (e.g. Foundations of Cognitive grammar vol. I (1987), 445 ff.) Analogy, if examined, turns out to necessarily involve perception of a similarity, and that similarity, to the extent that it is established in the language through usage, is a rule (a schema, in Langacker's terminology) that can be used by speakers to produce new forms. You have BOTH examples produced by rule, and the rule based on examples. When the schema (rule) is not yet established, using analogy necessarily involves activating the schema, precisely the kind of usage that will establish it. It is not a reductionist account, in that both mechanisms are expected and allowed for, and it shows rule-based and analogy-based accounts to differ only in degree, not in kind. "The distinction comes down to whether the schema has previously been extracted, and whether this has occurred sufficiently often to make it a unit [=established cognitive structure]." --David Tuggy From r.j.freeman at usa.net Fri Apr 2 09:48:08 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 17:48:08 +0800 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG wrote: > Rob Freeman wrote: > > **** > I was hoping some more debate might come up on the (abstract) merits of analogy, > ... But as none seems forthcoming just a final comment on 'reductionism'. I don't > see basing examples on syntactic abstractions (the usual idea of G-grammar) as > inherently less reductionistic than basing syntactic abstractions on examples > (which is analogy). Even where 'reductionism' might be thought of as bad, which is > by no means always, grounding in examples is simply not more reductionist, if > anything it is less. > > **** > > As usual, Langacker's position makes a lot of sense to me (e.g. Foundations of > Cognitive grammar vol. I (1987), 445 ff.) Analogy, if examined, turns out to > necessarily involve perception of a similarity Absolutely, I think of them interchangeably. And similarity seems just the inverse of contrast, which is why I link analogy and SFG. > ...and that similarity, to the > extent that it is established in the language through usage, is a rule (a schema, > in Langacker's terminology) that can be used by speakers to produce new forms. You > have BOTH examples produced by rule, and the rule based on examples. When the > schema (rule) is not yet established, using analogy necessarily involves > activating the schema, precisely the kind of usage that will establish it. It is > not a reductionist account, in that both mechanisms are expected and allowed for, > and it shows rule-based and analogy-based accounts to differ only in degree, not > in kind. "The distinction comes down to whether the schema has previously been > extracted, and whether this has occurred sufficiently often to make it a unit > [=established cognitive structure]." This looks to me like the approach traditionally followed in the application of e.g. Neural Networks to language. The key assumption is that the structure you need to find is finite (an assumption which probably came from generative linguistics, but which suits the profile of problems appropriate for back-propagation networks and so is adopted naturally for them - the big problem with NN's, I think). My view is that this assumption of a finite number of key patterns in the data to be extracted as rules is a mistake. I think there are many generalizations which can be made about the data and we need to be able to get to any, or any level, of them. Neural Networks (back propagation nets, anyway?) work in this way by learning to segment data into a fixed number of classes. These classes would be your rules. But I see the classes, the possible groupings, as being directly synonymous with meaning (an 'organization of experience') not as just some finitely characterizable structural step on the way to meaning. Where our classification of experience is finite (like in our division of time into tenses) finite classifications work fine - hence the success of the finite classifications NN's do for modeling English Past Tense, you can count out the classes you need and train your network to recognize them. But general syntax seeks to code general meaning, so the groupings (or classifications) possible must remain open (to represent the new meaning always being created). We need to keep the examples themselves to a high level of detail so that we can shuffle their groupings (classifications) around to represent subtle shifts of meaning. If you apply 'rule-finding' protocols (usually networks) to the data you will find any number of regularities, which will be synonymous with the multiplicity of 'grammars'. But any one of these will only ever be one slice of the subtlety of structure, and thus meaning, of which the language is capable through collections of examples. So, in conclusion, you have put your finger on what I think has been the big problem with analogical models of language hitherto. They have been looking for finite classifications of the data they seek to model. Essentially still trapped by the generative grammar style of thinking about language system. We need to start to see syntactic structure as vectors of examples pointing to meaning, not as algebras of finite abstractions, then we will know what to do with our networks. Rob From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Fri Apr 2 16:12:59 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 11:12:59 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote (in response to me): **** This looks to me like the approach traditionally followed in the application of e.g. Neural Networks to language. The key assumption is that the structure you need to find is finite [...] My view is that this assumption of a finite number of key patterns in the data to be extracted as rules is a mistake. I think there are many generalizations which can be made about the data and we need to be able to get to any, or any level, of them. [...] I see the classes, the possible groupings, as being directly synonymous with meaning (an 'organization of experience') not as just some finitely characterizable structural step on the way to meaning. [...] you will find any number of regularities, which will be synonymous with the multiplicity of 'grammars'. But any one of these will only ever be one slice of the subtlety of structure, and thus meaning, of which the language is capable through collections of examples. [...] So, in conclusion, you have put your finger on what I think has been the big problem with analogical models of language hitherto. They have been looking for finite classifications of the data they seek to model. Essentially still trapped by the generative grammar style of thinking about language system. We need to start to see syntactic structure as vectors of examples pointing to meaning, not as algebras of finite abstractions, then we will know what to do with our networks. **** What did I say about finitude? (I wasn't aware of putting my finger on anything. Moral, don't stick your finger in the pie unless you want to risk putting it on something ?) If I understand what you're talking about, you're saying there is no predetermined number of relevant patterns (-schemas-rules), that even logically inconsistent patterns may coexist, that patterns of all levels of generality or (un)systematicity may be relevant, that the patterns themselves are meaningful and that the establishing of a pattern is establishing meaning, that low-level (highly detailed) patterns have some sort of priority over high-level (more general) ones, and so forth. If that's what you're after, Langacker's model has it all built in. From r.j.freeman at usa.net Sat Apr 3 09:03:40 1999 From: r.j.freeman at usa.net (Rob Freeman) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:03:40 +0800 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG wrote: > If I understand what you're talking about, you're saying there is no > predetermined number of relevant patterns (-schemas-rules), that even logically > inconsistent patterns may coexist, that patterns of all levels of generality or > (un)systematicity may be relevant, that the patterns themselves are meaningful > and that the establishing of a pattern is establishing meaning, that low-level > (highly detailed) patterns have some sort of priority over high-level (more > general) ones, and so forth. If that's what you're after, Langacker's model has > it all built in. If you really accept 'shifting schemas' then do 'rule-based and analogy-based accounts differ only in degree, not in kind' as you say in your first message? To fit my model this would mean a 'rule-based account' which had a new 'rule' for every concept - essentially infinite. Most of the time when people think of a rule-based account they think of a finite number of rules. Analogical models which seek to extract rules or label structure can only get a finite amount of it. I think that the relevant structure is essentially infinite. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight. Apart from that I agree totally with Langacker's model. An idea of '_shifting_ schemas' would seem to fit the bill precisely. Rob From david_tuggy at SIL.ORG Sat Apr 3 16:34:37 1999 From: david_tuggy at SIL.ORG (david_tuggy at SIL.ORG) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:34:37 -0500 Subject: Grammar with a G Message-ID: Rob Freeman wrote: **** If you really accept 'shifting schemas' then do 'rule-based and analogy-based accounts differ only in degree, not in kind' as you say in your first message? To fit my model this would mean a 'rule-based account' which had a new 'rule' for every concept - essentially infinite. Most of the time when people think of a rule-based account they think of a finite number of rules. Analogical models which seek to extract rules or label structure can only get a finite amount of it. I think that the relevant structure is essentially infinite. That's the difference I'm trying to highlight. Apart from that I agree totally with Langacker's model. An idea of '_shifting_ schemas' would seem to fit the bill precisely. **** Again, I'm not sure what you mean. If "shifting schemas" means the generalizations people extract are constantly being adjusted (in their current computational form) by context, sometimes drastically, and (in their stored form, usually more incrementally) by such current usages, yes, the model has that built in. Or if you mean that different systematizations of low-level generalizations may coexist and rise to or fade from prominence over time, yes that is also built-in. And yes, this does imply that the grammar of the language is not something that you can ever describe exhaustively or get all of (it) down on paper. A new "rule" for every concept? I don't know about that. Not every concept by any means is part of any language, but only those that are conventionalized: shared and known to be shared by the users