From degand at EXCO.UCL.AC.BE Fri Jun 1 12:40:57 2001 From: degand at EXCO.UCL.AC.BE (Liesbeth Degand) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:40:57 +0200 Subject: MAD'01: last call for participation Message-ID: Apologies for multiple postings *** SECOND AND LAST CALL FOR PARTICIPATION *** MAD'01: 4th International Workshop on Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Improving text: From text structure to text type 5-8 August 2001, Ittre (Belgium) **************************************************************************** There is still room for a few non-speaking participants ("first come - first serve"). Please register BEFORE 15 June 2001, otherwise we cannot guarantee availability of (on-site) accommodation. GOAL AND TOPICS: The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular theoretical and applied linguists, computational linguists, and psycholinguists, to exchange information and learn from each other on a common topic of investigation: text and discourse. More specifically, the question to be addressed is "What makes a good text good?" Text quality depends upon many factors and can in itself be considered a complex concept (what is good for one aspect of the text need not benefit other aspects). In order to make real advances in the domains of text quality and document design, it is necessary to combine results from both theoretical (linguistics) and experimental (psychology) research. KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Francis Cornish, Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et Sémantique, Université de Toulouse le Mirail Donia Scott, Information Technology Research Institute, University of Brighton Patricia Wright, School of Psychology, Cardiff University Rolf Zwaan, Psychology Department, Florida State University ACCOMMODATION, REGISTRATION, PROGRAMME, ... For up-to-date information on all matters concerning the workshop, please check the MAD website: http://www.exco.ucl.ac.be/ld/MAD/mad-presentation.htm If the information you need is not available, feel free to contact the organisers. Liesbeth Degand, coordinator (degand at exco.ucl.ac.be) Yves Bestgen (bestgen at exco.ucl.ac.be) Véronique De Keyser (vdekeyser at ulg.ac.be) Jon Oberlander (jon at cogsci.ed.ac.uk) Wilbert Spooren (w.spooren at let.vu.nl) Luuk Van Waes (Luuk.VanWaes at ufsia.ac.be) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clements at INDIANA.EDU Tue Jun 5 04:28:02 2001 From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (J. Clancy Clements) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:28:02 -0500 Subject: studies of taxonomies for Spanish Message-ID: Dear FUNKNETters, A colleague of mine is searching for any and all studies of naming objects in Spanish, and the systems employed in the naming. The could include anything from colors to geneological terms, to mammals, to birds, .... anything. Of special interest are the anthopological linguistic studies. You can write to me, or directly to Honorio Velasco at hvelasco at indiana.edu. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Clancy Clements ************************************************* J. Clancy Clements Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics Director of Undergraduate Studies Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, BH 844 Indiana University 1020 E. Kirkwood Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Tel. (812) 855-8612; Fax: (812) 855-4526 http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html ************************************************* From dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Fri Jun 15 23:31:58 2001 From: dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:31:58 -0700 Subject: Still openings at LSA Summer Institute Message-ID: Let me call your attention to the fact that we are still accepting students and affiliates for the Linguistic Society of America's 2001 Institute, September 25-August 3, in Santa Barbara, California . There are many events of interest to members of this list, including 3-week and 6-week courses on functional linguistics, discourse, grammar, semantics, pragmatics, conversation analysis, language & culture, prosody, intonation, and other topics too numerous to mention here. International conferences to be held in conjunction with the Institute include the Intenational Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Society for Text and Discourse, International Association for Linguistic Typology, and more. (See the web site listed below.) It's not too late -- come and join us for a memorable and stimulating summer! --Jack Du Bois Please consult the website at http://www.summer.ucsb.edu/lsa2001/index.htm for a full schedule of events, and application and housing information. If you have any questions, please email the Institute Coordinator at lsa2001 at summersessions.ucsb.edu. The following gives some more officical information: "The Linguistic Society of America's 2001 Institute will be held on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara this summer. We are still accepting applications and some housing options are available. The theme of the Institute is 'Linguistic Diversity: How and Why Languages Differ' with a special emphasis on Pacific Rim Languages. In addition to the core linguistic courses, there will also be courses in language use, language and culture, language acquisition, and literacy. In keeping with the focus on linguistic diversity, there are courses delving into the special complexities of several typologically different language families. There will also be several sets of related courses which constitute sub-institutes, organized around such topics as Minimalism, Conversational Analysis, Teaching English as a Second Language, Chinese corpus linguistics, Japanese linguistics, and Korean linguistics. In addition, a rich selection of workshops and conferences, some small and some large, will be held during the Institute -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Fri Jun 15 23:46:54 2001 From: dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:46:54 -0700 Subject: Clarification of dates for LSA Institute Message-ID: To clarify, the CORRECT dates for this summer's Linguistic Society of America Institute are: ** JUNE 25 to August 3, 2001 ** Please consult the website at http://www.summer.ucsb.edu/lsa2001/index.htm for full information about events and places still available. -- Jack Du Bois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clements at INDIANA.EDU Sat Jun 16 02:54:50 2001 From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (J. Clancy Clements) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:54:50 -0500 Subject: Spanish language lecturer positions at Indiana University Message-ID: Visiting Lecturer positions in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Indiana University, Bloomington Beginning August 2001, for the academic year 2001-2002, with the possibility of two, year-long extensions Duties: Teaching 3 courses in elementary and/or intermediate Spanish per semester Salary: $31,000 for the year, plus full benefits Qualifications: Native or near native proficiency in Spanish; a degree in Spanish Indiana University is an AA/EOE If interested send letter of application, current c.v. and three letters of recommendation to: Prof. Consuelo Lopez-Morillas, Chair Department of Spanish and Portuguese Ballantine Hall 802 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave. Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405, USA <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> ************************************************* J. Clancy Clements Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics Director of Undergraduate Studies Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, BH 844 Indiana University 1020 E. Kirkwood Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Tel. (812) 855-8612; Fax: (812) 855-4526 http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html ************************************************* From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Jun 17 18:06:11 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:06:11 -0500 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion Message-ID: I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem to work out. So, consider crucial pairs like the following: (1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. (2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where 'did' is 'suspected') (1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire quantified d.obj. 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises out, i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out (though people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a performance problem.) If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a 'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a modifying position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition on ACD is that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command is unnecessary. Now consider (3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. Or, (4) John met everyone that Mary did. (5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. (6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural approach. In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects most cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware of any attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? Best, Dan Everett From lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Sun Jun 17 19:48:04 2001 From: lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (George Lakoff) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:48:04 -0700 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion In-Reply-To: <003c01c0f758$31440d20$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: This was one of the old arguments for generative semantics, that is, for syntactic distribution to be based on semantic considerations. The kinds of examples I used back in 1966 to argue the case were distinctions like: (1) [The man who deserved [it]j ]i got [the prize [he]i wanted]j. (2) *That Harry [believed that Bill had []j ]i indicated that Sam would [claim that Max had []i ]j. (1) is the old Bill Woods sentence (written about by Bach and Peters). (2) shows that predicates don't work the same way as arguments, for semantic reasons. The fact so-called VP-deletion is actually the omission of an identical predication also explains the ill-formedness of (5) in Dan's letter. From a theoretical perspective, it would not be surprising if functional considerations fit semantic considerations. After all, semantically ill-formed sentences tend not to occur and therefore would be outside of positive functional principles. It should be said that such considerations also hold in all contemporary theories where semantic considerations determine syntactic distributions: e.g.,cognitive grammar and embodied construction grammar (aka neural grammar). It's nice to see argument forms from 35 years ago surfacing again. George >I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on >functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the >following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new >book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): > >In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem >to work out. So, consider >crucial pairs like the following: > >(1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. >(2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where > 'did' is 'suspected') > >(1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire >quantified d.obj. > 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises >out, > i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this > movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since > there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is >impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out >(though > people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a > performance