From jeaniec at UMAIL.UCSB.EDU Fri Nov 2 20:19:19 2001 From: jeaniec at UMAIL.UCSB.EDU (Jeanie Castillo) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:19:19 -0800 Subject: WAIL 2002 call for papers Message-ID: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 26-28, 2002 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its fifth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive linguistic studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract and a 3x5 card with the following information: (1) name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Email submissions are encouraged. Include the information from the 3x5 card (above) in the body of the email message with the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 18, 2002 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2002. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Ynez mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also choose to fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles which is approximately 90 miles south of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776 or check out our website at http://orgs.sa.ucsb.edu/nailsg/ From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Nov 4 13:54:22 2001 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 15:54:22 +0200 Subject: Session on Language & Ideology Message-ID: Call for Papers: The Israeli Association for the Study of Language and Society is holding its Annual Meeting on Sunday–Monday, May 5–6, 2002, at Tel-Aviv University. The general theme of the conference is “Language and Identity in a Multicultural Society”. I have been asked to organize a session on “Language and Ideology”. Papers in this session may be purely theoretical or they may be case studies, keeping an attentive eye on their general theoretical horizon. Naturally, some of the speakers will discuss issues of Israeli society, but other topics are equally welcome. I look at this session as an opportunity to exchange ideas on the very nexus of language and ideology and its theoretical foundations. Some points I find worthy of discussion are: * the extent to which the study of language and ideology is a multidisciplinary project. * Centrality and marginality in the interaction between ideological metanarratives, such as class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, nationalism, [post]colonialism, regional identity, globalization. * The nature of communication between the oppressor and the oppressed. * The discourse of building coalitions and fronts: attitudes towards variation, partial disagreement, and mutual critique. * The role of cognitive constructs (metaphors, etc.) in a more general theory of language and ideology. * The stability/variability of ideologies, and the linguistic encoding of multiplicity/change. * The specific role of linguistics in the general study of ideology. * Discursive harmony between (supposedly) different ideologies. The language of the conference is Hebrew, and due to budgetary limitations there will be no interpreting service available, but lectures in English are welcome. (If there are enough English speaking participants, others may be willing to present in English as well.) Please send preliminary letters of interest or queries to me by December 1, 2001. The deadline for submitting abstracts to be included in the conference booklet has been set to February 28, 2002. Posted to cogling, critics-l, discours, funknet, language & culture, and linganth. Feel free to distribute to other relevant forums. ==================================== Dr. Ron Kuzar Address: Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa IL-31905 Haifa, Israel Office: +972-4-824-9826, fax: +972-4-824-9711 Home: +972-2-6414780, Cellular: +972-5-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Site:ý http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar ==================================== From ksinwong at STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Tue Nov 6 16:53:21 2001 From: ksinwong at STUDENTS.WISC.EDU (Kemtong Sinwongsuwat) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:53:21 -0600 Subject: constituent order in conversational discourse Message-ID: Dear List Members, I would appreciate it very much if anybody could recommend any study/reading or any other resource which is a must for one who has CA background and wants to pursue research on constituents/units and ordering in *conversational* discourse. Your own work would be great as long as you'd like it to be appreciated. Others' are also very welcome, of course. Thank you very much. Kemtong =^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^= "You find true joy and happiness in life when you give and give and go on giving and never count the cost." Eileen Caddy, The Dawn of Change From dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Thu Nov 8 03:34:52 2001 From: dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:34:52 -0800 Subject: Position in social/cultural approaches to language Message-ID: ** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT ** We call your attention to the position described below in the Linguistics Department at UC Santa Barbara, and to the following information regarding the approaching deadline: "Completed applications should be received by November 15, 2001 for primary consideration; however, the position will remain open until filled." ** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT ** University of California, Santa Barbara. The UCSB Linguistics Department seeks to hire a specialist in social and/or cultural approaches to language. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2002. Candidates should have an active research program in their area of specialization. Experience in social/cultural research incorporating linguistic analysis of naturally occurring language use is essential. We are especially interested in candidates whose research shows theoretical implications for one or more related disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, or cognitive science, as well as linguistics, and who can interact with colleagues and students in interdisciplinary programs at UCSB such as Language, Interaction, and Social Organization (LISO) and Cognitive Science. Candidates should have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of courses at graduate and undergraduate levels, including courses in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. Applicants should submit curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, 1-2 samples of published work, and full contact information for three academic references to the Search Committee, Linguistics Department, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Inquiries may be addressed to the above address or via email to lingsearch at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Completed applications should be received by November 15, 2001 for primary consideration; however, the position will remain open until filled. Preliminary interviews will be conducted at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association and the Linguistic Society of America, although attendance is not required for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity; members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From d.brown at SURREY.AC.UK Thu Nov 8 15:25:45 2001 From: d.brown at SURREY.AC.UK (Dr Dunstan Brown) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:25:45 -0000 Subject: Temporary (two year) Lectureship in Russian (Ref: 3149) Message-ID: University of Surrey School of Language, Law and International Studies Temporary (two year) Lectureship in Russian (Ref: 3149) Salary: £20,267 - £32,215 per annum, according to qualifications and experience Applications are invited for a Lectureship in Russian, made possible by funding from the ESRC (Research Fellowship to a member of the Surrey Morphology Group). This two-year post will involve teaching Russian at various levels, including ab initio language, and some examining, administrative and pastoral responsibilities. There will be the opportunity to carry out research within the Surrey Morphology Group. The appointment is intended to provide the chance for an appropriate candidate to develop his or her career within a strong Russian section. Candidates should have an excellent knowledge of Russian, both active and conceptual. Expertise in typology or morphological theory would be advantageous. Details of the Russian Section can be found at: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/Russian/ Details of the Surrey Morphology Group can be found at: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/ Informal enquiries may be made to Professor Greville Corbett (g.corbett at surrey.ac.uk). For an application pack, please contact Sue Grover by telephone on 01483 686200, by e-mail at sllis-recruitment at surrey.ac.uk or via post to Sue Grover, School Office, School of Language, Law and International Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH or download application documents from www.surrey.ac.uk ‘Employment Opportunities’. Please supply your postal address and the reference number 3149. Please do not submit any documentation until you have received this pack. The closing date for written applications is Friday 7 December 2001. It is intended to interview shortlisted candidates during week commencing 17 December 2001. Funding is available from 1 January 2002, but a later starting date may be agreed. The University is committed to an Equal Opportunities Policy. From vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Nov 14 18:26:29 2001 From: vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:26:29 -0500 Subject: First announcement: 2002 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar Message-ID: First announcement The 2002 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar: New Topics in Functional Linguistics: The Cognitive and Discoursive Dimension of Morphology, Syntax and Semantics University of La Rioja, Spain 22-28th July 2002 Organization The organizing committee for RRG2002 consists of Francisco Cortés (Universidad de La Laguna), Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam), Ricardo Mairal (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia), Javier Martín Arista (Universidad de La Rioja), Dan Everett (University of Manchester), and Robert Van Valin (University at Buffalo). Event Programme A five-day international course consisting of about fourty hours will be followed by a two-day international conference. The course will include lecture sessions at three levels: pre-graduate (about one hour and a half per day), post-graduate (about three hours per day) and specialized (about four hours per day). Pre-graduate sessions will introduce the basics of the main topic of the day; post-graduate sessions will provide a detailed account of functional models, including RRG and Functional Grammar; and specialized sessions will deal with advanced topics in RRG. The conference will stage papers, workshops and plenary sessions. Teaching and Discussion Topics RRG2002 will deal with functional linguistics (including semantics, syntax and morphology) in its wider discoursive and cognitive settings. Papers, workshops and plenary sessions are expected to contribute to the theory of RRG as rendered in Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Special attention will be paid to the further elaboration of RRG in areas like morphology, language acquisition, diachrony and lexical semantics. Parallel Session on FG The organizers would be very pleased to run a parallel session on FG during the conference, provided that there are enough proposals of contribution from the FG community. Papers should be devoted to the elaboration of the theory of FG as set out in Dik 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 Vols. Edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Workshops may bear on points of convergence and divergence between the two functional models. Invited Speakers Speakers invited to the conference include Christopher Butler (University of Swansea), Dan Everett (University of Manchester), Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam), Beth Levin (Stanford University), Ricardo Mairal (Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia), Jan Nuyts (University of Antwerp) and Robert Van Valin (University at Buffalo). The course lectures will be delivered by Dan Everett, Kees Hengeveld, Ricardo Mairal, Jan Nuyts and Robert Van Valin. Abstracts The deadline for the submission of abstracts of papers and workshops is February 1, 2002. Abstracts should be no longer than three hundred words, including references. The language of the conference will be English. Papers will last twenty minutes, followed by another ten minutes of discussion. Workshops will last fourty-five minutes, followed by another fifteen minutes of discussion. The selection of papers for presentation will have been communicated by March 15, 2002. Conference/course Fee Before April 15, 2002, the registration fee is 200 Euros for the course and 200 for the conference. The fee for both events is 300 Euros. After April 15, 2002, an additional 50 Euros will be charged: 250 Euros for the course and the conference, and 350 Euros for both events. The fee will include conference facilities and materials, as well as coffee, refreshments and lunches. Further information A web page is under construction at the moment. Further information on RRG2002, including a detailed programme, accomodation information, payment, social events, etc., will be enclosed with subsequent announcements. Such announcements will be sent to the RRG discussion list and to the FG discusion list. Anyone who has not suscribed and is interested in receiving further information should send a message to the e-mail address for RRG2002: rrg2002 at unirioja.es. From spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU Sat Nov 17 00:03:12 2001 From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:03:12 -0800 Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:12 -0500 >From: LSA >Subject: October Bulletin > >The October LSA Bulletin is now available at http://www.lsadc.org From martha at CAL.ORG Mon Nov 19 14:34:44 2001 From: martha at CAL.ORG (Martha Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:34:44 -0500 Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin Message-ID: Please remove my name from this list. Thanks. Martha p.s.-- Sorry Spike. I didn't mean to send you that original message. -----Original Message----- From: Spike Gildea [mailto:spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:03 PM To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:12 -0500 >From: LSA >Subject: October Bulletin > >The October LSA Bulletin is now available at http://www.lsadc.org From dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Thu Nov 22 00:18:19 2001 From: dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:18:19 -0800 Subject: Position available Message-ID: ** POSITION AVAILABLE ** Please note that we are actively accepting applications for the following position, which will remain open until filled. Interviews will be conducted at the meetings of the American Anthropological Association on 11/29-12/1/2001, the Linguistic Society of America on 1/3-1/5/2002, and the International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics on 1/8-1/11/2002. University of California, Santa Barbara. The UCSB Linguistics Department seeks to hire a specialist in social and/or cultural approaches to language. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2002. Candidates should have an active research program in their area of specialization. Experience in social/cultural research incorporating linguistic analysis of naturally occurring language use is essential. We are especially interested in candidates whose research shows theoretical implications for one or more related disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, or cognitive science, as well as linguistics, and who can interact with colleagues and students in interdisciplinary programs at UCSB such as Language, Interaction, and Social Organization (LISO) and Cognitive Science. Candidates should have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of courses at graduate and undergraduate levels, including courses in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. Applicants should submit curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, 1-2 samples of published work, and full contact information for three academic references to the Search Committee, Linguistics Department, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Inquiries may be addressed to the above address or via email to lingsearch at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Tentative deadline November 15, 2001; the position will remain open until filled. Preliminary interviews will be conducted at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, the International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, and the Linguistic Society of America, although attendance is not required for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity; members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HF.Prins at RIVM.NL Mon Nov 26 17:06:28 2001 From: HF.Prins at RIVM.NL (HF Prins) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:06:28 +0100 Subject: classification model for information Message-ID: Dear readers, On my own initiative I have made a classification model for information based on time, space and matter, each with same 4 relationships: - greater - less - equal - different (different unit) The text should be read in courier. This attachment contains the same text: (See attached file: tsm8.txt) The TSM-information model Abstract. The TSM-information model (version 4 March 2001) is a hypothetical symmetrical classification structure which I built myself for application to data transfer. It is based on time, space and matter. The most basic information classification structure can be compiled into this one simple symmetrical uniform model, in which each separate quantity is broken down into four relationships, all of the same type. With this model it is possible, for example, to demonstrate how a ball game can stand model for the food cycle, a scientific study, the interaction with a computer or logistics. I would appreciate comments by experts on this model. Although I have constructed the TSM-information model on my own initiative, I believe it to be well-founded. Readers are invited to comment on the classification structure presented. 1. Introduction Before constructing the TSM-information model, I searched the literature, but did not encounter other information models showing the same highly plausible structure. The TSM-model may be compared with the empirical cycle (De Groot 1961). My most recent inquiries included the following: 1) Is the TSM-information model plausible? 2) What is the difference between the TSM-information model and comparable models? 3) Can the TSM-information model be improved? The TSM-information model will be discussed under the following topics: empirical cycle, model description, similarities among classifications and applications. 