From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 13:40:29 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:40:29 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Comments on the following would be much appreciated. In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 that traces are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): (1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between verbs and infinitival to (and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): (2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. (3) a. I want to go to town. b. I wanna go to town. (4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) (5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the issue: (6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) (7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU data base.) Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because no traces are involved in either example. Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, for example, my boss let me go.) b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not privilege.) So, we have the following contrasts: (9) a. I wanna go. b. *I getta go. (10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) b. *I gotta go. (privilege) Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of 08/03/01): (11) a. I ought PRO to go. b. I oughtta go. (12) a. I fought PRO to go. b. *I foughtta go. The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in (9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds of contraction. Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. Now, how might we account for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and (14), but without traces or PRO: (13) a. Who do you want [to see]? b. Who do you wanna see? No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked English focus structure. (14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the syntactic analysis. Dan Everett From dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 18:42:33 2001 From: dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK (Dick Hudson) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:42:33 +0100 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction In-Reply-To: <006301c11c21$e765ee00$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: Dear Dan, An even better account, in my opinion, refers to frequency. As Joan Bybee has shown (in Phonology in the Lexicon, in Usage-based Models of Language, ed. Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer), frequently used forms tend to shorten. This would explain why, e.g. "I('ve) got to ..." can shorten to gotta, in contrast with the presumably less frequent "I got to ...". The attraction of this explanation is that it avoids stipulating arbitrary connections such as the one you suggest. But of course it may be wrong, in which case its explanatory power dwindles to zero. Dick At 08:40 03/08/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Comments on the following would be much appreciated. > >In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received >strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 >that traces >are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): > >(1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position >to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) > >It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between >verbs and infinitival to >(and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of >function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as >in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): > >(2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject >of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) > b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. >(3) a. I want to go to town. > b. I wanna go to town. >(4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? > b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) >(5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? > b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? > > (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no >contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by >abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) > >Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But >other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two >principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up >numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I >considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in >years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function >words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition >project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the >issue: > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU >data base.) > >Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because >no traces are involved in either example. > >Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George >Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): > >(8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, >for example, my boss let me go.) > b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not >privilege.) > >So, we have the following contrasts: > >(9) a. I wanna go. > b. *I getta go. >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) > >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of >08/03/01): > >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. > b. I oughtta go. >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > b. *I foughtta go. > >The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in >(9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all >the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds >of contraction. > >Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving >intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their >infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. > >Now, how might we account >for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, >WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably >universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does >not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a >subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will >require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at >least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and >(14), but without traces or PRO: > >(13) a. Who do you want [to see]? > b. Who do you wanna see? > >No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked >English focus structure. > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? > >In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates >the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on >questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. > >Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the >syntactic analysis. > > >Dan Everett > > Richard (= Dick) Hudson Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. +44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108; http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 18:48:34 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:48:34 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Dick, Thanks for the suggestions. I didn't think anything in my proposal involved 'stipulating arbitrary connections', but if the frequency analysis turned out to work, that wouldn't bother me at all. But gotta/getta facts are 'new' and I do not see how they can be reduced to frequency. I should correct an error in my original posting. I was mistaken in the structures I proposed for RRG. This is a result of thinking for so long in GB/MP terms. Old habits die hard. In any case, the two constructions, 'Who do you want to see' and 'Who do you want to see Bill' are, in RRG, different kinds of 'nexus'. The first one is called cosubordination in RRG and the second one subordination. This may explain the extraction facts without my claim about phonological salience, though I am not sure. Thanks again for your reply. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Hudson" To: "Dan Everett" ; Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction > Dear Dan, > An even better account, in my opinion, refers to frequency. As Joan Bybee > has shown (in Phonology in the Lexicon, in Usage-based Models of Language, > ed. Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer), frequently used forms tend to > shorten. This would explain why, e.g. "I('ve) got to ..." can shorten to > gotta, in contrast with the presumably less frequent "I got to ...". The > attraction of this explanation is that it avoids stipulating arbitrary > connections such as the one you suggest. But of course it may be wrong, in > which case its explanatory power dwindles to zero. > Dick > > At 08:40 03/08/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >Comments on the following would be much appreciated. > > > >In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received > >strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 > >that traces > >are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): > > > >(1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position > >to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) > > > >It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between > >verbs and infinitival to > >(and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of > >function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as > >in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): > > > >(2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject > >of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) > > b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. > >(3) a. I want to go to town. > > b. I wanna go to town. > >(4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? > > b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) > >(5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? > > b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? > > > > (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no > >contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by > >abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) > > > >Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But > >other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two > >principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up > >numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I > >considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in > >years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function > >words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition > >project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the > >issue: > > > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it > >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) > >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU > >data base.) > > > >Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because > >no traces are involved in either example. > > > >Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George > >Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): > > > >(8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, > >for example, my boss let me go.) > > b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not > >privilege.) > > > >So, we have the following contrasts: > > > >(9) a. I wanna go. > > b. *I getta go. > >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) > > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) > > > >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of > >08/03/01): > > > >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. > > b. I oughtta go. > >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > > b. *I foughtta go. > > > >The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in > >(9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all > >the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds > >of contraction. > > > >Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving > >intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their > >infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. > > > >Now, how might we account > >for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, > >WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably > >universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does > >not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a > >subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will > >require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at > >least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and > >(14), but without traces or PRO: > > > >(13) a. Who do you want [to see]? > > b. Who do you wanna see? > > > >No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked > >English focus structure. > > > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? > > > >In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates > >the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on > >questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. > > > >Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the > >syntactic analysis. > > > > > >Dan Everett > > > > > > Richard (= Dick) Hudson > > Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, > Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. > +44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108; > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From tpayne at oregon.uoregon.edu Fri Aug 3 21:02:27 2001 From: tpayne at oregon.uoregon.edu (Tom Payne) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:02:27 -0700 Subject: Problem set needed Message-ID: Dear Funknet I am in need of a good problem set, or at least examples, from a NON-BANTU language that allows both passive and applicative marking in the same clause. I would need examples of active, two-argument clauses, passives of these, applicatives and then one or more examples of passive and applicative. The absolutely best examples would be languages in which a passive can have an applicative added, AND applicatives that can subsequently be passivized. It is important that the language NOT be Bantu. The problem is the assignment the students have involves a Bantu system, and I need examples that are similar, but not close enough to give away the solution to their assignment. Thanks for any help. If someone can send me some good examples, I would be glad to reciprocate by sending a MS copy of a workbook for introductory morphosyntax course. Tom Payne From spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU Fri Aug 3 21:35:01 2001 From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:35:01 -0700 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction In-Reply-To: <006e01c11c4c$e8202ec0$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: Another way of looking at this same set of contrasts is to say that otherwise unmotivated phonological contraction is one of the correlates of grammaticalization. In this case we are not using a "deep structure" as a way of motivating the contraction facts, but instead we are using the contraction facts to infer that a grammatical reorganization is going on. it would then follow that wanna in (9a) is an incipient desiderative, whereas the disallowed *wanna in (14b) is not. Similarly, gotta in (10a) is an incipient auxiliary of obligation, whereas the disallowed *gotta in (10b) and *getta in (9b) are not incipient auxiliaries of privilege/permission. Finally, oughtta is clearly en route to being an auxiliary of obligation/epistemic modality, whereas *foughtta is unlikely ever to generalize to such a status. In this view of the problem, there is a role for both semantics and frequency: the semantics of certain complement-taking verbs are already well-designed to be exploited for novel expressions of common TAM distinctions (obligation, permission, desire), whereas others are not such good candidates (disputation). Then, from the pool of possible candidates, communities of speakers adopt around certain innovative expressions, which then increase in frequency. I know of no proposals for how we might predict which of the potential innovations is chosen (I believe this is a social -- rather than cognitive -- phenomenon). But it is still clear that once an innovative expression becomes popular, its frequency goes up dramatically, at which point it becomes more susceptible to contraction. Spike > > >So, we have the following contrasts: >> > >> >(9) a. I wanna go. >> > b. *I getta go. >> >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) >> > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) >> > >> >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email >of >> >08/03/01): >> > >> >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. >> > b. I oughtta go. >> >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > > > b. *I foughtta go. > > > > > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > > > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? P.S. I believe the permission/privilege reading of may and can is a secondary development, in each case arising by implicature from an etymologically prior abilitative reading. Are there well-attested cases in the literature of permissive auxiliaries/affixes arising directly from permissive matrix verbs like get, that have no abilitative reading at all? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sat Aug 4 00:26:26 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:26:26 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contractionThe idea of frequency, social preferences/development, and semantic-form combinations developing to account for the different contraction possibilities sounds quite plausible, Spike. HPSG in fact treats some of these as separate words. Moreover, the observation I made that the deontic sense of 'gotta' sounds ungrammatical without contraction supports the idea that this is a single word now (as Paul Postal pointed out, it is a 'raising' verb, as in 'There's gotta be a way out of here' uses). The failure to contract across a 'trace', moreover, can follow in RRG either for pragmatic reasons, as I suggested or, alternatively, because these are different kinds of what RRG calls 'nexus' relations. In 'Who do you want to see' we have 'cosubordination' and in 'Who do you want to see Bill' subordination, as Bob VanValin reminded me. Whatever the final answer it seems much more plausible that it will come from semantics and pragmatics than tree structure. Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sat Aug 4 00:35:03 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:35:03 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contractionThe phonological contraction is, however, well motivated generally (the to-contraction cases). In general function words like 'to' encliticize, as we all probably know. What is not motivated phonologically are the failures to encliticize and the failures to have a nonenclitic variant. But the idea that we are seeing change seems like it is on the right path. There are many idio/dialectical differences in this matter, however, that need to be studied systematically to produce generalizations with statistical significance, especially since, as Spike observed, these are at least partially sociolinguistic phenomena. Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amnfn at WELL.COM Sat Aug 4 03:27:16 2001 From: amnfn at WELL.COM (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:27:16 -0700 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:35:01 -0700 From: Spike Gildea To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction >P.S. I believe the permission/privilege reading of may and can is a >secondary development, in each case arising by implicature from an >etymologically prior abilitative reading. Are there well-attested >cases in the literature of permissive auxiliaries/affixes arising >directly from permissive matrix verbs like get, that have no >abilitative reading at all? Hebrew and Chinese have permissive auxiliaries where the subject is the one granting the permission and the source verb means `give'. Natati lo lalexet gave-1st DAT-3rd to-go "I let him go" Wo gei ta chu 1st give 3rd go The metaphor seems to be the same as with English `he gets to go' -- that permission is a thing which is given or received. The difference is that the focus is on the giver, not the receiver as in English. --Aya Katz From fdehaan at UNM.EDU Sat Aug 4 05:45:04 2001 From: fdehaan at UNM.EDU (fdehaan) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:45:04 -0600 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Dan Everett wrote: >The idea of frequency, social preferences/development, and semantic-form combinations >developing to account for the different contraction possibilities sounds quite plausible, >Spike. HPSG in fact treats some of these as separate words. Moreover, the observation I made >that the deontic sense of 'gotta' sounds ungrammatical without contraction supports the idea >that this is a single word now (as Paul Postal pointed out, it is a 'raising' verb, as in >'There's gotta be a way out of here' uses). --- [earlier posting] > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go -notice that it > >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) > >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU > >data base.) [end earlier posting] Is the "got to" construction meaning "privilege" not a different construction from "have got to" meaning "obligation"? Maybe the reason the contracted form sounds weird in the obligation reading because the verb "have" is required. Notice the innocuous contraction in the example "There's gotta be a way out of here". Best wishes, Ferdinand de Haan University of New Mexico From dryer at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Aug 5 17:28:04 2001 From: dryer at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (Matthew S Dryer) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:28:04 -0400 Subject: got to Message-ID: A footnote regarding the contrast of "gotta (obligation)" with "got to" in (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, for example, my boss let me go.) which Dan here describes as indicating privilege and Spike describes as involving permission. That this can involves a notion of possibility or ability that goes beyond either privilege or permission is indicated by examples like (a) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he got to swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I never got to swim. which means roughly the same as (b) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he was able to swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I was never able to swim. It seems to differ from 'can' and 'able' only in lacking a generic/habitual sense and always refers to a specific time or situation. Compare (c) I can speak German. (d) I get to speak German. Matthew Dryer From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Aug 5 17:42:28 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:42:28 -0500 Subject: got to Message-ID: Matthew's posting seems fine to me. I didn't intend 'privilege' as a final label for 'got to', just a temporary description. Interesting footnote, Matthew. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew S Dryer" To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: got to > A footnote regarding the contrast of "gotta (obligation)" with "got to" in > > (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, > for example, my boss let me go.) > > which Dan here describes as indicating privilege and Spike describes as > involving permission. > > That this can involves a notion of possibility or ability that goes beyond > either privilege or permission is indicated by examples like > > (a) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he got to swim > all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I never got > to swim. > > which means roughly the same as > > (b) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he was able to > swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I was > never able to swim. > > It seems to differ from 'can' and 'able' only in lacking a > generic/habitual sense and always refers to a specific time or situation. > Compare > > (c) I can speak German. > (d) I get to speak German. > > Matthew Dryer From jsphdvs at YAHOO.COM Wed Aug 15 18:39:45 2001 From: jsphdvs at YAHOO.COM (Joseph Davis) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:39:45 -0700 Subject: Call for papers Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS 7th International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction of Linguistic Form and Meaning with Human Behavior February 16-18, 2002 Columbia University New York, New York Invited Speakers: Joan Bybee University of New Mexico Melissa Bowerman Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Alan Huffman City University of New York Papers are 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. The Columbia School is a group of linguists developing the theoretical framework originally established by the late William Diver. Language is seen as a symbolic tool whose structure is shaped both by its communicative function and by the characteristics of its human users. Grammatical analyses account for the distribution of linguistic forms as an interaction between linguistic meaning and pragmatic and functional factors such as inference, ease of processing, and iconicity. Phonological analyses explain the syntagmatic and paradigmatic distribution of phonological units within signals, also drawing on both communicative function and human physiological and psychological characteristics. Please submit: � 3 copies of a one-page anonymous abstract (optional second page for references, examples, tables, etc.) to the address below. � A 3x5 inch index card with the following information: - Title of paper - Author's name and affiliation - Address, phone, e-mail, for notification E-mailed abstracts should include all the above information, which will be deleted before the abstracts are reviewed. Address for hard-copy abstracts and other correspondence: Professor Radmila Gorup Department of Slavic Languages Columbia University New York, NY 10027 Address for e-mailed abstracts: jsphdvs at yahoo.com DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: 28 SEPTEMBER 2001 The language of the conference is English. Papers delivered in languages other than English will be considered. * * * * * * * * The support of The Columbia School Linguistic Society is gratefully acknowledged * * * * * * * * Recent works that might serve as an introduction to the Columbia School: Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.). 1995. Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huffman, Alan. 1997. The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London: Longman. Tobin, Yishai. 1997. Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham, N.C. and London: Duke U Press. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From pwd at RICE.EDU Sun Aug 19 21:42:50 2001 From: pwd at RICE.EDU (Philip W. Davis) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:42:50 -0500 Subject: Job Announcement Message-ID: Assistant Professor of Linguistics Rice University The Department of Linguistics, Rice University, is seeking to fill a tenure-track position in linguistics at the level of assistant professor beginning fall, 2002. The Ph.D. is required. The Department offers degrees at the B.A. and at the Ph.D. levels. The orientation of the Department is strongly functionalist and usage-based. The faculty adopts an integrative approach that is sensitive to language in its many contexts: discourse, social, cognitive, historical, etc. We emphasize language description, typological generalizations, functional explanations, and fieldwork experience. We expect the successful candidate to share the orientation of the Department, to have an active research program, and to have demonstrated excellence in teaching. Preference will be given to those who (1) have research experience in fieldwork on (a) non-Indo-European language(s), (2) are comfortable teaching courses not only in their area(s) of specialization, but also in phonology and/or historical linguistics. The normal teaching load is two courses per semester. Interviews will be held in January, 2002 at the LSA meeting in San Francisco. For full consideration, applications including cover letter, CV, three letters of reference, and one representative article must be received by November 15, 2001. Reply to: Faculty Search, Department of Linguistics MS23, Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: ling at ruf.rice. edu. Webpage: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~ling/. AA/EOE. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Philip W. Davis e-mail: pwd at rice.edu Professor of Linguistics & Chair tel: (713)348-6010 Department of Linguistics MS23 fax: (713)348-4718 Rice University web: www.ruf.rice.edu/~pwd/index.html 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77005 USA +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= From Anju.Saxena at LING.UU.SE Sun Aug 26 11:42:39 2001 From: Anju.Saxena at LING.UU.SE (Anju Saxena) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:42:39 +0200 Subject: Call for participation: 7th Himalayan Languages Symposium Message-ID: SEVENTH HIMALAYAN LANGUAGES SYMPOSIUM Uppsala University 7-9 September, 2001 The program for the conference is now available at the conference website From durlabhji at NSULA.EDU Tue Aug 28 19:34:56 2001 From: durlabhji at NSULA.EDU (Subhash Durlabhji) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:34:56 -0500 Subject: book project invitation Message-ID: Hello friends: Would you like to be involved in an interesting book project that could be path-breaking and revolutionary? Would you (or interested colleague) be willing to write an essay on the role the concept of POWER plays in your field? For centuries the physical and social sciences have followed the course of differentiation into finer and finer specializations. This division of labor has been phenomenally successful, producing startling insights and breathtaking scientific and social achievements. But many scholars believe that we are now in a new phase of knowledge generation, that this is the century of integration. Interesting parallels and crossover problems and issues are being discovered daily by scientists in different fields. Boundaries between various disciplines are become fuzzier. Scientific progress in the 21st century will come more, and more usefully, from interactions among the separate disciplines than from deeper penetration into narrow specializations. The scholarly effort I am suggesting here is based on this premise. There are a number of concepts -- power, value, hierarchy, energy, to name a few -- that occupy a central place in almost all the physical and social sciences. My proposal is simple: bring together in one volume essays on the subject of POWER by scientists from a range of disciplines -- Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Organization Studies, Anthropology, International Studies. These essays will focus on the role the concept of POWER plays in the central problems of each discipline. Written in simple language with as little technical detail as possible, they would seek to highlight especially the connections and commonalties among the basic sciences. The essays will not be concerned with the latest research and recent citations, but more with the "big picture". My role as editor will be to write the introduction and an integrative narrative, and a concluding chapter, and arrange for publication. If you find this idea interesting and would like to explore it in more depth, please contact me for a more detailed proposal, including some suggestions for style, substance, length, and so on. Please comment on the outline of the proposal given above and your own take on it -- how you would approach the task. Please join me on this venture, or pass on this message to a colleague who may be interested. At the least it will be fun; my hope is that it will be a runaway success and open the path to similar efforts for other concepts. Thank you. durlabhji at nsula.edu Dr. Subhash Durlabhji College of Business Northwestern State University Natchitoches, LA 71497 318-357-5692 Fax: 509-272-2692 From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 13:40:29 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:40:29 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Comments on the following would be much appreciated. In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 that traces are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): (1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between verbs and infinitival to (and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): (2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. (3) a. I want to go to town. b. I wanna go to town. (4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) (5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the issue: (6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) (7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU data base.) Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because no traces are involved in either example. Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, for example, my boss let me go.) b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not privilege.) So, we have the following contrasts: (9) a. I wanna go. b. *I getta go. (10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) b. *I gotta go. (privilege) Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of 08/03/01): (11) a. I ought PRO to go. b. I oughtta go. (12) a. I fought PRO to go. b. *I foughtta go. The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in (9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds of contraction. Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. Now, how might we account for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and (14), but without traces or PRO: (13) a. Who do you want [to see]? b. Who do you wanna see? No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked English focus structure. (14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the syntactic analysis. Dan Everett From dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 18:42:33 2001 From: dick at LINGUISTICS.UCL.AC.UK (Dick Hudson) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:42:33 +0100 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction In-Reply-To: <006301c11c21$e765ee00$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: Dear Dan, An even better account, in my opinion, refers to frequency. As Joan Bybee has shown (in Phonology in the Lexicon, in Usage-based Models of Language, ed. Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer), frequently used forms tend to shorten. This would explain why, e.g. "I('ve) got to ..." can shorten to gotta, in contrast with the presumably less frequent "I got to ...". The attraction of this explanation is that it avoids stipulating arbitrary connections such as the one you suggest. But of course it may be wrong, in which case its explanatory power dwindles to zero. Dick At 08:40 03/08/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Comments on the following would be much appreciated. > >In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received >strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 >that traces >are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): > >(1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position >to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) > >It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between >verbs and infinitival to >(and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of >function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as >in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): > >(2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject >of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) > b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. >(3) a. I want to go to town. > b. I wanna go to town. >(4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? > b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) >(5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? > b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? > > (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no >contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by >abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) > >Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But >other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two >principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up >numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I >considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in >years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function >words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition >project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the >issue: > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU >data base.) > >Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because >no traces are involved in either example. > >Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George >Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): > >(8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, >for example, my boss let me go.) > b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not >privilege.) > >So, we have the following contrasts: > >(9) a. I wanna go. > b. *I getta go. >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) > >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of >08/03/01): > >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. > b. I oughtta go. >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > b. *I foughtta go. > >The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in >(9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all >the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds >of contraction. > >Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving >intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their >infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. > >Now, how might we account >for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, >WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably >universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does >not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a >subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will >require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at >least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and >(14), but without traces or PRO: > >(13) a. Who do you want [to see]? > b. Who do you wanna see? > >No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked >English focus structure. > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? > >In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates >the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on >questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. > >Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the >syntactic analysis. > > >Dan Everett > > Richard (= Dick) Hudson Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. +44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108; http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Fri Aug 3 18:48:34 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:48:34 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Dick, Thanks for the suggestions. I didn't think anything in my proposal involved 'stipulating arbitrary connections', but if the frequency analysis turned out to work, that wouldn't bother me at all. But gotta/getta facts are 'new' and I do not see how they can be reduced to frequency. I should correct an error in my original posting. I was mistaken in the structures I proposed for RRG. This is a result of thinking for so long in GB/MP terms. Old habits die hard. In any case, the two constructions, 'Who do you want to see' and 'Who do you want to see Bill' are, in RRG, different kinds of 'nexus'. The first one is called cosubordination in RRG and the second one subordination. This may explain the extraction facts without my claim about phonological salience, though I am not sure. Thanks again for your reply. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dick Hudson" To: "Dan Everett" ; Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction > Dear Dan, > An even better account, in my opinion, refers to frequency. As Joan Bybee > has shown (in Phonology in the Lexicon, in Usage-based Models of Language, > ed. Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer), frequently used forms tend to > shorten. This would explain why, e.g. "I('ve) got to ..." can shorten to > gotta, in contrast with the presumably less frequent "I got to ...". The > attraction of this explanation is that it avoids stipulating arbitrary > connections such as the one you suggest. But of course it may be wrong, in > which case its explanatory power dwindles to zero. > Dick > > At 08:40 03/08/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >Comments on the following would be much appreciated. > > > >In the early years of trace theory it was claimed that traces received > >strong support from contraction facts. Recall that Chomsky proposed in 1976 > >that traces > >are left behind by moved elements, as in (1): > > > >(1) Mortimeri was seen ti by Bill. (Mortimer moves from the object position > >to subject position in the passive, leaving behind the trace, ti.) > > > >It was then noticed that although contraction is generally allowed between > >verbs and infinitival to > >(and this is just part of a more general phenomenon: the cliticization of > >function words in English and other languages, a quite common process), as > >in (2) and (3), it is not allowed if a trace intervenes, as in (4) and (5): > > > >(2) a. Suzy promised [PRO to marry General Thade]. (PRO = understood subject > >of infinitive in Government and Binding and other theories) > > b. Suzy promistta marry General Thade. > >(3) a. I want to go to town. > > b. I wanna go to town. > >(4) a. Whoi do you want PRO to see ti? > > b. Whoi do you wanna see ti? (Contraction is OK across the PRO) > >(5) a. Whoi do you want ti to see Bill? > > b. *Whoi do you wanna see Bill? > > > > (5b) is ungrammatical according to this analysis because there can be no > >contraction across a trace. (Traces are unlike PRO in being marked by > >abstract, syntactic Case and being governed.) > > > >Pretty neat result. I certainly thought it was when I first saw it. But > >other linguists (especially Geoffrey Pullum and Paul Postal, the two > >principal critics of this proposal) were not so impressed. They brought up > >numerous facts which seemed problematic for the account. I > >considered the issue unresolved and hadn't really thought about it much in > >years. However, Keren Everett in unrelated work on the phonology of function > >words in the Carnegie Mellon University automatic speech recognition > >project, SPHINX, noted the following contrast, which made me rethink the > >issue: > > > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go - notice that it > >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) > >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU > >data base.) > > > >Chomsky's theory fails to predict the contrast between (6) and (7) because > >no traces are involved in either example. > > > >Note, too, the following additional contrast pointed out to me by George > >Lakoff (email August 02, 2001): > > > >(8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, > >for example, my boss let me go.) > > b. *I gotta go. (The contracted form can only indicate obligation, not > >privilege.) > > > >So, we have the following contrasts: > > > >(9) a. I wanna go. > > b. *I getta go. > >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) > > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) > > > >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email of > >08/03/01): > > > >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. > > b. I oughtta go. > >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > > b. *I foughtta go. > > > >The trace theory of movement has nothing to say about the examples in > >(9)-(12). Therefore, it is too weak in this respect - it cannot handle all > >the facts. At the very least, we will need a separate account of other kinds > >of contraction. > > > >Let me tentatively propose a semantic account. Modal verbs involving > >intention of the matrix subject may contract (form a single unit with) their > >infinitival. Otherwise contraction is not allowed. > > > >Now, how might we account > >for the original contrast in (4) and (5)? In Role and Reference Grammar, > >WH-questions are only possible of focused material in English (probably > >universal). Objects (i.e. immediately postverbal arguments, since RRG does > >not recognize grammatical relations) are the unmarked focus position. For a > >subject to be questioned, however, it must be focused as well, but will > >require a marked structure. This 'marking' is indicated by the phonology, at > >least in English. Now reconsider (4) and (5), repeated here as (13) and > >(14), but without traces or PRO: > > > >(13) a. Who do you want [to see]? > > b. Who do you wanna see? > > > >No special marking is needed for object questioning because of unmarked > >English focus structure. > > > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? > > > >In (14), however, RRG would disallow the contraction because it eliminates > >the phonological salience indicating marked focus, a condition on > >questioning subjects in RRG, as observed above. > > > >Therefore, the RRG (semantic/pragmatic) analysis seems superior to the > >syntactic analysis. > > > > > >Dan Everett > > > > > > Richard (= Dick) Hudson > > Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London, > Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT. > +44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108; > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From tpayne at oregon.uoregon.edu Fri Aug 3 21:02:27 2001 From: tpayne at oregon.uoregon.edu (Tom Payne) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:02:27 -0700 Subject: Problem set needed Message-ID: Dear Funknet I am in need of a good problem set, or at least examples, from a NON-BANTU language that allows both passive and applicative marking in the same clause. I would need examples of active, two-argument clauses, passives of these, applicatives and then one or more examples of passive and applicative. The absolutely best examples would be languages in which a passive can have an applicative added, AND applicatives that can subsequently be passivized. It is important that the language NOT be Bantu. The problem is the assignment the students have involves a Bantu system, and I need examples that are similar, but not close enough to give away the solution to their assignment. Thanks for any help. If someone can send me some good examples, I would be glad to reciprocate by sending a MS copy of a workbook for introductory morphosyntax course. Tom Payne From spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU Fri Aug 3 21:35:01 2001 From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:35:01 -0700 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction In-Reply-To: <006e01c11c4c$e8202ec0$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: Another way of looking at this same set of contrasts is to say that otherwise unmotivated phonological contraction is one of the correlates of grammaticalization. In this case we are not using a "deep structure" as a way of motivating the contraction facts, but instead we are using the contraction facts to infer that a grammatical reorganization is going on. it would then follow that wanna in (9a) is an incipient desiderative, whereas the disallowed *wanna in (14b) is not. Similarly, gotta in (10a) is an incipient auxiliary of obligation, whereas the disallowed *gotta in (10b) and *getta in (9b) are not incipient auxiliaries of privilege/permission. Finally, oughtta is clearly en route to being an auxiliary of obligation/epistemic modality, whereas *foughtta is unlikely ever to generalize to such a status. In this view of the problem, there is a role for both semantics and frequency: the semantics of certain complement-taking verbs are already well-designed to be exploited for novel expressions of common TAM distinctions (obligation, permission, desire), whereas others are not such good candidates (disputation). Then, from the pool of possible candidates, communities of speakers adopt around certain innovative expressions, which then increase in frequency. I know of no proposals for how we might predict which of the potential innovations is chosen (I believe this is a social -- rather than cognitive -- phenomenon). But it is still clear that once an innovative expression becomes popular, its frequency goes up dramatically, at which point it becomes more susceptible to contraction. Spike > > >So, we have the following contrasts: >> > >> >(9) a. I wanna go. >> > b. *I getta go. >> >(10) a. I gotta go. (obligation) >> > b. *I gotta go. (privilege) >> > >> >Also, compare the following pairs (pointed out to me by Paul Postal email >of >> >08/03/01): >> > >> >(11) a. I ought PRO to go. >> > b. I oughtta go. >> >(12) a. I fought PRO to go. > > > b. *I foughtta go. > > > > > >(14) a. Who do you want [to see Bill]? > > > b. *Who do you wan[na see Bill]? P.S. I believe the permission/privilege reading of may and can is a secondary development, in each case arising by implicature from an etymologically prior abilitative reading. Are there well-attested cases in the literature of permissive auxiliaries/affixes arising directly from permissive matrix verbs like get, that have no abilitative reading at all? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sat Aug 4 00:26:26 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:26:26 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contractionThe idea of frequency, social preferences/development, and semantic-form combinations developing to account for the different contraction possibilities sounds quite plausible, Spike. HPSG in fact treats some of these as separate words. Moreover, the observation I made that the deontic sense of 'gotta' sounds ungrammatical without contraction supports the idea that this is a single word now (as Paul Postal pointed out, it is a 'raising' verb, as in 'There's gotta be a way out of here' uses). The failure to contract across a 'trace', moreover, can follow in RRG either for pragmatic reasons, as I suggested or, alternatively, because these are different kinds of what RRG calls 'nexus' relations. In 'Who do you want to see' we have 'cosubordination' and in 'Who do you want to see Bill' subordination, as Bob VanValin reminded me. Whatever the final answer it seems much more plausible that it will come from semantics and pragmatics than tree structure. Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sat Aug 4 00:35:03 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:35:03 -0500 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contractionThe phonological contraction is, however, well motivated generally (the to-contraction cases). In general function words like 'to' encliticize, as we all probably know. What is not motivated phonologically are the failures to encliticize and the failures to have a nonenclitic variant. But the idea that we are seeing change seems like it is on the right path. There are many idio/dialectical differences in this matter, however, that need to be studied systematically to produce generalizations with statistical significance, especially since, as Spike observed, these are at least partially sociolinguistic phenomena. Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amnfn at WELL.COM Sat Aug 4 03:27:16 2001 From: amnfn at WELL.COM (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:27:16 -0700 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:35:01 -0700 From: Spike Gildea To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Re: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction >P.S. I believe the permission/privilege reading of may and can is a >secondary development, in each case arising by implicature from an >etymologically prior abilitative reading. Are there well-attested >cases in the literature of permissive auxiliaries/affixes arising >directly from permissive matrix verbs like get, that have no >abilitative reading at all? Hebrew and Chinese have permissive auxiliaries where the subject is the one granting the permission and the source verb means `give'. Natati lo lalexet gave-1st DAT-3rd to-go "I let him go" Wo gei ta chu 1st give 3rd go The metaphor seems to be the same as with English `he gets to go' -- that permission is a thing which is given or received. The difference is that the focus is on the giver, not the receiver as in English. --Aya Katz From fdehaan at UNM.EDU Sat Aug 4 05:45:04 2001 From: fdehaan at UNM.EDU (fdehaan) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:45:04 -0600 Subject: semantics and pragmatics of to-contraction Message-ID: Dan Everett wrote: >The idea of frequency, social preferences/development, and semantic-form combinations >developing to account for the different contraction possibilities sounds quite plausible, >Spike. HPSG in fact treats some of these as separate words. Moreover, the observation I made >that the deontic sense of 'gotta' sounds ungrammatical without contraction supports the idea >that this is a single word now (as Paul Postal pointed out, it is a 'raising' verb, as in >'There's gotta be a way out of here' uses). --- [earlier posting] > >(6) a. I got PRO to go. (meaning I have an obligation to go -notice that it > >isn't even clear this sounds right in the uncontracted form.) > > b. I gotta go. (Sounds much better than (6a) to me.) > >(7) a. I get PRO to go. (Indicating privilege.) > > b. *I getta go. (Sounds terrible to me and may be unattested in the CMU > >data base.) [end earlier posting] Is the "got to" construction meaning "privilege" not a different construction from "have got to" meaning "obligation"? Maybe the reason the contracted form sounds weird in the obligation reading because the verb "have" is required. Notice the innocuous contraction in the example "There's gotta be a way out of here". Best wishes, Ferdinand de Haan University of New Mexico From dryer at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Sun Aug 5 17:28:04 2001 From: dryer at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (Matthew S Dryer) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:28:04 -0400 Subject: got to Message-ID: A footnote regarding the contrast of "gotta (obligation)" with "got to" in (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, for example, my boss let me go.) which Dan here describes as indicating privilege and Spike describes as involving permission. That this can involves a notion of possibility or ability that goes beyond either privilege or permission is indicated by examples like (a) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he got to swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I never got to swim. which means roughly the same as (b) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he was able to swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I was never able to swim. It seems to differ from 'can' and 'able' only in lacking a generic/habitual sense and always refers to a specific time or situation. Compare (c) I can speak German. (d) I get to speak German. Matthew Dryer From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Aug 5 17:42:28 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:42:28 -0500 Subject: got to Message-ID: Matthew's posting seems fine to me. I didn't intend 'privilege' as a final label for 'got to', just a temporary description. Interesting footnote, Matthew. Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew S Dryer" To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: got to > A footnote regarding the contrast of "gotta (obligation)" with "got to" in > > (8) a. I got PRO to go! (Past tense of get, indicating privilege, meaning, > for example, my boss let me go.) > > which Dan here describes as indicating privilege and Spike describes as > involving permission. > > That this can involves a notion of possibility or ability that goes beyond > either privilege or permission is indicated by examples like > > (a) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he got to swim > all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I never got > to swim. > > which means roughly the same as > > (b) Because he lived on the ocean when he was growing up, he was able to > swim all the time, but because I lived in the middle of a desert, I was > never able to swim. > > It seems to differ from 'can' and 'able' only in lacking a > generic/habitual sense and always refers to a specific time or situation. > Compare > > (c) I can speak German. > (d) I get to speak German. > > Matthew Dryer From jsphdvs at YAHOO.COM Wed Aug 15 18:39:45 2001 From: jsphdvs at YAHOO.COM (Joseph Davis) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:39:45 -0700 Subject: Call for papers Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS 7th International Columbia School Conference on the Interaction of Linguistic Form and Meaning with Human Behavior February 16-18, 2002 Columbia University New York, New York Invited Speakers: Joan Bybee University of New Mexico Melissa Bowerman Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Alan Huffman City University of New York Papers are 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. The Columbia School is a group of linguists developing the theoretical framework originally established by the late William Diver. Language is seen as a symbolic tool whose structure is shaped both by its communicative function and by the characteristics of its human users. Grammatical analyses account for the distribution of linguistic forms as an interaction between linguistic meaning and pragmatic and functional factors such as inference, ease of processing, and iconicity. Phonological analyses explain the syntagmatic and paradigmatic distribution of phonological units within signals, also drawing on both communicative function and human physiological and psychological characteristics. Please submit: ? 3 copies of a one-page anonymous abstract (optional second page for references, examples, tables, etc.) to the address below. ? A 3x5 inch index card with the following information: - Title of paper - Author's name and affiliation - Address, phone, e-mail, for notification E-mailed abstracts should include all the above information, which will be deleted before the abstracts are reviewed. Address for hard-copy abstracts and other correspondence: Professor Radmila Gorup Department of Slavic Languages Columbia University New York, NY 10027 Address for e-mailed abstracts: jsphdvs at yahoo.com DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: 28 SEPTEMBER 2001 The language of the conference is English. Papers delivered in languages other than English will be considered. * * * * * * * * The support of The Columbia School Linguistic Society is gratefully acknowledged * * * * * * * * Recent works that might serve as an introduction to the Columbia School: Contini-Morava, Ellen, and Barbara Sussman Goldberg (eds.). 1995. Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huffman, Alan. 1997. The Categories of Grammar: French lui and le. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reid, Wallis. 1991. Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Explanation. London: Longman. Tobin, Yishai. 1997. Phonology as Human Behavior: Theoretical Implications and Clinical Applications. Durham, N.C. and London: Duke U Press. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ From pwd at RICE.EDU Sun Aug 19 21:42:50 2001 From: pwd at RICE.EDU (Philip W. Davis) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 16:42:50 -0500 Subject: Job Announcement Message-ID: Assistant Professor of Linguistics Rice University The Department of Linguistics, Rice University, is seeking to fill a tenure-track position in linguistics at the level of assistant professor beginning fall, 2002. The Ph.D. is required. The Department offers degrees at the B.A. and at the Ph.D. levels. The orientation of the Department is strongly functionalist and usage-based. The faculty adopts an integrative approach that is sensitive to language in its many contexts: discourse, social, cognitive, historical, etc. We emphasize language description, typological generalizations, functional explanations, and fieldwork experience. We expect the successful candidate to share the orientation of the Department, to have an active research program, and to have demonstrated excellence in teaching. Preference will be given to those who (1) have research experience in fieldwork on (a) non-Indo-European language(s), (2) are comfortable teaching courses not only in their area(s) of specialization, but also in phonology and/or historical linguistics. The normal teaching load is two courses per semester. Interviews will be held in January, 2002 at the LSA meeting in San Francisco. For full consideration, applications including cover letter, CV, three letters of reference, and one representative article must be received by November 15, 2001. Reply to: Faculty Search, Department of Linguistics MS23, Rice University, 6100 Main St., Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: ling at ruf.rice. edu. Webpage: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~ling/. AA/EOE. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Philip W. Davis e-mail: pwd at rice.edu Professor of Linguistics & Chair tel: (713)348-6010 Department of Linguistics MS23 fax: (713)348-4718 Rice University web: www.ruf.rice.edu/~pwd/index.html 6100 Main St. Houston, TX 77005 USA +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= From Anju.Saxena at LING.UU.SE Sun Aug 26 11:42:39 2001 From: Anju.Saxena at LING.UU.SE (Anju Saxena) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:42:39 +0200 Subject: Call for participation: 7th Himalayan Languages Symposium Message-ID: SEVENTH HIMALAYAN LANGUAGES SYMPOSIUM Uppsala University 7-9 September, 2001 The program for the conference is now available at the conference website From durlabhji at NSULA.EDU Tue Aug 28 19:34:56 2001 From: durlabhji at NSULA.EDU (Subhash Durlabhji) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:34:56 -0500 Subject: book project invitation Message-ID: Hello friends: Would you like to be involved in an interesting book project that could be path-breaking and revolutionary? Would you (or interested colleague) be willing to write an essay on the role the concept of POWER plays in your field? For centuries the physical and social sciences have followed the course of differentiation into finer and finer specializations. This division of labor has been phenomenally successful, producing startling insights and breathtaking scientific and social achievements. But many scholars believe that we are now in a new phase of knowledge generation, that this is the century of integration. Interesting parallels and crossover problems and issues are being discovered daily by scientists in different fields. Boundaries between various disciplines are become fuzzier. Scientific progress in the 21st century will come more, and more usefully, from interactions among the separate disciplines than from deeper penetration into narrow specializations. The scholarly effort I am suggesting here is based on this premise. There are a number of concepts -- power, value, hierarchy, energy, to name a few -- that occupy a central place in almost all the physical and social sciences. My proposal is simple: bring together in one volume essays on the subject of POWER by scientists from a range of disciplines -- Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Organization Studies, Anthropology, International Studies. These essays will focus on the role the concept of POWER plays in the central problems of each discipline. Written in simple language with as little technical detail as possible, they would seek to highlight especially the connections and commonalties among the basic sciences. The essays will not be concerned with the latest research and recent citations, but more with the "big picture". My role as editor will be to write the introduction and an integrative narrative, and a concluding chapter, and arrange for publication. If you find this idea interesting and would like to explore it in more depth, please contact me for a more detailed proposal, including some suggestions for style, substance, length, and so on. Please comment on the outline of the proposal given above and your own take on it -- how you would approach the task. Please join me on this venture, or pass on this message to a colleague who may be interested. At the least it will be fun; my hope is that it will be a runaway success and open the path to similar efforts for other concepts. Thank you. durlabhji at nsula.edu Dr. Subhash Durlabhji College of Business Northwestern State University Natchitoches, LA 71497 318-357-5692 Fax: 509-272-2692