of that language. And conventionalization is of course a matter of degree. It does seem probable that all conventionalized concepts are schemas, generalizations over more-specific particular concepts that occur in the individual users' minds (which concepts of course may themselves be schematic in some degree). So in that sense, sure, there is a new "rule" for every new concept in the language. And of course any new usage can prompt a new systematization or higher-level connecting "rule" generalizing over such low-level rules; either the user tumbles to the new generalization (which wouldn't make it part of the language), or he comes to believe that he shares it with his interlocutor (which does make it conventional, and thus part of at least his version of the language--their version if he is right.) But an awful lot of what we use in communicating has already undergone this conventionalization process, and those concepts constitute grammar (and lexicon and everything else). Hey, if this discussion is boring to the rest of you, tell us so, and Rob and I can talk in private! (Or maybe we're done?) --David From john at SRVESEV.IPV.PT Sun Apr 4 16:46:06 1999 From: john at SRVESEV.IPV.PT (John) Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 17:46:06 +0100 Subject: No subject Message-ID: unsubscribe sign off -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dalid at CPS.TVER.RU Mon Apr 5 13:38:05 1999 From: dalid at CPS.TVER.RU (Dalidchik Ivan) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1999 17:38:05 +0400 Subject: SIGNOFF FUNKNET Message-ID: SIGNOFF FUNKNET -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fdehaan at UNM.EDU Tue Apr 6 22:36:21 1999 From: fdehaan at UNM.EDU (fdehaan) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:36:21 -0600 Subject: 1999 Athabaskan Conference (reminder) Message-ID: ATHABASKAN LANGUAGE CONFERENCE University of New Mexico Albuquerque May 21-23, 1999 The Organizing Committee is looking for talks and presentations from native speakers of Athabaskan languages, native non-speakers, storytellers, and linguists. Suggested Topics and Themes Language Maintenance and Language Teaching - ----------------------------------------- * Elementary, Secondary, and Post-secondary Programs * Immersion Programs: Summer Programs * Innovative Pedagogies Linguistic Research - ----------------- * The Structure of the Athabaskan Lexicon * Historical and Comparative Athabaskan Morphosyntax * Interface of Phonetics and Phonology in Athabaskan Suggestions for Panel Presentations Welcome! Please submit the following: * one-page proposal for your presentation * a 50-word abstract for the Conference Program, including: * your name * your affiliation * your e-mail and/or snail mail address Please submit your proposal and abstract via mail, fax, or e-mail by Friday, April 16, 1999. Talks will be scheduled for 20-minute slots, with 10 minutes for discussion, but longer presentations may also be arranged. E-Mail : athconf at s-leodm.unm.edu FAX : 505-277-6355 Mail : Athabaskan Language Conference Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 From sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Tue Apr 13 21:49:50 1999 From: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr (Sylvester OSU) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 23:49:50 +0200 Subject: Seriously in search of specialists in igboid languages Message-ID: Dear funknetters, I'd like to get in contact with specialists of the languages mentioned in the object rubric (i.e. igbo, ika, ikwere, izi, ogba, ukwuani and ogba) spoken mainly in the south eastern region of Nigeria, for a serious talk. If you are a specialist in one or more of these languages kindly drop me a note via: Sylvester Osu tel/fax: 03.84.43.30.21 (if calling from abroad, replace the 'o' prefix with 33) e-mail: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr or 365 av. Paul Seguin R?sidence 'Les C?teaux de Richebourg' 39000 Lons-le-Saunier France. Thanking you in advance. From sstraigh at BINGHAMTON.EDU Sun Apr 18 04:21:24 1999 From: sstraigh at BINGHAMTON.EDU (H Stephen Straight) Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 00:21:24 -0400 Subject: James D McCawley: A Final Remembrance Message-ID: The Westin Bonaventure ballroom was beginning to fill up when the former student, only six years Jim's junior and now a full professor himself, happened upon Jim McCawley, the man most responsible for the former student's having decided to become a linguist. Predictably, though they hadn't seen each other in nearly three years and had only crossed paths a dozen or so times since Jim had transformed himself from beloved teacher to esteemed colleague with an affirmative vote on the student's dissertation, Jim's face blossomed into a massive, wide-eyed, toothy grin as the two vigorously shook hands. After threading their way through the crowd, pausing repeatedly to acknowledge greetings for Jim, they sat together in the front row of the second bank of seats, No small talk got in the way of their moving directly to their constant joint purpose, to do linguistics: Swinging his rumpled briefcase up onto his lap, Jim leafed through it, pulling out paper after paper in lieu of what could otherwise have required a four-hour recitation of the fruits of the last 18 months or so of his scholarly production. Most of the gifts came with the usual "Here's my chapter in the book so-and-so put together for