2. Empirical Cycle How can we find out what we want to know? What we want to learn about something seems very allied with the way our personal data management system functions. Data represents the matter that "enters" an entity (a thing or living creature) by movement, removal/(re)placement or transference. All living creatures who are endowed with a brain spend a lifetime managing data in the form of thoughts. Should we assume that data management by the brain is as good as other biological body functions? The answer is probably "yes", otherwise we would not exist. How do we handle complex data? How do we manage to get rid of unimportant data easily and quickly and maintain important data? The data we handle seems to submit to a kind of classification. Knowing how this classification functions is knowing how we think and therefore knowing what we want to learn about something. This brings us to the search for an information model which may have an existing natural classification structure. Why do we want knowledge on such a model? A model with a natural classification structure for information allows us to understand our thoughts and means of expression more easily. A reliable information model for classification can be helpful in finding, storing and processing information, not only in our brains but in the search for other information sources. With the help of a well-designed uniform model with a classification structure, we can more easily and more exactly distinguish the "participating" objects in time, space and matter and strongly anchor our thoughts to reality. What is information? Information comprises all the relationships of an object and therefore its meaning. Although we cannot know the essence of an object, we can know the relationships an object has. All relationships explain cause and consequence of an object. A special type of relationship is interaction. Interaction means physical contact between objects by displacement of (an) object/data from one object to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in the transfer from object to object. An object has meaning through the exchange of data with its environment. In the living and non-living world we see data transfer between objects as obvious, both in the animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) world. For example, data are represented by a ball, a person travelling or an object meant purely to act as a signal, as in a structure with words, which shows cause and effect. Suppose we want to understand the meaning of an arbitrary phenomenon. For convenience sake we describe a phenomenon as an experienced whole confined by a certain period of time and space. We can name a phenomenon with which we refer to a familiar reference framework in one's memory or a piece of text. The choice of a name is related to a number of permanent features with which the phenomenon is defined. Permanent features are meant here as permanent characteristics within limited values. How do we describe a natural classification structure for information? We may assume that natural selection has given us a successful natural information system and is well-developed enough for surviving in our environment. Therefore a natural classification structure for information is likely to be an autodidactic system which makes use of naturally assumed standard units. Comparisons are made with the help of what we have learnt in the past and how we have learnt it as a result of natural selection and individual experience. Briefly, we are continuously assigning values to experiences, i.e. evaluating by making comparisons with what we already (think we) know. The way in which we make comparisons can be expressed in a few fairly simple and logical relationships. How can we find a natural classification structure for information? One way is to take a historical point of view: 1) We can guess how we think without knowing what others have told us. Consequently, we cannot think in the units used in physics, but we can compare phenomena with directly observable phenomena in our direct current environment. 2) We can also can find indications in religious texts. By the way, the term "religion" originally meant continuous/repeated consideration/contemplation. Does this sound familiar? In learning, we continue to take as a starting point experience of and skill used in earlier attempts. 3) We can also investigate how the first human being might have thought. Some of the oldest histories and languages, e.g. Indo-Germanic, can give us indications of how people thought. What might we have found about a natural classification structure for information? 1) In thinking we try to structure the information from our observations. These information structures serve as models for objects, distinguished by two terms: "thing" and "event". This poorly designed distinction is mainly indicative of our struggle to comprehend the world. Our restricted understanding of the world is closely related with the way we can observe, think and act. Some objects seem evident and others seem less evident or not evident at all. We name and define several objects, while we prefer only to describe other objects in terms of matter, space and time relationships. A special type of relationship is interaction, i.e. physical contact between objects by displacement of an object from one to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in transference from object to object. 2) A common feature in religion is the effort to elucidate and illustrate "concrete phenomena" and "abstract phenomena". We are no great investors in abstract phenomena from nature. Abstract phenomena can be described as phenomena with complicated relationships. Lives of humans and humankind reek of false approval and false disapproval. Objective information can contribute to a behaviour which is better understood. Understood behaviour needs no judgement, but rational thinking and solutions. 3) A striking phenomena in the Indo-Germanic language is the distinction between: - permanent (strong) objects and - temporary (weak) objects. The existence of objects seems to reflect an alternation between cause and consequence in which we consider: - cause as the model for the consequence and - consequence as the model for the cause. As thinking creatures we clearly experience our influence on the world. We experience a strong alternation between our thoughts and the world around us. Our thoughts can function as strong models for the more concrete reality and vice versa. For many centuries a popular way to give our thoughts more concrete meaning, force and a longer existence has been by writing our thoughts down. Even very complicated, old and written texts from afar can be read. Although written language can be very powerful, nowadays radio, television and Internet can reach the same public in the same time and space, with even more vivid images than words. So far we have encountered the following examples: 1) Distinction between: - clearly enough defined objects and - interactions between clearly enough defined objects. 2) Interactions as transferences of data between objects. 3) An object as a thing or a living creature. As thinking creatures we can have a great influence in the creation of our world, but in essence the interactions between objects simply consist of objects moving between objects. What are the similarities between interactions? Interactions, as distinct from the four successive stages of different phenomena named below, have a permanent structure. For convenience sake we describe moving objects as data. The successive stages (=phases) of data flows make up a cycle. In the cases shown below the letter S stands for the object concerned and the letter E for the environment of S. The sequence of the data transference is uniform. Sometimes we can indicate a certain object in the environment as being the principal contributor to the interaction. In general: S = Subject E = Environment 1. Data transference from S to E = S->E 2. Data transference inside E = E->E 3. Data transference from E to S = E->S 4. Data transference inside S = S->S Go along with the examples cited below as far as you can; total agreement is not necessary since we are still in a discussion stage and not a selection one. This first example looks rather simple: a) A volleyball game Upfield S + upfield E The ball is tossed up in a rally: 1. From upfield S to upfield E = S->E 2. Above upfield E = E->E 3. From upfield E to upfield S = E->S 4. Above upfield S = S->S One clearly defined object, called the ball, is tossed up, within and from two clearly defined objects, the fields. In the next example the "flying" object has a more abstract form, and the unit of data is called a "question" or an "answer": b) Use of a DBMS (=database management system) User S + DBMS within E 1. Transport of question to DBMS = S->E 2. Program-run of question in DBMS = E->E 3. Transport of answer from DBMS = E->S 4. Use of answer from DBMS = S->S We sometimes first have to build the things we use: c) Building/making a DBMS Builder S + DBMS within E 1. Addition of data to DBMS = S->E 2. Mutation of data in DBMS = E->E 3. Elimination of data from DBMS = E->S 4. Collection of data for DBMS = S->S Note that the data in the two previous examples, are certainly not unique, but only copies of data. The moving objects are not always simple to indicate. For convenience sake, in the following example we will call them nutrients : d) The food cycle Plant S + Environment E 1. Nutrition of plant to environment = S->E 2. Growth of environment = E->E 3. Nutrition of plant from environment = E->S 4. Growth of plant = S->S We see here aspects of building and use. Moving objects can also lead to damage and breakdown: e) Transport of goods Subject S + Environment E 1. Delivery from S & capture in the environment = S->E 2. Construction & demolition in the environment = E->E 3. Delivery from E & capture inside subject = E->S 4. Construction & demolition inside subject = S->S We can also consider the clearer information on moving objects between two living creatures: f) Observation Person S + a person in Environment E 1. Expression of S & observation of E = S->E 2. Analysis & synthesis inside of E = E->E 3. Expression of E & observation of S = E->S 4. Analysis & synthesis inside of S = S->S The information exchange can also be more specific. g) A doctor's visit Patient S + doctor within E 1. Patient informs doctor: anamnesis = S->E 2. Doctor determines affliction: diagnosis = E->E 3. Doctor informs patient: prognosis = E->S 4. Patient applies treatment: medication = S->S The objects in the environment with which the interaction takes place may look diffuse. Suppose a person tries to learn something about an object in the environment, a so-called learning object. The environment may consist of: - A person who informs us about the learning object; - Models of the learning object, e.g. text form; - Sometimes the real object itself; - The influence of the person's body, in which also thoughts are housed. There are many possibilities in the environment and no clear object can be confined to the "who" or "what" (the essence of the person, the brain and the thought) and the "what not". In the next few examples we consider data related to the learning object. The four stages cannot be clearly separated one from another in time, but do represent a manner of action during learning. The four stages also indicate the sequence of importance for each method of action. h) Attending a lecture Listener S + lecture within E 1. Attention. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Explanation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Conclusion. Inside assimilation of S = S->S i) Reading a report Reader S + report within E 1. Preface. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Argumentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Final word. Inside assimilation of S = S->S So far there is no confusion about the person, who is only the listener with respect to a lecture, or the reader with respect to a report and takes no further action in dragging down or even "rebuilding" the learning object, But we stated earlier that neither could a clear object be confined to "whom" or what the essence of a person, the brain or what the thought is, and what it is not? Here we meet a new challenge for our abstract perceptive capacity. Please try to imagine S as the centre for perceiving the learning object, so that the rest of the person can be seen as being part of the environment for helping to discover the identity and/or the characteristics of the learning object. Therefore a student or investigator functions partly as S and partly as E, which is not so strange when you think of someone who examines his/her own body or body functions. j) Study Student S + study topic within E 1. Motivation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Schematics. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Elaboration. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S k) Investigation method Investigator S + investigation-object within E 1. Instruction. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Investigation. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Presentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S And now for the final countdown in abstraction: take a dive into the so-called Transactional Analysis (T.A.)from psychology. m) Transactional Analysis Person S + environment E 1. ELDERLY = conservative behaviour = S->E 2. ENVIRONMENT = environment behaviour = E->E 3. CHILD = emotional behaviour = E->S 4. ADULT = rational behaviour = S->S Note that we consider different types of behaviour here, each with its own source as one stage in the cycle. In Transaction psychiatry we are introduced to three types of behaviour: - ELDERLY: with a disproportionate output as source of behaviour. - CHILD: with a disproportionate input as source of behaviour. - ADULT: with a proportionate input, processing and output as source of behaviour. The "source of behaviour" stages occur in this order: 1) When a person "behaves" in the environment, with very little regard for an individual's emotional input and hardly without thinking, but principally in conformance with actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ELDERLY". 2) When a person does not "behave" in the environment, he/she has no interaction with it, so the environment behaves on its own. This stage does not represent a type of behaviour in T.A. because the person is not involved. 3) When a person "behaves" in an environment that is mainly controlled by an individual's emotional input and almost without thinking, the person's behaviour is indicated as being that of a "CHILD". 4) When a person "behaves" in the environment, proportionally controlled by thinking about the individual emotional input and actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ADULT". The term "behaves" can in each stage mean: - Receiving data from the environment. - Processing data within the person. - Sending data to the environment. Difference in the types of behaviour concern the source of behaviour/acting. Each behaviour has its own benefits in different situations. n) Comparison with the empirical cycle of De Groot (1961): Investigator S + investigation-object within E. The investication products are made in E, e.g. as a report or test-object. Note that the investigator also takes part in E. 1. Observation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Induction+deduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Testing. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S The similarities in the above examples are described below: 1) With the exchange of data we can distinguish: - Subject, S, in living creatures as the unit of contemplation. - Environment, E, of subject S, in which S experiences an exchange of data. In all stages S and E remain the same. 2) Data exchange can be characterised by four types of data flow in stage sequence: 1. Data flow from inside subject S to environment E. 2. Data flow outside subject S, inside environment E. 3. Data flow to inside subject S from environment E. 4. Data flow inside subject S, outside environment E. 3) In each stage we find the presence of: - A special source object A - A special reach object B Source-object A and reach-object B are connected by the transferred object C, which is matter with information aspects. The transference of data (C) may be schematically proposed as: Object A ---- Object C ----> Object B The influence outside A, B, and C can be indicated with object D. A and B can be contemplated as elements of subject S or environment E. Reach- object B in one stage is the same as source-object A in the next stage. The next example illustrates the "investigation cycle", also called the "scientific method". The same interaction can be applied between investigator and investigation object (study object) for persons of all ages. The cycle consists of four successive stages, in which stage 4 passes into stage 1. Stages are described below: 1) In the first stage we observe an action going from the motivated investigator to the study object in the environment. The investigator directs the attention to the study object and tries to get a hold on it by seizing, catching, grasping, clutching and snatching. Motivation to investigate can be induced by a command, request or passion brought about by (a model of) the study object during the earlier stages, up to and including stage 4. Above we named stage 1 as Motivation. The motivation of S can be indicated as the will/desire/wish of S. The will of S is present in each stage, but is shown in different ways. The choice to name stage 1, Motivation, is arbitrary, just as the naming of all other stages. There are different ways of seizing a study object, e.g. by drawing away the attention of the study object, by physical contact or by letting it do it for you, e.g. through a teacher or other helper. 2) In the second stage the study object operates internally and at the same time is dependent on the way the study object is approximated. For example, a student-teacher can install a model, e.g. a scheme, of the study object. The investigator can also play a substantial role in dealing with the study object, we have encountered above, where it was stated that the investigator could be partly S or partly E. 3) In the third stage (models of) the study object is (are) focused on the investigator. The investigator directs attention to the study object with concentrated eye, ear, nose, taste or mind. For example, a student-teacher may present a model of the study object, for example, as a scheme. 4) In the fourth stage the investigator acts internally. The investigator evaluates the findings on the study object. A teacher can help audibly with the evaluation. 