problem.) > >If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in >RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a >'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information >is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational >structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a >modifying >position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and >old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition >on ACD is >that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no >passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my >experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or >argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad >presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command >is unnecessary. Now consider > >(3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. >Or, >(4) John met everyone that Mary did. >(5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. >(6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). > (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) > >So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an >information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural >approach. > >In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more >plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects >most >cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware >of any >attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? > >Best, > >Dan Everett From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Jun 17 20:15:33 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:15:33 -0500 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion Message-ID: George, Well, I am honored that in my ignorance I 'discovered' something that Generative Semanticists already knew. It MUST be right. That's probably why in my classes these days, I always list Generative Semantics as heavy influence on the development of functional linguistics. In fact, I usually say that Generative Semantics is alive and well, just under a wider variety of labels. Thanks for the very useful reply, Dan From sasha at CS.UOREGON.EDU Sun Jun 17 22:52:11 2001 From: sasha at CS.UOREGON.EDU (Gwen Alexandra Frishkoff) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:52:11 -0700 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, Can you explain, what is neural grammar? I'd be interested in any references. Thanks, Gwen Frishkoff ************************* Gwen Alexandra Frishkoff Department of Psychology University of Oregon sasha at cs.uoregon.edu ************************* On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, George Lakoff wrote: > This was one of the old arguments for generative semantics, that is, > for syntactic distribution to be based on semantic considerations. > The kinds of examples I used back in 1966 to argue the case were > distinctions like: > > (1) [The man who deserved [it]j ]i got [the prize [he]i wanted]j. > > (2) *That Harry [believed that Bill had []j ]i indicated that Sam > would [claim that Max had []i ]j. > > (1) is the old Bill Woods sentence (written about by Bach and Peters). > > (2) shows that predicates don't work the same way as arguments, for > semantic reasons. > > The fact so-called VP-deletion is actually the omission of an > identical predication also explains the ill-formedness of (5) in > Dan's letter. > > From a theoretical perspective, it would not be surprising if > functional considerations fit semantic considerations. After all, > semantically ill-formed sentences tend not to occur and therefore > would be outside of positive functional principles. > > It should be said that such considerations also hold in all > contemporary theories where semantic considerations determine > syntactic distributions: e.g.,cognitive grammar and embodied > construction grammar (aka neural grammar). > > It's nice to see argument forms from 35 years ago surfacing again. > > George > > > >I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on > >functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the > >following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new > >book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): > > > >In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem > >to work out. So, consider > >crucial pairs like the following: > > > >(1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. > >(2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where > > 'did' is 'suspected') > > > >(1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire > >quantified d.obj. > > 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises > >out, > > i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this > > movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since > > there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is > >impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out > >(though > > people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a > > performance problem.) > > > >If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in > >RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a > >'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information > >is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational > >structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a > >modifying > >position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and > >old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition > >on ACD is > >that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no > >passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my > >experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or > >argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad > >presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command > >is unnecessary. Now consider > > > >(3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. > >Or, > >(4) John met everyone that Mary