such-and-such a press", but when he got to his favorite, an annual compendium of linguistic oddities, Jim paused to crow over a few wonderful published examples of Bach-Peters sentences, and was rewarded by his well-trained student with a neat little analogy between Bach-Peters sentences and M.C. Escher prints, such as the Belvedere, which can be captioned "The man who is climbing it doesn't realize the impossibility of getting up the ladder he is climbing." As soon as Jim had finished voraciously inscribing the delicious example in the back of the checkbook he used as an ever-ready notepad, the two faced forward to hear the plenary speaker. The topic was a familiar one to Jim -- his frequent asides included a rueful reference to the fact that he had demolished more than one of the speaker's arguments in a review he'd published several years before -- but his attention never flagged, and his good humor never diminished. When the talk was over, Jim was the first to jump to the microphone: "Can you please help me understand something that has always puzzled me about the way many linguists use the term 'universal grammar'? When you say that something is a fact of universal grammar, are you using the word grammar as a count noun or a mass noun? In my view, there may be lots of universal grammar around without their _a_ universal grammar." The speaker of course provided the standard waffling response to this question, and didn't seem to realize that many in the audience would conclude that this question undermined the entire foundation of the talk he had given. But Jim didn't press the point, and when the discussion period ended he applauded loudly, his hands raised high over his head, his sparkling eyes riveted affectionately on those of the speaker, and his mouth broadened into a winning smile. As they rose from their seats to sidle together down the center aisle and out of the room, the two -- still truly teacher and student despite the passage of time and changes of status -- exchanged remarks about how much had changed and how little had changed in the 30-plus years they'd been doing linguistics together. When they got to the foyer, the former student was turning to ask if Jim could join him for dinner when a senior figure, whose comments earlier in the day had made the student think that he might not wait another decade to come to a meeting of this professional society, pulled Jim aside to whisper about dinner arrangements for Jim and the other past presidents. Realizing instantly what he'd do with his evening, the student gave Jim a smiling wave good-bye and went up to his room to start working his way through the pile of goodies he'd greedily stuffed into his folio. Best. 'Bye. Steve H Stephen Straight -- Anthro, Ling, & Langs Across the Curric (LxC) Office: 607.777.2824 - Home: 607.723.0157 - Fax: 607.777.2889/.2477 Spring 1999 Ofc Hrs, Sci 1 Rm 220: T 2-4, W 2-3:30 & by appointment From lachler at UNM.EDU Mon Apr 19 06:11:02 1999 From: lachler at UNM.EDU (Jordan Lachler) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:11:02 -0600 Subject: 1999 Athconf Dealine Extension and Registration Message-ID: The organizers of the 1999 Athabaskan Language Conference have recently reached an informal agreement wth UNM Press to publish a selection of the papers from this year's conference. The focus of the book will be language retention, maintenance and revitalization in Athabaskan communities. In light of this recent agreement, the conference organizers have extended the deadline for the submission of abstracts to this year's conference. The new deadline is: MONDAY, APRIL 26. Abstracts on language retention, maintenance and revitalization programs are especially encouraged, along with abstracts on any other aspect of Athabaskan languages and linguistics. As before, abstracts may be e-mailed to: athconf at s-leodm.unm.edu or mailed to: Athabaskan Conference Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 or faxed to: 505-277-6355 Information on conference registration and accomodation is available at: http://s-leodm.unm.edu/~athconf/register.html --- Jordan Lachler lachler at unm.edu Co-Organizer, 1999 Athabaskan Language Conference --- Jordan From 6500frw0 at UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU Mon Apr 19 08:07:51 1999 From: 6500frw0 at UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU (Fiona Whalen) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:07:51 -0700 Subject: Announcement: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Message-ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WORKSHOP ON AMERICAN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES Santa Barbara, CA May 14-16, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its second annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive linguistic studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. ** Invited Speaker: Sara Trechter ** * Roundtable Discussion led by Wallace Chafe and Marianne Mithun * Presentation by the UCSB American Indian Student Association * Reception and dinner Registration: $20 (see form at end of message) For further information check out our web site at: http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/wail/wail.html or contact conference coordinator at: wail at humanitas.