3. Model Description The TSM-information model comprises a structure for classifying information, in which TSM stands for TIME SPACE MATTER. The concept of MATTER in the TSM-information model is NOT the "matter" concept in physics, where matter is characterised by mass. In the TSM-information model the unit of MATTER is contemplated as a phenomenon in the form of an object, which can be either a thing or a living creature. So the unit of MATTER is an object. While observing the object, we may notice that the object: - Remains the same or - Changes. A change can always be reduced to a change of place. A change of place can be: - a change of place of (a part of) the contemplated object, which is called TIME = T. This will means a transported object C in relation to object S. - A change of place of the contemplator, which is called SPACE = S. This means an object in relation to transported object C. TIME = Change of MATTER at 1 location -> different moments. SPACE = Change of MATTER at 1 moment -> different locations. Change of MATTER does not necessary lead to another name of an object. The name of an object depends on a whole body of characteristics. The name of an object is characterised by a number of permanent values for character, where a permanent character value is a value within the value limits determining the object. The TSM-information model is a classification model for information on the main classification of the three base quantities: TIME, SPACE and MATTER. A base quantity is considered as a type of relationship. Each base quantity has four different relationships with respect to the direct environment of a contemplated object. T) TIME: 4 stages 1 = transference of C from inside S to outside S. 2 = transference of C outside S. 3 = transference of C into inside S from outside S 4 = transference of C inside S. R) SPACE: 4 objects A = Source-object of the transported-object. B = Reach-object of the transported-object. C = The transported-object. D = Involved-object with the transported object, but not A B or C. M) MATTER: 4 objects := = The observed object. :! = The opposite object of the observed object. :< = The fractional object of the observed object. :> = The enclosing object of the observed object. TIME and SPACE scheme: ------------------------------------- | S = Subject | E = Environment | | | | | A1/B4 -----C1---> A2/B1 | | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | C4 | C2 | | | | | | | | | V | | | | | A4/B3 <-----C3---- A3/B2 | | | | | | | ------------------------------------- T = Relation of object C to object S S = Relation of object A B C or D to object C M = Relation of object := :! :< or :> to object := and vice versa. Notes on TIME - It may be convenient or relevant to describe all four stages or alternatively, to describe fewer stages, just describing or naming the inside or outside stages in which C may be converted to another C. For instance, in a data-flow scheme it is not always relevant to describe the internal transference, but only the change in C. - If the transported object C is changed somewhere, C can be regarded as object S in another context, with its own four stages. Notes on SPACE - Objects A and B can be regarded as objects of S and/or E. Notes on MATTER - It is also possible to observe the total collection/compilation of objects as one object. The classification structure remains the same. - The classification of MATTER can be regarded as a classification according to one or more characteristics/properties/features of an object. - The token ":" in MATTER is applied to distinguish the meaning of := :! :> :< from = ! > < tokens. - In the classification of MATTER there seems to be no place for "overlap". However, "overlap" is found in the relationships between different objects that belong to the relationship :< , namely the elements (congener) of an object. - Example: a volleyball game between two teams. According to M: := Team with name Brazil. :! Opponent team with name Bolivia. :< Every player of the Brazil team. :> All participating teams in the tournament. - TIME can be classified with four stages, each with a SPACE construction. - SPACE can be classified with four spatial objects, each with a MATTER construction. - MATTER can be classified with four matter objects. - Each object can have a TIME construction. - Cycles have links by sharing the same object. 4. Similarities in the classifications TIME can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same space. SPACE can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same time. In other words, TIME is recognised when an observation space is not moved and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. SPACE is recognised when an observation time stands still and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. Notice the similarities between the classifications of TIME SPACE and MATTER. The differences concern the objects in each relationship and the similarities concern the four relationships. Differences in objects: TIME = Relation of object C to object S SPACE = Relation of object C to object A B C D MATTER = Relation of object := :! :< :> to object := and vice versa Similarities in relationships: Each relationship is concerned with 2 objects in 2 positions: - position 1 = before the change of MATTER. - position 2 = after the change of MATTER. The relationship of one object to the other object is indicated by the letters: I = INSIDE O = OUTSIDE --------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Position Relationship = Object <-> Object --------------------------------------------------------- TIME 1 C <-> S 2 C <-> S --------------------------------------------------------- SPACE 1 C <-> A B C D 2 C <-> A B C D --------------------------------------------------------- MATTER 1 := :! :< :> <-> := 2 := <-> := :! :< :> --------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the symbols and abbreviations in the next table: ^ = internal transference > = transference of the first object to the next I-O = INSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-O = OUTSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-I = OUTSIDE with respect to INSIDE I-I = INSIDE with respect to INSIDE -------------------------------------- Relation I-O O-O O-I I-I Quantity -------------------------------------- TIME S>E E^ E>S S^ SPACE A D B C MATTER :< :! :> := -------------------------------------- The TSM-classification structure might be put in a nutshell as a question (for living creatures): A value (quantity + unit) is: - Less (I-O) - Different (O-O) (different unit) - Greater (O-I) - Equal (I-I) 5. Applications All cycles can be described according to the TSM-information Model. This model can serve as an aid in indicating the characteristics always present while observing an object. The TSM-information model is infinitive, extendable in time, space, and matter. The TSM-information model can be used for: - Computer programs - Computer program menus - Databases - Recipes - Prescriptions - Lectures - Schemes - Reports - Definitions - Data-flow schemes email: HF.Prins at rivm.nl -------------- next part -------------- The TSM-information model Abstract. The TSM-information model (version 4 March 2001) is a hypothetical symmetrical classification structure which I built myself for application to data transfer. It is based on time, space and matter. The most basic information classification structure can be compiled into this one simple symmetrical uniform model, in which each separate quantity is broken down into four relationships, all of the same type. With this model it is possible, for example, to demonstrate how a ball game can stand model for the food cycle, a scientific study, the interaction with a computer or logistics. I would appreciate comments by experts on this model. Although I have constructed the TSM-information model on my own initiative, I believe it to be well-founded. Readers are invited to comment on the classification structure presented. 1. Introduction Before constructing the TSM-information model, I searched the literature, but did not encounter other information models showing the same highly plausible structure. The TSM-model may be compared with the empirical cycle (De Groot 1961). My most recent inquiries included the following: 1) Is the TSM-information model plausible? 2) What is the difference between the TSM-information model and comparable models? 3) Can the TSM-information model be improved? The TSM-information model will be discussed under the following topics: empirical cycle, model description, similarities among classifications and applications. 2. Empirical Cycle How can we find out what we want to know? What we want to learn about something seems very allied with the way our personal data management system functions. Data represents the matter that "enters" an entity (a thing or living creature) by movement, removal/(re)placement or transference. All living creatures who are endowed with a brain spend a lifetime managing data in the form of thoughts. Should we assume that data management by the brain is as good as other biological body functions? The answer is probably “yes”, otherwise we would not exist. How do we handle complex data? How do we manage to get rid of unimportant data easily and quickly and maintain important data? The data we handle seems to submit to a kind of classification. Knowing how this classification functions is knowing how we think and therefore knowing what we want to learn about something. This brings us to the search for an information model which may have an existing natural classification structure. Why do we want knowledge on such a model? A model with a natural classification structure for information allows us to understand our thoughts and means of expression more easily. A reliable information model for classification can be helpful in finding, storing and processing information, not only in our brains but in the search for other information sources. With the help of a well-designed uniform model with a classification structure, we can more easily and more exactly distinguish the “participating” objects in time, space and matter and strongly anchor our thoughts to reality. What is information? Information comprises all the relationships of an object and therefore its meaning. Although we cannot know the essence of an object, we can know the relationships an object has. All relationships explain cause and consequence of an object. A special type of relationship is interaction. Interaction means physical contact between objects by displacement of (an) object/data from one object to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in the transfer from object to object. An object has meaning through the exchange of data with its environment. In the living and non-living world we see data transfer between objects as obvious, both in the animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) world. For example, data are represented by a ball, a person travelling or an object meant purely to act as a signal, as in a structure with words, which shows cause and effect. Suppose we want to understand the meaning of an arbitrary phenomenon. For convenience sake we describe a phenomenon as an experienced whole confined by a certain period of time and space. We can name a phenomenon with which we refer to a familiar reference framework in one's memory or a piece of text. The choice of a name is related to a number of permanent features with which the phenomenon is defined. Permanent features are meant here as permanent characteristics within limited values. How do we describe a natural classification structure for information? We may assume that natural selection has given us a successful natural information system and is well-developed enough for surviving in our environment. Therefore a natural classification structure for information is likely to be an autodidactic system which makes use of naturally assumed standard units. Comparisons are made with the help of what we have learnt in the past and how we have learnt it as a result of natural selection and individual experience. Briefly, we are continuously assigning values to experiences, i.e. evaluating by making comparisons with what we already (think we) know. The way in which we make comparisons can be expressed in a few fairly simple and logical relationships. How can we find a natural classification structure for information? One way is to take a historical point of view: 1) We can guess how we think without knowing what others have told us. Consequently, we cannot think in the units used in physics, but we can compare phenomena with directly observable phenomena in our direct current environment. 2) We can also can find indications in religious texts. By the way, the term “religion” originally meant continuous/repeated consideration/contemplation. Does this sound familiar? In learning, we continue to take as a starting point experience of and skill used in earlier attempts. 3) We can also investigate how the first human being might have thought. Some of the oldest histories and languages, e.g. Indo-Germanic, can give us indications of how people thought. What might we have found about a natural classification structure for information? 1) In thinking we try to structure the information from our observations. These information structures serve as models for objects, distinguished by two terms: “thing” and “event”. This poorly designed distinction is mainly indicative of our struggle to comprehend the world. Our restricted understanding of the world is closely related with the way we can observe, think and act. Some objects seem evident and others seem less evident or not evident at all. We name and define several objects, while we prefer only to describe other objects in terms of matter, space and time relationships. A special type of relationship is interaction, i.e. physical contact between objects by displacement of an object from one to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in transference from object to object. 2) A common feature in religion is the effort to elucidate and illustrate “concrete phenomena” and “abstract phenomena”. We are no great investors in abstract phenomena from nature. Abstract phenomena can be described as phenomena with complicated relationships. Lives of humans and humankind reek of false approval and false disapproval. Objective information can contribute to a behaviour which is better understood. Understood behaviour needs no judgement, but rational thinking and solutions. 3) A striking phenomena in the Indo-Germanic language is the distinction between: - permanent (strong) objects and - temporary (weak) objects. The existence of objects seems to reflect an alternation between cause and consequence in which we consider: - cause as the model for the consequence and - consequence as the model for the cause. As thinking creatures we clearly experience our influence on the world. We experience a strong alternation between our thoughts and the world around us. Our thoughts can function as strong models for the more concrete reality and vice versa. For many centuries a popular way to give our thoughts more concrete meaning, force and a longer existence has been by writing our thoughts down. Even very complicated, old and written texts from afar can be read. Although written language can be very powerful, nowadays radio, television and Internet can reach the same public in the same time and space, with even more vivid images than words. So far we have encountered the following examples: 1) Distinction between: - clearly enough defined objects and - interactions between clearly enough defined objects. 2) Interactions as transferences of data between objects. 3) An object as a thing or a living creature. As thinking creatures we can have a great influence in the creation of our world, but in essence the interactions between objects simply consist of objects moving between objects. What are the similarities between interactions? Interactions, as distinct from the four successive stages of different phenomena named below, have a permanent structure. For convenience sake we describe moving objects as data. The successive stages (=phases) of data flows make up a cycle. In the cases shown below the letter S stands for the object concerned and the letter E for the environment of S. The sequence of the data transference is uniform. Sometimes we can indicate a certain object in the environment as being the principal contributor to the interaction. In general: S = Subject E = Environment 1. Data transference from S to E = S->E 2. Data transference inside E = E->E 3. Data transference from E to S = E->S 4. Data transference inside S = S->S Go along with the examples cited below as far as you can; total agreement is not necessary since we are still in a discussion stage and not a selection one. This first example looks rather simple: a) A volleyball game Upfield S + upfield E The ball is tossed up in a rally: 1. From upfield S to upfield E = S->E 2. Above upfield E = E->E 3. From upfield E to upfield S = E->S 4. Above upfield S = S->S One clearly defined object, called the ball, is tossed up, within and from two clearly defined objects, the fields. In the next example the "flying" object has a more abstract form, and the unit of data is called a "question" or an "answer": b) Use of a DBMS (=database management system) User S + DBMS within E 1. Transport of question to DBMS = S->E 2. Program-run of question in DBMS = E->E 3. Transport of answer from DBMS = E->S 4. Use of answer from DBMS = S->S We sometimes first have to build the things we use: c) Building/making a DBMS Builder S + DBMS within E 1. Addition of data to DBMS = S->E 2. Mutation of data in DBMS = E->E 3. Elimination of data from DBMS = E->S 4. Collection of data for DBMS = S->S Note that the data in the two previous examples, are certainly not unique, but only copies of data. The moving objects are not always simple to indicate. For convenience sake, in the following example we will call them nutrients : d) The food cycle Plant S + Environment E 1. Nutrition of plant to environment = S->E 2. Growth of environment = E->E 3. Nutrition of plant from environment = E->S 4. Growth of plant = S->S We see here aspects of building and use. Moving objects can also lead to damage and breakdown: e) Transport of goods Subject S + Environment E 1. Delivery from S & capture in the environment = S->E 2. Construction & demolition in the environment = E->E 3. Delivery from E & capture inside subject = E->S 4. Construction & demolition inside subject = S->S We can also consider the clearer information on moving objects between two living creatures: f) Observation Person S + a person in Environment E 1. Expression of S & observation of E = S->E 2. Analysis & synthesis inside of E = E->E 3. Expression of E & observation of S = E->S 4. Analysis & synthesis inside of S = S->S The information exchange can also be more specific. g) A doctor's visit Patient S + doctor within E 1. Patient informs doctor: anamnesis = S->E 2. Doctor determines affliction: diagnosis = E->E 3. Doctor informs patient: prognosis = E->S 4. Patient applies treatment: medication = S->S The objects in the environment with which the interaction takes place may look diffuse. Suppose a person tries to learn something about an object in the environment, a so-called learning object. The environment may consist of: - A person who informs us about the learning object; - Models of the learning object, e.g. text form; - Sometimes the real object itself; - The influence of the person's body, in which also thoughts are housed. There are many possibilities in the environment and no clear object can be confined to the "who" or "what" (the essence of the person, the brain and the thought) and the “what not”. In the next few examples we consider data related to the learning object. The four stages cannot be clearly separated one from another in time, but do represent a manner of action during learning. The four stages also indicate the sequence of importance for each method of action. h) Attending a lecture Listener S + lecture within E 1. Attention. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Explanation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Conclusion. Inside assimilation of S = S->S i) Reading a report Reader S + report within E 1. Preface. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Argumentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Final word. Inside assimilation of S = S->S So far there is no confusion about the person, who is only the listener with respect to a lecture, or the reader with respect to a report and takes no further action in dragging down or even "rebuilding" the learning object, But we stated earlier that neither could a clear object be confined to “whom” or what the essence of a person, the brain or what the thought is, and what it is not? Here we meet a new challenge for our abstract perceptive capacity. Please try to imagine S as the centre for perceiving the learning object, so that the rest of the person can be seen as being part of the environment for helping to discover the identity and/or the characteristics of the learning object. Therefore a student or investigator functions partly as S and partly as E, which is not so strange when you think of someone who examines his/her own body or body functions. j) Study Student S + study topic within E 1. Motivation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Schematics. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Elaboration. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S k) Investigation method Investigator S + investigation-object within E 1. Instruction. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Investigation. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Presentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S And now for the final countdown in abstraction: take a dive into the so-called Transactional Analysis (T.A.)from psychology. m) Transactional Analysis Person S + environment E 1. ELDERLY = conservative behaviour = S->E 2. ENVIRONMENT = environment behaviour = E->E 3. CHILD = emotional behaviour = E->S 4. ADULT = rational behaviour = S->S Note that we consider different types of behaviour here, each with its own source as one stage in the cycle. In Transaction psychiatry we are introduced to three types of behaviour: - ELDERLY: with a disproportionate output as source of behaviour. - CHILD: with a disproportionate input as source of behaviour. - ADULT: with a proportionate input, processing and output as source of behaviour. The “source of behaviour” stages occur in this order: 1) When a person "behaves" in the environment, with very little regard for an individual’s emotional input and hardly without thinking, but principally in conformance with actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ELDERLY". 2) When a person does not “behave” in the environment, he/she has no interaction with it, so the environment behaves on its own. This stage does not represent a type of behaviour in T.A. because the person is not involved. 3) When a person "behaves" in an environment that is mainly controlled by an individual’s emotional input and almost without thinking, the person's behaviour is indicated as being that of a “CHILD”. 4) When a person "behaves" in the environment, proportionally controlled by thinking about the individual emotional input and actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ADULT". The term “behaves” can in each stage mean: - Receiving data from the environment. - Processing data within the person. - Sending data to the environment. Difference in the types of behaviour concern the source of behaviour/acting. Each behaviour has its own benefits in different situations. n) Comparison with the empirical cycle of De Groot (1961): Investigator S + investigation-object within E. The investication products are made in E, e.g. as a report or test-object. Note that the investigator also takes part in E. 1. Observation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Induction+deduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Testing. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S The similarities in the above examples are described below: 1) With the exchange of data we can distinguish: - Subject, S, in living creatures as the unit of contemplation. - Environment, E, of subject S, in which S experiences an exchange of data. In all stages S and E remain the same. 2) Data exchange can be characterised by four types of data flow in stage sequence: 1. Data flow from inside subject S to environment E. 2. Data flow outside subject S, inside environment E. 3. Data flow to inside subject S from environment E. 4. Data flow inside subject S, outside environment E. 3) In each stage we find the presence of: - A special source object A - A special reach object B Source-object A and reach-object B are connected by the transferred object C, which is matter with information aspects. The transference of data (C) may be schematically proposed as: Object A ---- Object C ----> Object B The influence outside A, B, and C can be indicated with object D. A and B can be contemplated as elements of subject S or environment E. Reach- object B in one stage is the same as source-object A in the next stage. The next example illustrates the "investigation cycle", also called the "scientific method". The same interaction can be applied between investigator and investigation object (study object) for persons of all ages. The cycle consists of four successive stages, in which stage 4 passes into stage 1. Stages are described below: 1) In the first stage we observe an action going from the motivated investigator to the study object in the environment. The investigator directs the attention to the study object and tries to get a hold on it by seizing, catching, grasping, clutching and snatching. Motivation to investigate can be induced by a command, request or passion brought about by (a model of) the study object during the earlier stages, up to and including stage 4. Above we named stage 1 as Motivation. The motivation of S can be indicated as the will/desire/wish of S. The will of S is present in each stage, but is shown in different ways. The choice to name stage 1, Motivation, is arbitrary, just as the naming of all other stages. There are different ways of seizing a study object, e.g. by drawing away the attention of the study object, by physical contact or by letting it do it for you, e.g. through a teacher or other helper. 2) In the second stage the study object operates internally and at the same time is dependent on the way the study object is approximated. For example, a student-teacher can install a model, e.g. a scheme, of the study object. The investigator can also play a substantial role in dealing with the study object, we have encountered above, where it was stated that the investigator could be partly S or partly E. 3) In the third stage (models of) the study object is (are) focused on the investigator. The investigator directs attention to the study object with concentrated eye, ear, nose, taste or mind. For example, a student-teacher may present a model of the study object, for example, as a scheme. 4) In the fourth stage the investigator acts internally. The investigator evaluates the findings on the study object. A teacher can help audibly with the evaluation. 3. Model Description The TSM-information model comprises a structure for classifying information, in which TSM stands for TIME SPACE MATTER. The concept of MATTER in the TSM-information model is NOT the "matter" concept in physics, where matter is characterised by mass. In the TSM-information model the unit of MATTER is contemplated as a phenomenon in the form of an object, which can be either a thing or a living creature. So the unit of MATTER is an object. While observing the object, we may notice that the object: - Remains the same or - Changes. A change can always be reduced to a change of place. A change of place can be: - a change of place of (a part of) the contemplated object, which is called TIME = T. This will means a transported object C in relation to object S. - A change of place of the contemplator, which is called SPACE = S. This means an object in relation to transported object C. TIME = Change of MATTER at 1 location -> different moments. SPACE = Change of MATTER at 1 moment -> different locations. Change of MATTER does not necessary lead to another name of an object. The name of an object depends on a whole body of characteristics. The name of an object is characterised by a number of permanent values for character, where a permanent character value is a value within the value limits determining the object. The TSM-information model is a classification model for information on the main classification of the three base quantities: TIME, SPACE and MATTER. A base quantity is considered as a type of relationship. Each base quantity has four different relationships with respect to the direct environment of a contemplated object. T) TIME: 4 stages 1 = transference of C from inside S to outside S. 2 = transference of C outside S. 3 = transference of C into inside S from outside S 4 = transference of C inside S. R) SPACE: 4 objects A = Source-object of the transported-object. B = Reach-object of the transported-object. C = The transported-object. D = Involved-object with the transported object, but not A B or C. M) MATTER: 4 objects := = The observed object. :! = The opposite object of the observed object. :< = The fractional object of the observed object. :> = The enclosing object of the observed object. TIME and SPACE scheme: ------------------------------------- | S = Subject | E = Environment | | | | | A1/B4 -----C1---> A2/B1 | | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | C4 | C2 | | | | | | | | | V | | | | | A4/B3 <-----C3---- A3/B2 | | | | | | | ------------------------------------- T = Relation of object C to object S S = Relation of object A B C or D to object C M = Relation of object := :! :< or :> to object := and vice versa. Notes on TIME - It may be convenient or relevant to describe all four stages or alternatively, to describe fewer stages, just describing or naming the inside or outside stages in which C may be converted to another C. For instance, in a data-flow scheme it is not always relevant to describe the internal transference, but only the change in C. - If the transported object C is changed somewhere, C can be regarded as object S in another context, with its own four stages. Notes on SPACE - Objects A and B can be regarded as objects of S and/or E. Notes on MATTER - It is also possible to observe the total collection/compilation of objects as one object. The classification structure remains the same. - The classification of MATTER can be regarded as a classification according to one or more characteristics/properties/features of an object. - The token “:” in MATTER is applied to distinguish the meaning of := :! :> :< from = ! > < tokens. - In the classification of MATTER there seems to be no place for "overlap". However, "overlap" is found in the relationships between different objects that belong to the relationship :< , namely the elements (congener) of an object. - Example: a volleyball game between two teams. According to M: := Team with name Brazil. :! Opponent team with name Bolivia. :< Every player of the Brazil team. :> All participating teams in the tournament. - TIME can be classified with four stages, each with a SPACE construction. - SPACE can be classified with four spatial objects, each with a MATTER construction. - MATTER can be classified with four matter objects. - Each object can have a TIME construction. - Cycles have links by sharing the same object. 4. Similarities in the classifications TIME can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same space. SPACE can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same time. In other words, TIME is recognised when an observation space is not moved and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. SPACE is recognised when an observation time stands still and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. Notice the similarities between the classifications of TIME SPACE and MATTER. The differences concern the objects in each relationship and the similarities concern the four relationships. Differences in objects: TIME = Relation of object C to object S SPACE = Relation of object C to object A B C D MATTER = Relation of object := :! :< :> to object := and vice versa Similarities in relationships: Each relationship is concerned with 2 objects in 2 positions: - position 1 = before the change of MATTER. - position 2 = after the change of MATTER. The relationship of one object to the other object is indicated by the letters: I = INSIDE O = OUTSIDE --------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Position Relationship = Object <-> Object --------------------------------------------------------- TIME 1 C <-> S 2 C <-> S --------------------------------------------------------- SPACE 1 C <-> A B C D 2 C <-> A B C D --------------------------------------------------------- MATTER 1 := :! :< :> <-> := 2 := <-> := :! :< :> --------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the symbols and abbreviations in the next table: ^ = internal transference > = transference of the first object to the next I-O = INSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-O = OUTSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-I = OUTSIDE with respect to INSIDE I-I = INSIDE with respect to INSIDE -------------------------------------- Relation I-O O-O O-I I-I Quantity -------------------------------------- TIME S>E E^ E>S S^ SPACE A D B C MATTER :< :! :> := -------------------------------------- The TSM-classification structure might be put in a nutshell as a question (for living creatures): A value (quantity + unit) is: - Less (I-O) - Different (O-O) (different unit) - Greater (O-I) - Equal (I-I) 5. Applications All cycles can be described according to the TSM-information Model. This model can serve as an aid in indicating the characteristics always present while observing an object. The TSM-information model is infinitive, extendable in time, space, and matter. The TSM-information model can be used for: - Computer programs - Computer program menus - Databases - Recipes - Prescriptions - Lectures - Schemes - Reports - Definitions - Data-flow schemes email: HF.Prins at rivm.nl From Malcolm.Ross at ANU.EDU.AU Wed Nov 28 06:35:47 2001 From: Malcolm.Ross at ANU.EDU.AU (Malcolm Ross) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:35:47 +1100 Subject: Pacific Linguistics: new publications Message-ID: PACIFIC LINGUISTICS is happy to announce the publication of the titles below: A grammar of Tetun Dili by Catharina Williams-van Klinken, John Hajek, Rachel Nordlinger The Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language, Vanuatu by Catriona Hyslop A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory, Australia by Mark Harvey Taba: description of a South Halmahera Austronesian language by John Bowden The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems edited by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (editors) The boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton edited by Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross and Darrell Tryon (eds) These works are described below. Prices are in Australian dollars (one Australian dollar is currently equivalent to about US$ 0,52). _______________________________________________________________ A grammar of Tetun Dili by Catharina Williams-van Klinken, John Hajek, Rachel Nordlinger PL 520 Tetun Dili is an Austronesian language spoken as a first language in Dili, East Timor. It is also spoken as a lingua franca throughout much of this fledgling nation, and is set to become its national language. This grammar describes the basic structure of Tetun Dili, covering phonology and morphology, as well as phrase-, clause- and sentence-level syntax. It is based on a corpus of both spoken and written texts, supplemented by elicitation. While the focus is primarily on the spoken language, comparisons are made with both written and liturgical varieties. In contrast to the more conservative Tetun Terik variety, Tetun Dili shows strong Portuguese influence after centuries of contact, particularly in its lexicon and phonology. This work constitutes the most detailed grammatical description to date of any language of East Timor, complementing an earlier description of Tetun Terik as spoken in West Timor. ISBN: 0 85883 509 6 AUS $24.75 International $22.50 _______________________________________________________________ The Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language, Vanuatu by Catriona Hyslop PL 515 North-East Ambae is a member of the Northern Vanuatu linkage of Oceanic. It is a conservative Oceanic Language, has strict AVO/SV word order and possesses head-marking characteristics. This description includes a detailed analysis of the system of spatial reference that operates in the language. Possessive and associative constructions are also described in detail. 2001 ISBN 0 85883 453 7 xxxvi + 476 pp. AUS $59.40 International $54.00 Weight 1000g _______________________________________________________________ A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory, Australia Mark Harvey, PL 516 This grammar provides a description of Limilngan, a previously undescribed and now extinct language of northern Australia. Australian languages generally show a high degree of structural similarity to one another. Limilngan shows some of the common Australian patterns, but in other areas it diverges significantly from them. It has a standard Australian phonological inventory, but its phonotactic patterns are unusual. Some heterorganic clusters such as /kb/ are of markedly higher frequency than homorganic clusters such as /nd/. Like a number of Australian languages, Limilngan has many vowel-initial morphemes. However, historically these result from lenition and not from initial dropping as elsewhere in Australia. Like many northern languages, it has complex systems of both prefixation and suffixation to nominals and verbs. Prefixation provides information about nominal classification (four classes), mood, and pronominal cross-reference (subjects and objects). Suffixation provides information about case, tense, and aspect. Limilngan differs from most Australian languages in that a considerable amount of its morphology is unproductive, showing complex and irregular allomorphic variation. Limilngan is like most Australian languages in that it may be described as a free word order language. However, word order is not totally free and strictly ordered phrasal compounding structures are significant (e.g. in the formation of denominal verbs). 