did. > >(5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. > >(6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). > > (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) > > > >So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an > >information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural > >approach. > > > >In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more > >plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects > >most > >cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware > >of any > >attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? > > > >Best, > > > >Dan Everett > From kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU Tue Jun 19 22:54:25 2001 From: kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU (Dr. Suzanne E. Kemmer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:54:25 -0500 Subject: For funknetters going to ICLC 2001 Message-ID: New! ICLC 2001 Information-sharing Listserve There is now a listserve (email list) for ICLC 2001 in which those planning to attend the conference can exchange information on rides and crash space. We encourage all those Santa Barbarians who have any space available for informal stays (floor space for sleeping bag, or couch, whatever you have) during the conference to make it known to the listserve members. Also those looking to share hotel rooms, share rides etc., post your messages to the list. Thanks to Dan Parvaz of UNM for setting up the listserve. The Organizing Committee ICLC 2001 HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE ICLC LIST Send a message to: listserv at maillist.unm.edu Leave the Subject field blank. In the body of message type (with no other text): subscribe ICLC-L Firstname Lastname (where, of course, you put in YOUR firstname and lastname) Once the subscribe request is approved, a notification will be emailed to you. From w.croft at MAN.AC.UK Thu Jun 21 08:55:23 2001 From: w.croft at MAN.AC.UK (Bill Croft) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:55:23 +0100 Subject: Obituary for Joe Greenberg Message-ID: An obituary for Joe Greenberg appears in today's (Thu June 21st) "Independent" newspaper---pretty much the same copy as I submitted. It can be seen at: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/story.jsp?story=79244 Bill Croft From matmies at LING.HELSINKI.FI Tue Jun 26 08:44:12 2001 From: matmies at LING.HELSINKI.FI (Matti Miestamo) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:44:12 +0300 Subject: Confs: Linguistic Perspectives on Endangered Languages Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings) Dear All, The preliminary program and the abstracts for the symposium 'Linguistic Perspectives on Endangered Languages', organized by the Linguistic Association of Finland at the University of Helsinki, August 29 - September 1, 2001, are now available at . For further information, please contact . Best Wishes, The organizers From degand at EXCO.UCL.AC.BE Fri Jun 1 12:40:57 2001 From: degand at EXCO.UCL.AC.BE (Liesbeth Degand) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:40:57 +0200 Subject: MAD'01: last call for participation Message-ID: Apologies for multiple postings *** SECOND AND LAST CALL FOR PARTICIPATION *** MAD'01: 4th International Workshop on Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse Improving text: From text structure to text type 5-8 August 2001, Ittre (Belgium) **************************************************************************** There is still room for a few non-speaking participants ("first come - first serve"). Please register BEFORE 15 June 2001, otherwise we cannot guarantee availability of (on-site) accommodation. GOAL AND TOPICS: The goal of this workshop is to bring together researchers from different disciplines, in particular theoretical and applied linguists, computational linguists, and psycholinguists, to exchange information and learn from each other on a common topic of investigation: text and discourse. More specifically, the question to be addressed is "What makes a good text good?" Text quality depends upon many factors and can in itself be considered a complex concept (what is good for one aspect of the text need not benefit other aspects). In order to make real advances in the domains of text quality and document design, it is necessary to combine results from both theoretical (linguistics) and experimental (psychology) research. KEYNOTE SPEAKERS Francis Cornish, Equipe de Recherche en Syntaxe et S?mantique, Universit? de Toulouse le Mirail Donia Scott, Information Technology Research Institute, University of Brighton Patricia Wright, School of Psychology, Cardiff University Rolf Zwaan, Psychology Department, Florida State University ACCOMMODATION, REGISTRATION, PROGRAMME, ... For up-to-date information on all matters concerning the workshop, please check the MAD website: http://www.exco.ucl.ac.be/ld/MAD/mad-presentation.htm If the information you need is not available, feel free to contact the organisers. Liesbeth Degand, coordinator (degand at exco.ucl.ac.be) Yves Bestgen (bestgen at exco.ucl.ac.be) V?ronique De Keyser (vdekeyser at ulg.ac.be) Jon Oberlander (jon at cogsci.ed.ac.uk) Wilbert Spooren (w.spooren at let.vu.nl) Luuk Van Waes (Luuk.VanWaes at ufsia.ac.be) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clements at INDIANA.EDU Tue Jun 5 04:28:02 2001 From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (J. Clancy Clements) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:28:02 -0500 Subject: studies of taxonomies for Spanish Message-ID: Dear FUNKNETters, A colleague of mine is searching for any and all studies of naming objects in Spanish, and the systems employed in the naming. The could include anything from colors to geneological terms, to mammals, to birds, .... anything. Of special interest are the anthopological linguistic studies. You can write to me, or directly to Honorio Velasco at hvelasco at indiana.edu. Any help would be gratefully appreciated. Clancy Clements ************************************************* J. Clancy Clements Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics Director of Undergraduate Studies Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, BH 844 Indiana University 1020 E. Kirkwood Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Tel. (812) 855-8612; Fax: (812) 855-4526 http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html ************************************************* From dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Fri Jun 15 23:31:58 2001 From: dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:31:58 -0700 Subject: Still openings at LSA Summer Institute Message-ID: Let me call your attention to the fact that we are still accepting students and affiliates for the Linguistic Society of America's 2001 Institute, September 25-August 3, in Santa Barbara, California . There are many events of interest to members of this list, including 3-week and 6-week courses on functional linguistics, discourse, grammar, semantics, pragmatics, conversation analysis, language & culture, prosody, intonation, and other topics too numerous to mention here. International conferences to be held in conjunction with the Institute include the Intenational Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Society for Text and Discourse, International Association for Linguistic Typology, and more. (See the web site listed below.) It's not too late -- come and join us for a memorable and stimulating summer! --Jack Du Bois Please consult the website at http://www.summer.ucsb.edu/lsa2001/index.htm for a full schedule of events, and application and housing information. If you have any questions, please email the Institute Coordinator at lsa2001 at summersessions.ucsb.edu. The following gives some more officical information: "The Linguistic Society of America's 2001 Institute will be held on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara this summer. We are still accepting applications and some housing options are available. The theme of the Institute is 'Linguistic Diversity: How and Why Languages Differ' with a special emphasis on Pacific Rim Languages. In addition to the core linguistic courses, there will also be courses in language use, language and culture, language acquisition, and literacy. In keeping with the focus on linguistic diversity, there are courses delving into the special complexities of several typologically different language families. There will also be several sets of related courses which constitute sub-institutes, organized around such topics as Minimalism, Conversational Analysis, Teaching English as a Second Language, Chinese corpus linguistics, Japanese linguistics, and Korean linguistics. In addition, a rich selection of workshops and conferences, some small and some large, will be held during the Institute -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU Fri Jun 15 23:46:54 2001 From: dubois at HUMANITAS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:46:54 -0700 Subject: Clarification of dates for LSA Institute Message-ID: To clarify, the CORRECT dates for this summer's Linguistic Society of America Institute are: ** JUNE 25 to August 3, 2001 ** Please consult the website at http://www.summer.ucsb.edu/lsa2001/index.htm for full information about events and places still available. -- Jack Du Bois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clements at INDIANA.EDU Sat Jun 16 02:54:50 2001 From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (J. Clancy Clements) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:54:50 -0500 Subject: Spanish language lecturer positions at Indiana University Message-ID: Visiting Lecturer positions in the Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Indiana University, Bloomington Beginning August 2001, for the academic year 2001-2002, with the possibility of two, year-long extensions Duties: Teaching 3 courses in elementary and/or intermediate Spanish per semester Salary: $31,000 for the year, plus full benefits Qualifications: Native or near native proficiency in Spanish; a degree in Spanish Indiana University is an AA/EOE If interested send letter of application, current c.v. and three letters of recommendation to: Prof. Consuelo Lopez-Morillas, Chair Department of Spanish and Portuguese Ballantine Hall 802 1020 E. Kirkwood Ave. Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405, USA <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*> ************************************************* J. Clancy Clements Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Adjunct Associate Professor of Linguistics Director of Undergraduate Studies Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, BH 844 Indiana University 1020 E. Kirkwood Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405, USA Tel. (812) 855-8612; Fax: (812) 855-4526 http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html ************************************************* From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Jun 17 18:06:11 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:06:11 -0500 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion Message-ID: I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem to work out. So, consider crucial pairs like the following: (1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. (2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where 'did' is 'suspected') (1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire quantified d.obj. 