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRELIMINARY PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Friday Session 1 Matthew Gordon Intonational properties of Chickasaw Eugene Buckley On the naturalness of unnatural rules Graham Horwood Anti-faithfulness and Subtractive Morphology Session 2 Loretta O'Connor Classificatory verbs of transfer in Lowland Chontal James Copeland Marking of Semantic Roles and Grammatical Relations in Tarahumara Robert Cromack Simple Forms and Multiple Functions in Cashinawa Narrative UCSB American Indian Students Association Saturday Session 3 William Weigel Referential Tracking in Yokuts Languages Anna Berge Preliminary Studies of the Distribution of Aamma in West Greenlandic Timothy Thornes Demonstratives in Northern Paiute Session 4 Keynote Address Sara Trechter Session 5 Pilar Maritza Valenzuela Transitivity, Case-Marking, and Switch-Reference in Shipibo-Konibo Nancy Mattina Toward a history of the inflectional future in Colville-Okanagan Salish Session 6 Rosa Yanez Rosales Language Replacement in a Nahuatl Speaking Community: Testimonies of the Speakers and Their Children Fred Field A quantitative look at borrowing patterns in Malinche Mexicano John Nichols Incorporative and Hyperbolic Variation in Severn Ojibwe Session 7 Roundtable Discussion Party Sunday Session 8 Randy Rightmire Native vs. borrowed grammar: Relative clauses in Santa Maria Chimalapa Zoque Jeff Rasch The grammaticization and lexicalization of Yaitepec Chatino '7o' Sergio Meira de Santa Cruz Oliveira Nominalizations in Tiriyo Session 9 Ellen Courtney Child Acquisition of the Quechua Affirmative Suffix Connie Dickinson Mirativity, Evidentiality and Semantic Verb Classes in Tsafiki (Colorado) Session 10 Rosemary G Beam de Azcona Ablaut in Coatlan-Loxicha Zapotec, a diachronic explanation Darin Howe and Patricia Shaw Prosodic Faithfulness: Vowel Syncope and Reduction as Output-Output Correspondence Suzanne Wash Immitative Sound Symbolism in Miwok Languages -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Registration Form ----------------------------------------------------------- Name: _____________________________________ Affiliation: _____________________________________ Address: _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Phone: _____________________________________ E-mail: _____________________________________ Would you be interested in purchasing a copy of the conference procedings? Yes ___ No ___ ----------------------------------------------------------- Registration for the conference is $20 per person. Make checks payable to WAIL. Send check or money order and form to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106 From elc9j at UNIX.MAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU Mon Apr 19 20:35:45 1999 From: elc9j at UNIX.MAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU (Ellen L. Contini-Morava) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:35:45 -0400 Subject: 2nd Call for Papers-Columbia School Linguistics Conference Message-ID: Apologies for cross-postings. SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS 6th International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction between Linguistic Form, Meaning, and Human Behavior October 9-11, 1999 Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey Invited speakers: Ronald Langacker University of California, La Jolla Melissa Bowerman Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Wallis Reid Rutgers University EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS: 31 MAY 1999 Papers invited on any aspect of linguistic analysis in which the postulation of meaningful signals plays a central role in explaining the distribution of linguistic forms. Analyses based on data from actual discourse (spoken or written) especially encouraged. For details on submission of abstracts, registration, the Columbia School, etc., see conference web site: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~elc9j/ Please note new address for e-mail abstracts: csconf at virginia.edu For other information, contact Ellen Contini-Morava, elc9j at virginia.edu. **** **** **** **** **** The support of the conference by The Columbia School Linguistics Society is gratefully acknowledged **** **** **** **** **** From iwasaki at HUMNET.UCLA.EDU Fri Apr 30 06:09:05 1999 From: iwasaki at HUMNET.UCLA.EDU (Shoichi Iwasaki) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 22:09:05 -0800 Subject: Thai/Indonesian Lecturer Positions Message-ID: The Program in South and Southeast Asian Languages at UCLA seeks applicants for one lecturer position each in Thai and Indonesian for the academic year 1999-2000 with possibility of renewal. The lecturer will be responsible for first year instruction (and possibly second year instruction pending budgetary approval). Applications are invited from qualified individuals. Candidates with native or near-native fluency in the target language, advanced degrees, some background in Linguistics, and previous experience in language teaching in the American educational setting, are preferred. Review of candidates will begin May 30, 1999. Applications should include a letter of interest, CV, and three letters of recommendation. Applications should be sent to: Shoichi Iwasaki, Director of South and Southeast Asian Languages Program, c/o Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, 290 Royce Hall, Box 951540, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540. UCLA is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and underrepresented minorities are encouraged to apply. AA/EOE.