2001 ISBN 0 85883 461 8 AUS $44.55 International $40.50 _______________________________________________________________ Taba: description of a South Halmahera Austronesian language John Bowden PL 521 Taba is an Austronesian language spoken in the Halmahera region of eastern Indonesia. This book is the only comprehensive modern grammar of any language from the South Halmahera-West New Guinea subgroup that is a sister to the much better documented Oceanic branch. Taba is a mixed split-S and accusative language with a rich variety of phonemic consonant clusters, a complex system of directionals, and many other features of interest to both Austronesianists and general typologists. The analysis of ditransitive clauses is a major innovation: the author contends that ditransitives exhibit a mixed primary object and 'split-P' pattern of argument alignment. The grammar also contains a wealth of information on the sometimes radical changes occuring in contemporary Taba under the impact of Malay. John Bowden is a Research Fellow in Linguistics at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University. After completing his undergraduate studies at the University of Auckland and a doctorate at the University of Melbourne, he spent a year as a post-doctoral research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. This grammar is a revised version of his PhD dissertation. His major research interests are in languages of the east Nusantara region, in grammatical typology, and in language contact phenomena. AUS $69.85 International $63.50 _______________________________________________________________ The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (editors) PL 518 The 'focus' systems of western Austronesian languages have long intrigued grammarians, typologists and historical linguists, and this book significantly expands accessible information on them. It is the outcome of a workshop on focus held at the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics in Taipei in December 1997. Part I contains three overview contributions: one on some of the typological issues of ‘focus’ languages (Nikolaus Himmelman), on possible histories of western Austronesian voice (Malcolm Ross), and on the history of voice systems and on their study (Robert Blust). Part II, ‘Languages of Sulawesi’, has descriptive papers by Mark Donohue, Phil Quick and Nikolaus Himmelmann and a historical contribution by David Mead. Part III, on the rest of Indonesia and Malaysia, has descriptive papers on Karo Batak (Clodagh Norwood), Riau Indonesian (David Gil) and Bonggi (Sabah, Michael Boutin), a comparative account of the languages of Lombok and Sumbawa (Fay Wouk), and a descriptivehistorical account of Javanese (Gloria Poejosoedarmo). The contributions in Part IV concern the Philippines and Taiwan. They range from Sama languages in the extreme southwest of the region (Jun Akamine and JoAnn Gault), through Hiligayonon and Yogad in the centre and north of the Philippines (Walter Spitz), to Seediq of northern Taiwan (Arthur Holmer). Erik Zobel examines Chamorro and Palauan evidence diachronically and proposes a new Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian subgroup. ISBN: 0 85883 477 4 AUS $76.45 International $69.50 The boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross and Darrell Tryon (eds) PL 514 The essays in this book were written in honour of Dr Tom Dutton, who worked in the Department of Linguistics of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at The Australian National University from 1969 until 1997. Tom made a major contribution to our understanding of the languages of Papua New Guinea, and especially of central and south-east Papua. Included in the book are essays on Papuan languages by Bernard Comrie (Haruai), Mark Donohue (Burmeso), Cynthia Farr (Korafe), Karl Franklin (Foe, Fasu and Enga), Volker Heeschen (Eipo and Yale), Francesca Merlan and Alan Rumsey (Ku Waru), the late Otto Nekitel (Abu' Arapesh), Meredith Osmond (Chimbu--Wahgi languages), Andrew Pawley (Proto Trans New Guinea), Malcolm Ross (east Papuan languages), Evelyn Todd (Bilua), C.L. Voorhoeve (Proto Awyu-Dumut) and Apoi Yarapea (Kewa). Contributions on Oceanic Austronesian languages are by Robert Blust (reduplicated colour terms), Joel Bradshaw (Iwal), Ann Chowning (plant names), Susanne Holzknecht (Duwet), John Lynch (possession) and Gunter Senft (Kilivila). There are two contributions are on Pacific pidgins, by Peter Muehlhaeusler and Darrell Tryon, and one on language endangerment by the late Stephen Wurm. 2001 ISBN 0 85883 445 6 vii + 417 pp. AUS $88.00 International $80.00 Weight 800g _______________________________________________________________ Orders may be placed by mail, e-mail or telephone with: Publishing, Imaging and Cartographic Services (PICS) Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 6125 3269 Fax: +61 (0)2 6125 9975 mailto://Jo.Bushby at anu.edu.au Credit card orders are accepted. For our catalogue and other materials, see: http://pacling.anu.edu.au (under construction) _______________________________________________________________ Other enquiries (but not orders) should go to: The Publications Administrator Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 6125 2742 Fax: +61 (0)2 6125 4896 mailto://jmanley at coombs.anu.edu.au -- _____________________________________ Dr Malcolm D. Ross Senior Fellow Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University CANBERRA ACT 0200 From jeaniec at UMAIL.UCSB.EDU Fri Nov 2 20:19:19 2001 From: jeaniec at UMAIL.UCSB.EDU (Jeanie Castillo) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:19:19 -0800 Subject: WAIL 2002 call for papers Message-ID: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 26-28, 2002 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its fifth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive linguistic studies of indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract and a 3x5 card with the following information: (1) name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Email submissions are encouraged. Include the information from the 3x5 card (above) in the body of the email message with the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 18, 2002 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2002. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Ynez mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also choose to fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles which is approximately 90 miles south of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776 or check out our website at http://orgs.sa.ucsb.edu/nailsg/ From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Nov 4 13:54:22 2001 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 15:54:22 +0200 Subject: Session on Language & Ideology Message-ID: Call for Papers: The Israeli Association for the Study of Language and Society is holding its Annual Meeting on Sunday?Monday, May 5?6, 2002, at Tel-Aviv University. The general theme of the conference is ?Language and Identity in a Multicultural Society?. I have been asked to organize a session on ?Language and Ideology?. Papers in this session may be purely theoretical or they may be case studies, keeping an attentive eye on their general theoretical horizon. Naturally, some of the speakers will discuss issues of Israeli society, but other topics are equally welcome. I look at this session as an opportunity to exchange ideas on the very nexus of language and ideology and its theoretical foundations. Some points I find worthy of discussion are: * the extent to which the study of language and ideology is a multidisciplinary project. * Centrality and marginality in the interaction between ideological metanarratives, such as class, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, nationalism, [post]colonialism, regional identity, globalization. * The nature of communication between the oppressor and the oppressed. * The discourse of building coalitions and fronts: attitudes towards variation, partial disagreement, and mutual critique. * The role of cognitive constructs (metaphors, etc.) in a more general theory of language and ideology. * The stability/variability of ideologies, and the linguistic encoding of multiplicity/change. * The specific role of linguistics in the general study of ideology. * Discursive harmony between (supposedly) different ideologies. The language of the conference is Hebrew, and due to budgetary limitations there will be no interpreting service available, but lectures in English are welcome. (If there are enough English speaking participants, others may be willing to present in English as well.) Please send preliminary letters of interest or queries to me by December 1, 2001. The deadline for submitting abstracts to be included in the conference booklet has been set to February 28, 2002. Posted to cogling, critics-l, discours, funknet, language & culture, and linganth. Feel free to distribute to other relevant forums. ==================================== Dr. Ron Kuzar Address: Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa IL-31905 Haifa, Israel Office: +972-4-824-9826, fax: +972-4-824-9711 Home: +972-2-6414780, Cellular: +972-5-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Site:? http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar ==================================== From ksinwong at STUDENTS.WISC.EDU Tue Nov 6 16:53:21 2001 From: ksinwong at STUDENTS.WISC.EDU (Kemtong Sinwongsuwat) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 10:53:21 -0600 Subject: constituent order in conversational discourse Message-ID: Dear List Members, I would appreciate it very much if anybody could recommend any study/reading or any other resource which is a must for one who has CA background and wants to pursue research on constituents/units and ordering in *conversational* discourse. Your own work would be great as long as you'd like it to be appreciated. Others' are also very welcome, of course. Thank you very much. Kemtong =^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^=^..^= "You find true joy and happiness in life when you give and give and go on giving and never count the cost." Eileen Caddy, The Dawn of Change From dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Thu Nov 8 03:34:52 2001 From: dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:34:52 -0800 Subject: Position in social/cultural approaches to language Message-ID: ** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT ** We call your attention to the position described below in the Linguistics Department at UC Santa Barbara, and to the following information regarding the approaching deadline: "Completed applications should be received by November 15, 2001 for primary consideration; however, the position will remain open until filled." ** JOB ANNOUNCEMENT ** University of California, Santa Barbara. The UCSB Linguistics Department seeks to hire a specialist in social and/or cultural approaches to language. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2002. Candidates should have an active research program in their area of specialization. Experience in social/cultural research incorporating linguistic analysis of naturally occurring language use is essential. We are especially interested in candidates whose research shows theoretical implications for one or more related disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, or cognitive science, as well as linguistics, and who can interact with colleagues and students in interdisciplinary programs at UCSB such as Language, Interaction, and Social Organization (LISO) and Cognitive Science. Candidates should have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of courses at graduate and undergraduate levels, including courses in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. Applicants should submit curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, 1-2 samples of published work, and full contact information for three academic references to the Search Committee, Linguistics Department, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Inquiries may be addressed to the above address or via email to lingsearch at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Completed applications should be received by November 15, 2001 for primary consideration; however, the position will remain open until filled. Preliminary interviews will be conducted at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association and the Linguistic Society of America, although attendance is not required for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity; members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From d.brown at SURREY.AC.UK Thu Nov 8 15:25:45 2001 From: d.brown at SURREY.AC.UK (Dr Dunstan Brown) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:25:45 -0000 Subject: Temporary (two year) Lectureship in Russian (Ref: 3149) Message-ID: University of Surrey School of Language, Law and International Studies Temporary (two year) Lectureship in Russian (Ref: 3149) Salary: ?20,267 - ?32,215 per annum, according to qualifications and experience Applications are invited for a Lectureship in Russian, made possible by funding from the ESRC (Research Fellowship to a member of the Surrey Morphology Group). This two-year post will involve teaching Russian at various levels, including ab initio language, and some examining, administrative and pastoral responsibilities. There will be the opportunity to carry out research within the Surrey Morphology Group. The appointment is intended to provide the chance for an appropriate candidate to develop his or her career within a strong Russian section. Candidates should have an excellent knowledge of Russian, both active and conceptual. Expertise in typology or morphological theory would be advantageous. Details of the Russian Section can be found at: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/Russian/ Details of the Surrey Morphology Group can be found at: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/ Informal enquiries may be made to Professor Greville Corbett (g.corbett at surrey.ac.uk). For an application pack, please contact Sue Grover by telephone on 01483 686200, by e-mail at sllis-recruitment at surrey.ac.uk or via post to Sue Grover, School Office, School of Language, Law and International Studies, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH or download application documents from www.surrey.ac.uk ?Employment Opportunities?. Please supply your postal address and the reference number 3149. Please do not submit any documentation until you have received this pack. The closing date for written applications is Friday 7 December 2001. It is intended to interview shortlisted candidates during week commencing 17 December 2001. Funding is available from 1 January 2002, but a later starting date may be agreed. The University is committed to an Equal Opportunities Policy. From vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Nov 14 18:26:29 2001 From: vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU (vanvalin at ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 13:26:29 -0500 Subject: First announcement: 2002 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar Message-ID: First announcement The 2002 International Course and Conference on Role and Reference Grammar: New Topics in Functional Linguistics: The Cognitive and Discoursive Dimension of Morphology, Syntax and Semantics University of La Rioja, Spain 22-28th July 2002 Organization The organizing committee for RRG2002 consists of Francisco Cort?s (Universidad de La Laguna), Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam), Ricardo Mairal (Universidad Nacional de Educaci?n a Distancia), Javier Mart?n Arista (Universidad de La Rioja), Dan Everett (University of Manchester), and Robert Van Valin (University at Buffalo). Event Programme A five-day international course consisting of about fourty hours will be followed by a two-day international conference. The course will include lecture sessions at three levels: pre-graduate (about one hour and a half per day), post-graduate (about three hours per day) and specialized (about four hours per day). Pre-graduate sessions will introduce the basics of the main topic of the day; post-graduate sessions will provide a detailed account of functional models, including RRG and Functional Grammar; and specialized sessions will deal with advanced topics in RRG. The conference will stage papers, workshops and plenary sessions. Teaching and Discussion Topics RRG2002 will deal with functional linguistics (including semantics, syntax and morphology) in its wider discoursive and cognitive settings. Papers, workshops and plenary sessions are expected to contribute to the theory of RRG as rendered in Van Valin and LaPolla 1997: Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Special attention will be paid to the further elaboration of RRG in areas like morphology, language acquisition, diachrony and lexical semantics. Parallel Session on FG The organizers would be very pleased to run a parallel session on FG during the conference, provided that there are enough proposals of contribution from the FG community. Papers should be devoted to the elaboration of the theory of FG as set out in Dik 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 Vols. Edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Workshops may bear on points of convergence and divergence between the two functional models. Invited Speakers Speakers invited to the conference include Christopher Butler (University of Swansea), Dan Everett (University of Manchester), Kees Hengeveld (University of Amsterdam), Beth Levin (Stanford University), Ricardo Mairal (Universidad Nacional de Educaci?n a Distancia), Jan Nuyts (University of Antwerp) and Robert Van Valin (University at Buffalo). The course lectures will be delivered by Dan Everett, Kees Hengeveld, Ricardo Mairal, Jan Nuyts and Robert Van Valin. Abstracts The deadline for the submission of abstracts of papers and workshops is February 1, 2002. Abstracts should be no longer than three hundred words, including references. The language of the conference will be English. Papers will last twenty minutes, followed by another ten minutes of discussion. Workshops will last fourty-five minutes, followed by another fifteen minutes of discussion. The selection of papers for presentation will have been communicated by March 15, 2002. Conference/course Fee Before April 15, 2002, the registration fee is 200 Euros for the course and 200 for the conference. The fee for both events is 300 Euros. After April 15, 2002, an additional 50 Euros will be charged: 250 Euros for the course and the conference, and 350 Euros for both events. The fee will include conference facilities and materials, as well as coffee, refreshments and lunches. Further information A web page is under construction at the moment. Further information on RRG2002, including a detailed programme, accomodation information, payment, social events, etc., will be enclosed with subsequent announcements. Such announcements will be sent to the RRG discussion list and to the FG discusion list. Anyone who has not suscribed and is interested in receiving further information should send a message to the e-mail address for RRG2002: rrg2002 at unirioja.es. From spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU Sat Nov 17 00:03:12 2001 From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:03:12 -0800 Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:12 -0500 >From: LSA >Subject: October Bulletin > >The October LSA Bulletin is now available at http://www.lsadc.org From martha at CAL.ORG Mon Nov 19 14:34:44 2001 From: martha at CAL.ORG (Martha Davis) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:34:44 -0500 Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin Message-ID: Please remove my name from this list. Thanks. Martha p.s.