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises out, i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out (though people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a performance problem.) If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a 'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a modifying position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition on ACD is that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command is unnecessary. Now consider (3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. Or, (4) John met everyone that Mary did. (5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. (6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural approach. In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects most cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware of any attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? Best, Dan Everett From lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU Sun Jun 17 19:48:04 2001 From: lakoff at COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (George Lakoff) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:48:04 -0700 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion In-Reply-To: <003c01c0f758$31440d20$3c04fea9@und.nodak.edu> Message-ID: This was one of the old arguments for generative semantics, that is, for syntactic distribution to be based on semantic considerations. The kinds of examples I used back in 1966 to argue the case were distinctions like: (1) [The man who deserved [it]j ]i got [the prize [he]i wanted]j. (2) *That Harry [believed that Bill had []j ]i indicated that Sam would [claim that Max had []i ]j. (1) is the old Bill Woods sentence (written about by Bach and Peters). (2) shows that predicates don't work the same way as arguments, for semantic reasons. The fact so-called VP-deletion is actually the omission of an identical predication also explains the ill-formedness of (5) in Dan's letter. From a theoretical perspective, it would not be surprising if functional considerations fit semantic considerations. After all, semantically ill-formed sentences tend not to occur and therefore would be outside of positive functional principles. It should be said that such considerations also hold in all contemporary theories where semantic considerations determine syntactic distributions: e.g.,cognitive grammar and embodied construction grammar (aka neural grammar). It's nice to see argument forms from 35 years ago surfacing again. George >I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on >functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the >following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new >book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): > >In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem >to work out. So, consider >crucial pairs like the following: > >(1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. >(2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where > 'did' is 'suspected') > >(1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire >quantified d.obj. > 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises >out, > i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this > movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since > there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is >impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out >(though > people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a > performance problem.) > >If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in >RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a >'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information >is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational >structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a >modifying >position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and >old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition >on ACD is >that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no >passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my >experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or >argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad >presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command >is unnecessary. Now consider > >(3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. >Or, >(4) John met everyone that Mary did. >(5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. >(6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). > (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) > >So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an >information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural >approach. > >In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more >plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects >most >cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware >of any >attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? > >Best, > >Dan Everett From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK Sun Jun 17 20:15:33 2001 From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:15:33 -0500 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion Message-ID: George, Well, I am honored that in my ignorance I 'discovered' something that Generative Semanticists already knew. It MUST be right. That's probably why in my classes these days, I always list Generative Semantics as heavy influence on the development of functional linguistics. In fact, I usually say that Generative Semantics is alive and well, just under a wider variety of labels. Thanks for the very useful reply, Dan From sasha at CS.UOREGON.EDU Sun Jun 17 22:52:11 2001 From: sasha at CS.UOREGON.EDU (Gwen Alexandra Frishkoff) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:52:11 -0700 Subject: Antecedent-Contained Deletion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello, Can you explain, what is neural grammar? I'd be interested in any references. Thanks, Gwen Frishkoff ************************* Gwen Alexandra Frishkoff Department of Psychology University of Oregon sasha at cs.uoregon.edu ************************* On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, George Lakoff wrote: > This was one of the old arguments for generative semantics, that is, > for syntactic distribution to be based on semantic considerations. > The kinds of examples I used back in 1966 to argue the case were > distinctions like: > > (1) [The man who deserved [it]j ]i got [the prize [he]i wanted]j. > > (2) *That Harry [believed that Bill had []j ]i indicated that Sam > would [claim that Max had []i ]j. > > (1) is the old Bill Woods