-- Sorry Spike. I didn't mean to send you that original message. -----Original Message----- From: Spike Gildea [mailto:spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 7:03 PM To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Subject: Fwd: October LSA Bulletin >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:35:12 -0500 >From: LSA >Subject: October Bulletin > >The October LSA Bulletin is now available at http://www.lsadc.org From dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU Thu Nov 22 00:18:19 2001 From: dubois at LINGUISTICS.UCSB.EDU (John W. Du Bois) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:18:19 -0800 Subject: Position available Message-ID: ** POSITION AVAILABLE ** Please note that we are actively accepting applications for the following position, which will remain open until filled. Interviews will be conducted at the meetings of the American Anthropological Association on 11/29-12/1/2001, the Linguistic Society of America on 1/3-1/5/2002, and the International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics on 1/8-1/11/2002. University of California, Santa Barbara. The UCSB Linguistics Department seeks to hire a specialist in social and/or cultural approaches to language. The appointment will be tenure-track at the Assistant Professor level, effective July 1, 2002. Candidates should have an active research program in their area of specialization. Experience in social/cultural research incorporating linguistic analysis of naturally occurring language use is essential. We are especially interested in candidates whose research shows theoretical implications for one or more related disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, or cognitive science, as well as linguistics, and who can interact with colleagues and students in interdisciplinary programs at UCSB such as Language, Interaction, and Social Organization (LISO) and Cognitive Science. Candidates should have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and will be expected to teach a range of courses at graduate and undergraduate levels, including courses in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. Ph.D. normally required by the time of appointment. Applicants should submit curriculum vitae, statement of research interests, 1-2 samples of published work, and full contact information for three academic references to the Search Committee, Linguistics Department, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Inquiries may be addressed to the above address or via email to lingsearch at linguistics.ucsb.edu. Tentative deadline November 15, 2001; the position will remain open until filled. Preliminary interviews will be conducted at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, the International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, and the Linguistic Society of America, although attendance is not required for consideration. Our department has a genuine commitment to diversity; members of underrepresented groups are especially encouraged to apply. UCSB is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HF.Prins at RIVM.NL Mon Nov 26 17:06:28 2001 From: HF.Prins at RIVM.NL (HF Prins) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:06:28 +0100 Subject: classification model for information Message-ID: Dear readers, On my own initiative I have made a classification model for information based on time, space and matter, each with same 4 relationships: - greater - less - equal - different (different unit) The text should be read in courier. This attachment contains the same text: (See attached file: tsm8.txt) The TSM-information model Abstract. The TSM-information model (version 4 March 2001) is a hypothetical symmetrical classification structure which I built myself for application to data transfer. It is based on time, space and matter. The most basic information classification structure can be compiled into this one simple symmetrical uniform model, in which each separate quantity is broken down into four relationships, all of the same type. With this model it is possible, for example, to demonstrate how a ball game can stand model for the food cycle, a scientific study, the interaction with a computer or logistics. I would appreciate comments by experts on this model. Although I have constructed the TSM-information model on my own initiative, I believe it to be well-founded. Readers are invited to comment on the classification structure presented. 1. Introduction Before constructing the TSM-information model, I searched the literature, but did not encounter other information models showing the same highly plausible structure. The TSM-model may be compared with the empirical cycle (De Groot 1961). My most recent inquiries included the following: 1) Is the TSM-information model plausible? 2) What is the difference between the TSM-information model and comparable models? 3) Can the TSM-information model be improved? The TSM-information model will be discussed under the following topics: empirical cycle, model description, similarities among classifications and applications. 2. Empirical Cycle How can we find out what we want to know? What we want to learn about something seems very allied with the way our personal data management system functions. Data represents the matter that "enters" an entity (a thing or living creature) by movement, removal/(re)placement or transference. All living creatures who are endowed with a brain spend a lifetime managing data in the form of thoughts. Should we assume that data management by the brain is as good as other biological body functions? The answer is probably "yes", otherwise we would not exist. How do we handle complex data? How do we manage to get rid of unimportant data easily and quickly and maintain important data? The data we handle seems to submit to a kind of classification. Knowing how this classification functions is knowing how we think and therefore knowing what we want to learn about something. This brings us to the search for an information model which may have an existing natural classification structure. Why do we want knowledge on such a model? A model with a natural classification structure for information allows us to understand our thoughts and means of expression more easily. A reliable information model for classification can be helpful in finding, storing and processing information, not only in our brains but in the search for other information sources. With the help of a well-designed uniform model with a classification structure, we can more easily and more exactly distinguish the "participating" objects in time, space and matter and strongly anchor our thoughts to reality. What is information? Information comprises all the relationships of an object and therefore its meaning. Although we cannot know the essence of an object, we can know the relationships an object has. All relationships explain cause and consequence of an object. A special type of relationship is interaction. Interaction means physical contact between objects by displacement of (an) object/data from one object to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in the transfer from object to object. An object has meaning through the exchange of data with its environment. In the living and non-living world we see data transfer between objects as obvious, both in the animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) world. For example, data are represented by a ball, a person travelling or an object meant purely to act as a signal, as in a structure with words, which shows cause and effect. Suppose we want to understand the meaning of an arbitrary phenomenon. For convenience sake we describe a phenomenon as an experienced whole confined by a certain period of time and space. We can name a phenomenon with which we refer to a familiar reference framework in one's memory or a piece of text. The choice of a name is related to a number of permanent features with which the phenomenon is defined. Permanent features are meant here as permanent characteristics within limited values. How do we describe a natural classification structure for information? We may assume that natural selection has given us a successful natural information system and is well-developed enough for surviving in our environment. Therefore a natural classification structure for information is likely to be an autodidactic system which makes use of naturally assumed standard units. Comparisons are made with the help of what we have learnt in the past and how we have learnt it as a result of natural selection and individual experience. Briefly, we are continuously assigning values to experiences, i.e. evaluating by making comparisons with what we already (think we) know. The way in which we make comparisons can be expressed in a few fairly simple and logical relationships. How can we find a natural classification structure for information? One way is to take a historical point of view: 1) We can guess how we think without knowing what others have told us. Consequently, we cannot think in the units used in physics, but we can compare phenomena with directly observable phenomena in our direct current environment. 2) We can also can find indications in religious texts. By the way, the term "religion" originally meant continuous/repeated consideration/contemplation. Does this sound familiar? In learning, we continue to take as a starting point experience of and skill used in earlier attempts. 3) We can also investigate how the first human being might have thought. Some of the oldest histories and languages, e.g. Indo-Germanic, can give us indications of how people thought. What might we have found about a natural classification structure for information? 1) In thinking we try to structure the information from our observations. These information structures serve as models for objects, distinguished by two terms: "thing" and "event". This poorly designed distinction is mainly indicative of our struggle to comprehend the world. Our restricted understanding of the world is closely related with the way we can observe, think and act. Some objects seem evident and others seem less evident or not evident at all. We name and define several objects, while we prefer only to describe other objects in terms of matter, space and time relationships. A special type of relationship is interaction, i.e. physical contact between objects by displacement of an object from one to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in transference from object to object. 2) A common feature in religion is the effort to elucidate and illustrate "concrete phenomena" and "abstract phenomena". We are no great investors in abstract phenomena from nature. Abstract phenomena can be described as phenomena with complicated relationships. Lives of humans and humankind reek of false approval and false disapproval. Objective information can contribute to a behaviour which is better understood. Understood behaviour needs no judgement, but rational thinking and solutions. 3) A striking phenomena in the Indo-Germanic language is the distinction between: - permanent (strong) objects and - temporary (weak) objects. The existence of objects seems to reflect an alternation between cause and consequence in which we consider: - cause as the model for the consequence and - consequence as the model for the cause. As thinking creatures we clearly experience our influence on the world. We experience a strong alternation between our thoughts and the world around us. Our thoughts can function as strong models for the more concrete reality and vice versa. For many centuries a popular way to give our thoughts more concrete meaning, force and a longer existence has been by writing our thoughts down. Even very complicated, old and written texts from afar can be read. Although written language can be very powerful, nowadays radio, television and Internet can reach the same public in the same time and space, with even more vivid images than words. So far we have encountered the following examples: 1) Distinction between: - clearly enough defined objects and - interactions between clearly enough defined objects. 2) Interactions as transferences of data between objects. 3) An object as a thing or a living creature. As thinking creatures we can have a great influence in the creation of our world, but in essence the interactions between objects simply consist of objects moving between objects. What are the similarities between interactions? Interactions, as distinct from the four successive stages of different phenomena named below, have a permanent structure. For convenience sake we describe moving objects as data. The successive stages (=phases) of data flows make up a cycle. In the cases shown below the letter S stands for the object concerned and the letter E for the environment of S. The sequence of the data transference is uniform. Sometimes we can indicate a certain object in the environment as being the principal contributor to the interaction. In general: S = Subject E = Environment 1. Data transference from S to E = S->E 2. Data transference inside E = E->E 3. Data transference from E to S = E->S 4. Data transference inside S = S->S Go along with the examples cited below as far as you can; total agreement is not necessary since we are still in a discussion stage and not a selection one. This first example looks rather simple: a) A volleyball game Upfield S + upfield E The ball is tossed up in a rally: 1. From upfield S to upfield E = S->E 2. Above upfield E = E->E 3. From upfield E to upfield S = E->S 4. Above upfield S = S->S One clearly defined object, called the ball, is tossed up, within and from two clearly defined objects, the fields. In the next example the "flying" object has a more abstract form, and the unit of data is called a "question" or an "answer": b) Use of a DBMS (=database management system) User S + DBMS within E 1. Transport of question to DBMS = S->E 2. Program-run of question in DBMS = E->E 3. Transport of answer from DBMS = E->S 4. Use of answer from DBMS = S->S We sometimes first have to build the things we use: c) Building/making a DBMS Builder S + DBMS within E 1. Addition of data to DBMS = S->E 2. Mutation of data in DBMS = E->E 3. Elimination of data from DBMS = E->S 4. Collection of data for DBMS = S->S Note that the data in the two previous examples, are certainly not unique, but only copies of data. The moving objects are not always simple to indicate. For convenience sake, in the following example we will call them nutrients : d) The food cycle Plant S + Environment E 1. Nutrition of plant to environment = S->E 2. Growth of environment = E->E 3. Nutrition of plant from environment = E->S 4. Growth of plant = S->S We see here aspects of building and use. Moving objects can also lead to damage and breakdown: e) Transport of goods Subject S + Environment E 1. Delivery from S & capture in the environment = S->E 2. Construction & demolition in the environment = E->E 3. Delivery from E & capture inside subject = E->S 4. Construction & demolition inside subject = S->S We can also consider the clearer information on moving objects between two living creatures: f) Observation Person S + a person in Environment E 1. Expression of S & observation of E = S->E 2. Analysis & synthesis inside of E = E->E 3. Expression of E & observation of S = E->S 4. Analysis & synthesis inside of S = S->S The information exchange can also be more specific. g) A doctor's visit Patient S + doctor within E 1. Patient informs doctor: anamnesis = S->E 2. Doctor determines affliction: diagnosis = E->E 3. Doctor informs patient: prognosis = E->S 4. Patient applies treatment: medication = S->S The objects in the environment with which the interaction takes place may look diffuse. Suppose a person tries to learn something about an object in the environment, a so-called learning object. The environment may consist of: - A person who informs us about the learning object; - Models of the learning object, e.g. text form; - Sometimes the real object itself; - The influence of the person's body, in which also thoughts are housed. There are many possibilities in the environment and no clear object can be confined to the "who" or "what" (the essence of the person, the brain and the thought) and the "what not". In the next few examples we consider data related to the learning object. The four stages cannot be clearly separated one from another in time, but do represent a manner of action during learning. The four stages also indicate the sequence of importance for each method of action. h) Attending a lecture Listener S + lecture within E 1. Attention. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Explanation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Conclusion. Inside assimilation of S = S->S i) Reading a report Reader S + report within E 1. Preface. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Argumentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Final word. Inside assimilation of S = S->S So far there is no confusion about the person, who is only the listener with respect to a lecture, or the reader with respect to a report and takes no further action in dragging down or even "rebuilding" the learning object, But we stated earlier that neither could a clear object be confined to "whom" or what the essence of a person, the brain or what the thought is, and what it is not? Here we meet a new challenge for our abstract perceptive capacity. Please try to imagine S as the centre for perceiving the learning object, so that the rest of the person can be seen as being part of the environment for helping to discover the identity and/or the characteristics of the learning object. Therefore a student or investigator functions partly as S and partly as E, which is not so strange when you think of someone who examines his/her own body or body functions. j) Study Student S + study topic within E 1. Motivation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Schematics. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Elaboration. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S k) Investigation method Investigator S + investigation-object within E 1. Instruction. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Investigation. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Presentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S And now for the final countdown in abstraction: take a dive into the so-called Transactional Analysis (T.A.)from psychology. m) Transactional Analysis Person S + environment E 1. ELDERLY = conservative behaviour = S->E 2. ENVIRONMENT = environment behaviour = E->E 3. CHILD = emotional behaviour = E->S 4. ADULT = rational behaviour = S->S Note that we consider different types of behaviour here, each with its own source as one stage in the cycle. In Transaction psychiatry we are introduced to three types of behaviour: - ELDERLY: with a disproportionate output as source of behaviour. - CHILD: with a disproportionate input as source of behaviour. - ADULT: with a proportionate input, processing and output as source of behaviour. The "source of behaviour" stages occur in this order: 1) When a person "behaves" in the environment, with very little regard for an individual's emotional input and hardly without thinking, but principally in conformance with actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ELDERLY". 2) When a person does not "behave" in the environment, he/she has no interaction with it, so the environment behaves on its own. This stage does not represent a type of behaviour in T.A. because the person is not involved. 3) When a person "behaves" in an environment that is mainly controlled by an individual's emotional input and almost without thinking, the person's behaviour is indicated as being that of a "CHILD". 4) When a person "behaves" in the environment, proportionally controlled by thinking about the individual emotional input and actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ADULT". The term "behaves" can in each stage mean: - Receiving data from the environment. - Processing data within the person. - Sending data to the environment. Difference in the types of behaviour concern the source of behaviour/acting. Each behaviour has its own benefits in different situations. n) Comparison with the empirical cycle of De Groot (1961): Investigator S + investigation-object within E. The investication products are made in E, e.g. as a report or test-object. Note that the investigator also takes part in E. 1. Observation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Induction+deduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Testing. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S The similarities in the above examples are described below: 1) With the exchange of data we can distinguish: - Subject, S, in living creatures as the unit of contemplation. - Environment, E, of subject S, in which S experiences an exchange of data. In all stages S and E remain the same. 2) Data exchange can be characterised by four types of data flow in stage sequence: 1. Data flow from inside subject S to environment E. 2. Data flow outside subject S, inside environment E. 3. Data flow to inside subject S from environment E. 4. Data flow inside subject S, outside environment E. 3) In each stage we find the presence of: - A special source object A - A special reach object B Source-object A and reach-object B are connected by the transferred object C, which is matter with information aspects. The transference of data (C) may be schematically proposed as: Object A ---- Object C ----> Object B The influence outside A, B, and C can be indicated with object D. A and B can be contemplated as elements of subject S or environment E. Reach- object B in one stage is the same as source-object A in the next stage. The next example illustrates the "investigation cycle", also called the "scientific method". The same interaction can be applied between investigator and investigation object (study object) for persons of all ages. The cycle consists of four successive stages, in which stage 4 passes into stage 1. Stages are described below: 1) In the first stage we observe an action going from the motivated investigator to the study object in the environment. The investigator directs the attention to the study object and tries to get a hold on it by seizing, catching, grasping, clutching and snatching. Motivation to investigate can be induced by a command, request or passion brought about by (a model of) the study object during the earlier stages, up to and including stage 4. Above we named stage 1 as Motivation. The motivation of S can be indicated as the will/desire/wish of S. The will of S is present in each stage, but is shown in different ways. The choice to name stage 1, Motivation, is arbitrary, just as the naming of all other stages. There are different ways of seizing a study object, e.g. by drawing away the attention of the study object, by physical contact or by letting it do it for you, e.g. through a teacher or other helper. 2) In the second stage the study object operates internally and at the same time is dependent on the way the study object is approximated. For example, a student-teacher can install a model, e.g. a scheme, of the study object. The investigator can also play a substantial role in dealing with the study object, we have encountered above, where it was stated that the investigator could be partly S or partly E. 3) In the third stage (models of) the study object is (are) focused on the investigator. The investigator directs attention to the study object with concentrated eye, ear, nose, taste or mind. For example, a student-teacher may present a model of the study object, for example, as a scheme. 4) In the fourth stage the investigator acts internally. The investigator evaluates the findings on the study object. A teacher can help audibly with the evaluation. 3. Model Description The TSM-information model comprises a structure for classifying information, in which TSM stands for TIME SPACE MATTER. The concept of MATTER in the TSM-information model is NOT the "matter" concept in physics, where matter is characterised by mass. In the TSM-information model the unit of MATTER is contemplated as a phenomenon in the form of an object, which can be either a thing or a living creature. So the unit of MATTER is an object. While observing the object, we may notice that the object: - Remains the same or - Changes. A change can always be reduced to a change of place. A change of place can be: - a change of place of (a part of) the contemplated object, which is called TIME = T. This will means a transported object C in relation to object S. - A change of place of the contemplator, which is called SPACE = S. This means an object in relation to transported object C. TIME = Change of MATTER at 1 location -> different moments. SPACE = Change of MATTER at 1 moment -> different locations. Change of MATTER does not necessary lead to another name of an object. The name of an object depends on a whole body of characteristics. The name of an object is characterised by a number of permanent values for character, where a permanent character value is a value within the value limits determining the object. The TSM-information model is a classification model for information on the main classification of the three base quantities: TIME, SPACE and MATTER. A base quantity is considered as a type of relationship. Each base quantity has four different relationships with respect to the direct environment of a contemplated object. T) TIME: 4 stages 1 = transference of C from inside S to outside S. 2 = transference of C outside S. 3 = transference of C into inside S from outside S 4 = transference of C inside S. R) SPACE: 4 objects A = Source-object of the transported-object. B = Reach-object of the transported-object. C = The transported-object. D = Involved-object with the transported object, but not A B or C. M) MATTER: 4 objects := = The observed object. :! = The opposite object of the observed object. :< = The fractional object of the observed object. :> = The enclosing object of the observed object. TIME and SPACE scheme: ------------------------------------- | S = Subject | E = Environment | | | | | A1/B4 -----C1---> A2/B1 | | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | C4 | C2 | | | | | | | | | V | | | | | A4/B3 <-----C3---- A3/B2 | | | | | | | ------------------------------------- T = Relation of object C to object S S = Relation of object A B C or D to object C M = Relation of object := :! :< or :> to object := and vice versa. Notes on TIME - It may be convenient or relevant to describe all four stages or alternatively, to describe fewer stages, just describing or naming the inside or outside stages in which C may be converted to another C. For instance, in a data-flow scheme it is not always relevant to describe the internal transference, but only the change in C. - If the transported object C is changed somewhere, C can be regarded as object S in another context, with its own four stages. Notes on SPACE - Objects A and B can be regarded as objects of S and/or E. Notes on MATTER - It is also possible to observe the total collection/compilation of objects as one object. The classification structure remains the same. - The classification of MATTER can be regarded as a classification according to one or more characteristics/properties/features of an object. - The token ":" in MATTER is applied to distinguish the meaning of := :! :> :< from = ! > < tokens. - In the classification of MATTER there seems to be no place for "overlap". However, "overlap" is found in the relationships between different objects that belong to the relationship :< , namely the elements (congener) of an object. - Example: a volleyball game between two teams. According to M: := Team with name Brazil. :! Opponent team with name Bolivia. :< Every player of the Brazil team. :> All participating teams in the tournament. - TIME can be classified with four stages, each with a SPACE construction. - SPACE can be classified with four spatial objects, each with a MATTER construction. - MATTER can be classified with four matter objects. - Each object can have a TIME construction. - Cycles have links by sharing the same object. 4. Similarities in the classifications TIME can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same space. SPACE can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same time. In other words, TIME is recognised when an observation space is not moved and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. SPACE is recognised when an observation time stands still and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. Notice the similarities between the classifications of TIME SPACE and MATTER. The differences concern the objects in each relationship and the similarities concern the four relationships. Differences in objects: TIME = Relation of object C to object S SPACE = Relation of object C to object A B C D MATTER = Relation of object := :! :< :> to object := and vice versa Similarities in relationships: Each relationship is concerned with 2 objects in 2 positions: - position 1 = before the change of MATTER. - position 2 = after the change of MATTER. The relationship of one object to the other object is indicated by the letters: I = INSIDE O = OUTSIDE --------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Position Relationship = Object <-> Object --------------------------------------------------------- TIME 1 C <-> S 2 C <-> S --------------------------------------------------------- SPACE 1 C <-> A B C D 2 C <-> A B C D --------------------------------------------------------- MATTER 1 := :! :< :> <-> := 2 := <-> := :! :< :> --------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the symbols and abbreviations in the next table: ^ = internal transference > = transference of the first object to the next I-O = INSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-O = OUTSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-I = OUTSIDE with respect to INSIDE I-I = INSIDE with respect to INSIDE -------------------------------------- Relation I-O O-O O-I I-I Quantity -------------------------------------- TIME S>E E^ E>S S^ SPACE A D B C MATTER :< :! :> := -------------------------------------- The TSM-classification structure might be put in a nutshell as a question (for living creatures): A value (quantity + unit) is: - Less (I-O) - Different (O-O) (different unit) - Greater (O-I) - Equal (I-I) 5. Applications All cycles can be described according to the TSM-information Model. This model can serve as an aid in indicating the characteristics always present while observing an object. The TSM-information model is infinitive, extendable in time, space, and matter. The TSM-information model can be used for: - Computer programs - Computer program menus - Databases - Recipes - Prescriptions - Lectures - Schemes - Reports - Definitions - Data-flow schemes email: HF.Prins at rivm.nl -------------- next part -------------- The TSM-information model Abstract. The TSM-information model (version 4 March 2001) is a hypothetical symmetrical classification structure which I built myself for application to data transfer. It is based on time, space and matter. The most basic information classification structure can be compiled into this one simple symmetrical uniform model, in which each separate quantity is broken down into four relationships, all of the same type. With this model it is possible, for example, to demonstrate how a ball game can stand model for the food cycle, a scientific study, the interaction with a computer or logistics. I would appreciate comments by experts on this model. Although I have constructed the TSM-information model on my own initiative, I believe it to be well-founded. Readers are invited to comment on the classification structure presented. 1. Introduction Before constructing the TSM-information model, I searched the literature, but did not encounter other information models showing the same highly plausible structure. The TSM-model may be compared with the empirical cycle (De Groot 1961). My most recent inquiries included the following: 1) Is the TSM-information model plausible? 2) What is the difference between the TSM-information model and comparable models? 3) Can the TSM-information model be improved? The TSM-information model will be discussed under the following topics: empirical cycle, model description, similarities among classifications and applications. 2. Empirical Cycle How can we find out what we want to know? What we want to learn about something seems very allied with the way our personal data management system functions. Data represents the matter that "enters" an entity (a thing or living creature) by movement, removal/(re)placement or transference. All living creatures who are endowed with a brain spend a lifetime managing data in the form of thoughts. Should we assume that data management by the brain is as good as other biological body functions? The answer is probably ?yes?, otherwise we would not exist. How do we handle complex data? How do we manage to get rid of unimportant data easily and quickly and maintain important data? The data we handle seems to submit to a kind of classification. Knowing how this classification functions is knowing how we think and therefore knowing what we want to learn about something. This brings us to the search for an information model which may have an existing natural classification structure. Why do we want knowledge on such a model? A model with a natural classification structure for information allows us to understand our thoughts and means of expression more easily. A reliable information model for classification can be helpful in finding, storing and processing information, not only in our brains but in the search for other information sources. With the help of a well-designed uniform model with a classification structure, we can more easily and more exactly distinguish the ?participating? objects in time, space and matter and strongly anchor our thoughts to reality. What is information? Information comprises all the relationships of an object and therefore its meaning. Although we cannot know the essence of an object, we can know the relationships an object has. All relationships explain cause and consequence of an object. A special type of relationship is interaction. Interaction means physical contact between objects by displacement of (an) object/data from one object to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in the transfer from object to object. An object has meaning through the exchange of data with its environment. In the living and non-living world we see data transfer between objects as obvious, both in the animate (living) and inanimate (non-living) world. For example, data are represented by a ball, a person travelling or an object meant purely to act as a signal, as in a structure with words, which shows cause and effect. Suppose we want to understand the meaning of an arbitrary phenomenon. For convenience sake we describe a phenomenon as an experienced whole confined by a certain period of time and space. We can name a phenomenon with which we refer to a familiar reference framework in one's memory or a piece of text. The choice of a name is related to a number of permanent features with which the phenomenon is defined. Permanent features are meant here as permanent characteristics within limited values. How do we describe a natural classification structure for information? We may assume that natural selection has given us a successful natural information system and is well-developed enough for surviving in our environment. Therefore a natural classification structure for information is likely to be an autodidactic system which makes use of naturally assumed standard units. Comparisons are made with the help of what we have learnt in the past and how we have learnt it as a result of natural selection and individual experience. Briefly, we are continuously assigning values to experiences, i.e. evaluating by making comparisons with what we already (think we) know. The way in which we make comparisons can be expressed in a few fairly simple and logical relationships. How can we find a natural classification structure for information? One way is to take a historical point of view: 1) We can guess how we think without knowing what others have told us. Consequently, we cannot think in the units used in physics, but we can compare phenomena with directly observable phenomena in our direct current environment. 2) We can also can find indications in religious texts. By the way, the term ?religion? originally meant continuous/repeated consideration/contemplation. Does this sound familiar? In learning, we continue to take as a starting point experience of and skill used in earlier attempts. 3) We can also investigate how the first human being might have thought. Some of the oldest histories and languages, e.g. Indo-Germanic, can give us indications of how people thought. What might we have found about a natural classification structure for information? 1) In thinking we try to structure the information from our observations. These information structures serve as models for objects, distinguished by two terms: ?thing? and ?event?. This poorly designed distinction is mainly indicative of our struggle to comprehend the world. Our restricted understanding of the world is closely related with the way we can observe, think and act. Some objects seem evident and others seem less evident or not evident at all. We name and define several objects, while we prefer only to describe other objects in terms of matter, space and time relationships. A special type of relationship is interaction, i.e. physical contact between objects by displacement of an object from one to another. Interaction between objects can only take place in transference from object to object. 2) A common feature in religion is the effort to elucidate and illustrate ?concrete phenomena? and ?abstract phenomena?. We are no great investors in abstract phenomena from nature. Abstract phenomena can be described as phenomena with complicated relationships. Lives of humans and humankind reek of false approval and false disapproval. Objective information can contribute to a behaviour which is better understood. Understood behaviour needs no judgement, but rational thinking and solutions. 3) A striking phenomena in the Indo-Germanic language is the distinction between: - permanent (strong) objects and - temporary (weak) objects. The existence of objects seems to reflect an alternation between cause and consequence in which we consider: - cause as the model for the consequence and - consequence as the model for the cause. As thinking creatures we clearly experience our influence on the world. We experience a strong alternation between our thoughts and the world around us. Our thoughts can function as strong models for the more concrete reality and vice versa. For many centuries a popular way to give our thoughts more concrete meaning, force and a longer existence has been by writing our thoughts down. Even very complicated, old and written texts from afar can be read. Although written language can be very powerful, nowadays radio, television and Internet can reach the same public in the same time and space, with even more vivid images than words. So far we have encountered the following examples: 1) Distinction between: - clearly enough defined objects and - interactions between clearly enough defined objects. 2) Interactions as transferences of data between objects. 