sentence (written about by Bach and Peters). > > (2) shows that predicates don't work the same way as arguments, for > semantic reasons. > > The fact so-called VP-deletion is actually the omission of an > identical predication also explains the ill-formedness of (5) in > Dan's letter. > > From a theoretical perspective, it would not be surprising if > functional considerations fit semantic considerations. After all, > semantically ill-formed sentences tend not to occur and therefore > would be outside of positive functional principles. > > It should be said that such considerations also hold in all > contemporary theories where semantic considerations determine > syntactic distributions: e.g.,cognitive grammar and embodied > construction grammar (aka neural grammar). > > It's nice to see argument forms from 35 years ago surfacing again. > > George > > > >I am wondering if anyone reading this list knows of or has worked on > >functional approaches to Antecedent Contained Deletion. Consider the > >following (inspiration for this posting comes from David Pesetsky's new > >book, Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press): > > > >In thinking of functionalist accounts of ACD, some of the simple cases seem > >to work out. So, consider > >crucial pairs like the following: > > > >(1) Mary suspected everyone that I did. > >(2) *Mary suspected that I did. (under verbal ellipsis reading, i.e. where > > 'did' is 'suspected') > > > >(1) is supposed to be good in a Minimalism account because the entire > >quantified d.obj. > > 'everyone that I did' raises at Logical Form and then the quantifier raises > >out, > > i.e. 'everyone' to the far left of the phrase, the CP position. And this > > movement is supposed to eliminate the infinite regress difficulty. Since > > there is no quantifier in (2), such LF movement is > >impossible, hence we are led to an infinite regress and the sentence is out > >(though > > people don't usually mention that an infinite regress ought only to be a > > performance problem.) > > > >If I were to take a simple-minded approach to this, I would say that, in > >RRG terms, you cannot delete/omit verbal material (or any other) from a > >'core' argument position (the d.obj. especially) because new information > >is presented here. Notice that the grammatical 'quantificational > >structure' doesn't involve deletion of a core argument but, rather, a > >modifying > >position of exactly the kind that old information often turns up in (and > >old information is often realized as a clitic or zero). The other condition > >on ACD is > >that the antecedent VP is supposed to c-command the elided VP. So no > >passives: *That everyone did was suspected by John. But c-command, in my > >experience, can be paraphrased in RRG-functional terms as CORE argument or > >argument of CORE argument. In any case, the sentence just given is bad > >presumably because subjects never take objects as antecedents. C-command > >is unnecessary. Now consider > > > >(3) Everyone suspected. That everyone did was suspected by John. > >Or, > >(4) John met everyone that Mary did. > >(5) *Everyone that Mary did was met by John. > >(6) ??Mary met people. Everyone that Mary did was met by John (too). > > (perhaps special stress is needed on 'did' for this to work.) > > > >So, it doesn't look utterly implausible to suggest an > >information-structure approach to ACD, rather than a structural > >approach. > > > >In fact, an information-structure approach is rendered even more > >plausible by the well-known, but often ignored, fact that intonation affects > >most > >cases of deletion and displaced constituents. Is anyone on this list aware > >of any > >attempts to reanalyze ACD facts in terms of information structure? > > > >Best, > > > >Dan Everett > From kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU Tue Jun 19 22:54:25 2001 From: kemmer at RUF.RICE.EDU (Dr. Suzanne E. Kemmer) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:54:25 -0500 Subject: For funknetters going to ICLC 2001 Message-ID: New! ICLC 2001 Information-sharing Listserve There is now a listserve (email list) for ICLC 2001 in which those planning to attend the conference can exchange information on rides and crash space. We encourage all those Santa Barbarians who have any space available for informal stays (floor space for sleeping bag, or couch, whatever you have) during the conference to make it known to the listserve members. Also those looking to share hotel rooms, share rides etc., post your messages to the list. Thanks to Dan Parvaz of UNM for setting up the listserve. The Organizing Committee ICLC 2001 HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE ICLC LIST Send a message to: listserv at maillist.unm.edu Leave the Subject field blank. In the body of message type (with no other text): subscribe ICLC-L Firstname Lastname (where, of course, you put in YOUR firstname and lastname) Once the subscribe request is approved, a notification will be emailed to you. From w.croft at MAN.AC.UK Thu Jun 21 08:55:23 2001 From: w.croft at MAN.AC.UK (Bill Croft) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:55:23 +0100 Subject: Obituary for Joe Greenberg Message-ID: An obituary for Joe Greenberg appears in today's (Thu June 21st) "Independent" newspaper---pretty much the same copy as I submitted. It can be seen at: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/story.jsp?story=79244 Bill Croft From matmies at LING.HELSINKI.FI Tue Jun 26 08:44:12 2001 From: matmies at LING.HELSINKI.FI (Matti Miestamo) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 11:44:12 +0300 Subject: Confs: Linguistic Perspectives on Endangered Languages Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings) Dear All, The preliminary program and the abstracts for the symposium 'Linguistic Perspectives on Endangered Languages', organized by the Linguistic Association of Finland at the University of Helsinki, August 29 - September 1, 2001, are now available at . For further information, please contact . Best Wishes, The organizers