3) An object as a thing or a living creature. As thinking creatures we can have a great influence in the creation of our world, but in essence the interactions between objects simply consist of objects moving between objects. What are the similarities between interactions? Interactions, as distinct from the four successive stages of different phenomena named below, have a permanent structure. For convenience sake we describe moving objects as data. The successive stages (=phases) of data flows make up a cycle. In the cases shown below the letter S stands for the object concerned and the letter E for the environment of S. The sequence of the data transference is uniform. Sometimes we can indicate a certain object in the environment as being the principal contributor to the interaction. In general: S = Subject E = Environment 1. Data transference from S to E = S->E 2. Data transference inside E = E->E 3. Data transference from E to S = E->S 4. Data transference inside S = S->S Go along with the examples cited below as far as you can; total agreement is not necessary since we are still in a discussion stage and not a selection one. This first example looks rather simple: a) A volleyball game Upfield S + upfield E The ball is tossed up in a rally: 1. From upfield S to upfield E = S->E 2. Above upfield E = E->E 3. From upfield E to upfield S = E->S 4. Above upfield S = S->S One clearly defined object, called the ball, is tossed up, within and from two clearly defined objects, the fields. In the next example the "flying" object has a more abstract form, and the unit of data is called a "question" or an "answer": b) Use of a DBMS (=database management system) User S + DBMS within E 1. Transport of question to DBMS = S->E 2. Program-run of question in DBMS = E->E 3. Transport of answer from DBMS = E->S 4. Use of answer from DBMS = S->S We sometimes first have to build the things we use: c) Building/making a DBMS Builder S + DBMS within E 1. Addition of data to DBMS = S->E 2. Mutation of data in DBMS = E->E 3. Elimination of data from DBMS = E->S 4. Collection of data for DBMS = S->S Note that the data in the two previous examples, are certainly not unique, but only copies of data. The moving objects are not always simple to indicate. For convenience sake, in the following example we will call them nutrients : d) The food cycle Plant S + Environment E 1. Nutrition of plant to environment = S->E 2. Growth of environment = E->E 3. Nutrition of plant from environment = E->S 4. Growth of plant = S->S We see here aspects of building and use. Moving objects can also lead to damage and breakdown: e) Transport of goods Subject S + Environment E 1. Delivery from S & capture in the environment = S->E 2. Construction & demolition in the environment = E->E 3. Delivery from E & capture inside subject = E->S 4. Construction & demolition inside subject = S->S We can also consider the clearer information on moving objects between two living creatures: f) Observation Person S + a person in Environment E 1. Expression of S & observation of E = S->E 2. Analysis & synthesis inside of E = E->E 3. Expression of E & observation of S = E->S 4. Analysis & synthesis inside of S = S->S The information exchange can also be more specific. g) A doctor's visit Patient S + doctor within E 1. Patient informs doctor: anamnesis = S->E 2. Doctor determines affliction: diagnosis = E->E 3. Doctor informs patient: prognosis = E->S 4. Patient applies treatment: medication = S->S The objects in the environment with which the interaction takes place may look diffuse. Suppose a person tries to learn something about an object in the environment, a so-called learning object. The environment may consist of: - A person who informs us about the learning object; - Models of the learning object, e.g. text form; - Sometimes the real object itself; - The influence of the person's body, in which also thoughts are housed. There are many possibilities in the environment and no clear object can be confined to the "who" or "what" (the essence of the person, the brain and the thought) and the ?what not?. In the next few examples we consider data related to the learning object. The four stages cannot be clearly separated one from another in time, but do represent a manner of action during learning. The four stages also indicate the sequence of importance for each method of action. h) Attending a lecture Listener S + lecture within E 1. Attention. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Explanation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Conclusion. Inside assimilation of S = S->S i) Reading a report Reader S + report within E 1. Preface. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Introduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Argumentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Final word. Inside assimilation of S = S->S So far there is no confusion about the person, who is only the listener with respect to a lecture, or the reader with respect to a report and takes no further action in dragging down or even "rebuilding" the learning object, But we stated earlier that neither could a clear object be confined to ?whom? or what the essence of a person, the brain or what the thought is, and what it is not? Here we meet a new challenge for our abstract perceptive capacity. Please try to imagine S as the centre for perceiving the learning object, so that the rest of the person can be seen as being part of the environment for helping to discover the identity and/or the characteristics of the learning object. Therefore a student or investigator functions partly as S and partly as E, which is not so strange when you think of someone who examines his/her own body or body functions. j) Study Student S + study topic within E 1. Motivation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Schematics. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Elaboration. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S k) Investigation method Investigator S + investigation-object within E 1. Instruction. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Investigation. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Presentation. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S And now for the final countdown in abstraction: take a dive into the so-called Transactional Analysis (T.A.)from psychology. m) Transactional Analysis Person S + environment E 1. ELDERLY = conservative behaviour = S->E 2. ENVIRONMENT = environment behaviour = E->E 3. CHILD = emotional behaviour = E->S 4. ADULT = rational behaviour = S->S Note that we consider different types of behaviour here, each with its own source as one stage in the cycle. In Transaction psychiatry we are introduced to three types of behaviour: - ELDERLY: with a disproportionate output as source of behaviour. - CHILD: with a disproportionate input as source of behaviour. - ADULT: with a proportionate input, processing and output as source of behaviour. The ?source of behaviour? stages occur in this order: 1) When a person "behaves" in the environment, with very little regard for an individual?s emotional input and hardly without thinking, but principally in conformance with actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ELDERLY". 2) When a person does not ?behave? in the environment, he/she has no interaction with it, so the environment behaves on its own. This stage does not represent a type of behaviour in T.A. because the person is not involved. 3) When a person "behaves" in an environment that is mainly controlled by an individual?s emotional input and almost without thinking, the person's behaviour is indicated as being that of a ?CHILD?. 4) When a person "behaves" in the environment, proportionally controlled by thinking about the individual emotional input and actions learned, the person's behaviour is indicated as being "ADULT". The term ?behaves? can in each stage mean: - Receiving data from the environment. - Processing data within the person. - Sending data to the environment. Difference in the types of behaviour concern the source of behaviour/acting. Each behaviour has its own benefits in different situations. n) Comparison with the empirical cycle of De Groot (1961): Investigator S + investigation-object within E. The investication products are made in E, e.g. as a report or test-object. Note that the investigator also takes part in E. 1. Observation. S stimulates E = S->E 2. Induction+deduction. Inside assimilation of E = E->E 3. Testing. E stimulates S = E->S 4. Evaluation. Inside assimilation of S = S->S The similarities in the above examples are described below: 1) With the exchange of data we can distinguish: - Subject, S, in living creatures as the unit of contemplation. - Environment, E, of subject S, in which S experiences an exchange of data. In all stages S and E remain the same. 2) Data exchange can be characterised by four types of data flow in stage sequence: 1. Data flow from inside subject S to environment E. 2. Data flow outside subject S, inside environment E. 3. Data flow to inside subject S from environment E. 4. Data flow inside subject S, outside environment E. 3) In each stage we find the presence of: - A special source object A - A special reach object B Source-object A and reach-object B are connected by the transferred object C, which is matter with information aspects. The transference of data (C) may be schematically proposed as: Object A ---- Object C ----> Object B The influence outside A, B, and C can be indicated with object D. A and B can be contemplated as elements of subject S or environment E. Reach- object B in one stage is the same as source-object A in the next stage. The next example illustrates the "investigation cycle", also called the "scientific method". The same interaction can be applied between investigator and investigation object (study object) for persons of all ages. The cycle consists of four successive stages, in which stage 4 passes into stage 1. Stages are described below: 1) In the first stage we observe an action going from the motivated investigator to the study object in the environment. The investigator directs the attention to the study object and tries to get a hold on it by seizing, catching, grasping, clutching and snatching. Motivation to investigate can be induced by a command, request or passion brought about by (a model of) the study object during the earlier stages, up to and including stage 4. Above we named stage 1 as Motivation. The motivation of S can be indicated as the will/desire/wish of S. The will of S is present in each stage, but is shown in different ways. The choice to name stage 1, Motivation, is arbitrary, just as the naming of all other stages. There are different ways of seizing a study object, e.g. by drawing away the attention of the study object, by physical contact or by letting it do it for you, e.g. through a teacher or other helper. 2) In the second stage the study object operates internally and at the same time is dependent on the way the study object is approximated. For example, a student-teacher can install a model, e.g. a scheme, of the study object. The investigator can also play a substantial role in dealing with the study object, we have encountered above, where it was stated that the investigator could be partly S or partly E. 3) In the third stage (models of) the study object is (are) focused on the investigator. The investigator directs attention to the study object with concentrated eye, ear, nose, taste or mind. For example, a student-teacher may present a model of the study object, for example, as a scheme. 4) In the fourth stage the investigator acts internally. The investigator evaluates the findings on the study object. A teacher can help audibly with the evaluation. 3. Model Description The TSM-information model comprises a structure for classifying information, in which TSM stands for TIME SPACE MATTER. The concept of MATTER in the TSM-information model is NOT the "matter" concept in physics, where matter is characterised by mass. In the TSM-information model the unit of MATTER is contemplated as a phenomenon in the form of an object, which can be either a thing or a living creature. So the unit of MATTER is an object. While observing the object, we may notice that the object: - Remains the same or - Changes. A change can always be reduced to a change of place. A change of place can be: - a change of place of (a part of) the contemplated object, which is called TIME = T. This will means a transported object C in relation to object S. - A change of place of the contemplator, which is called SPACE = S. This means an object in relation to transported object C. TIME = Change of MATTER at 1 location -> different moments. SPACE = Change of MATTER at 1 moment -> different locations. Change of MATTER does not necessary lead to another name of an object. The name of an object depends on a whole body of characteristics. The name of an object is characterised by a number of permanent values for character, where a permanent character value is a value within the value limits determining the object. The TSM-information model is a classification model for information on the main classification of the three base quantities: TIME, SPACE and MATTER. A base quantity is considered as a type of relationship. Each base quantity has four different relationships with respect to the direct environment of a contemplated object. T) TIME: 4 stages 1 = transference of C from inside S to outside S. 2 = transference of C outside S. 3 = transference of C into inside S from outside S 4 = transference of C inside S. R) SPACE: 4 objects A = Source-object of the transported-object. B = Reach-object of the transported-object. C = The transported-object. D = Involved-object with the transported object, but not A B or C. M) MATTER: 4 objects := = The observed object. :! = The opposite object of the observed object. :< = The fractional object of the observed object. :> = The enclosing object of the observed object. TIME and SPACE scheme: ------------------------------------- | S = Subject | E = Environment | | | | | A1/B4 -----C1---> A2/B1 | | | | | ^ | | | | | | | | | C4 | C2 | | | | | | | | | V | | | | | A4/B3 <-----C3---- A3/B2 | | | | | | | ------------------------------------- T = Relation of object C to object S S = Relation of object A B C or D to object C M = Relation of object := :! :< or :> to object := and vice versa. Notes on TIME - It may be convenient or relevant to describe all four stages or alternatively, to describe fewer stages, just describing or naming the inside or outside stages in which C may be converted to another C. For instance, in a data-flow scheme it is not always relevant to describe the internal transference, but only the change in C. - If the transported object C is changed somewhere, C can be regarded as object S in another context, with its own four stages. Notes on SPACE - Objects A and B can be regarded as objects of S and/or E. Notes on MATTER - It is also possible to observe the total collection/compilation of objects as one object. The classification structure remains the same. - The classification of MATTER can be regarded as a classification according to one or more characteristics/properties/features of an object. - The token ?:? in MATTER is applied to distinguish the meaning of := :! :> :< from = ! > < tokens. - In the classification of MATTER there seems to be no place for "overlap". However, "overlap" is found in the relationships between different objects that belong to the relationship :< , namely the elements (congener) of an object. - Example: a volleyball game between two teams. According to M: := Team with name Brazil. :! Opponent team with name Bolivia. :< Every player of the Brazil team. :> All participating teams in the tournament. - TIME can be classified with four stages, each with a SPACE construction. - SPACE can be classified with four spatial objects, each with a MATTER construction. - MATTER can be classified with four matter objects. - Each object can have a TIME construction. - Cycles have links by sharing the same object. 4. Similarities in the classifications TIME can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same space. SPACE can be contemplated as change of MATTER within the same time. In other words, TIME is recognised when an observation space is not moved and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. SPACE is recognised when an observation time stands still and the observer becomes aware of other MATTER. Notice the similarities between the classifications of TIME SPACE and MATTER. The differences concern the objects in each relationship and the similarities concern the four relationships. Differences in objects: TIME = Relation of object C to object S SPACE = Relation of object C to object A B C D MATTER = Relation of object := :! :< :> to object := and vice versa Similarities in relationships: Each relationship is concerned with 2 objects in 2 positions: - position 1 = before the change of MATTER. - position 2 = after the change of MATTER. The relationship of one object to the other object is indicated by the letters: I = INSIDE O = OUTSIDE --------------------------------------------------------- Quantity Position Relationship = Object <-> Object --------------------------------------------------------- TIME 1 C <-> S 2 C <-> S --------------------------------------------------------- SPACE 1 C <-> A B C D 2 C <-> A B C D --------------------------------------------------------- MATTER 1 := :! :< :> <-> := 2 := <-> := :! :< :> --------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of the symbols and abbreviations in the next table: ^ = internal transference > = transference of the first object to the next I-O = INSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-O = OUTSIDE with respect to OUTSIDE O-I = OUTSIDE with respect to INSIDE I-I = INSIDE with respect to INSIDE -------------------------------------- Relation I-O O-O O-I I-I Quantity -------------------------------------- TIME S>E E^ E>S S^ SPACE A D B C MATTER :< :! :> := -------------------------------------- The TSM-classification structure might be put in a nutshell as a question (for living creatures): A value (quantity + unit) is: - Less (I-O) - Different (O-O) (different unit) - Greater (O-I) - Equal (I-I) 5. Applications All cycles can be described according to the TSM-information Model. This model can serve as an aid in indicating the characteristics always present while observing an object. The TSM-information model is infinitive, extendable in time, space, and matter. The TSM-information model can be used for: - Computer programs - Computer program menus - Databases - Recipes - Prescriptions - Lectures - Schemes - Reports - Definitions - Data-flow schemes email: HF.Prins at rivm.nl From Malcolm.Ross at ANU.EDU.AU Wed Nov 28 06:35:47 2001 From: Malcolm.Ross at ANU.EDU.AU (Malcolm Ross) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:35:47 +1100 Subject: Pacific Linguistics: new publications Message-ID: PACIFIC LINGUISTICS is happy to announce the publication of the titles below: A grammar of Tetun Dili by Catharina Williams-van Klinken, John Hajek, Rachel Nordlinger The Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language, Vanuatu by Catriona Hyslop A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory, Australia by Mark Harvey Taba: description of a South Halmahera Austronesian language by John Bowden The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems edited by Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (editors) The boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton edited by Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross and Darrell Tryon (eds) These works are described below. Prices are in Australian dollars (one Australian dollar is currently equivalent to about US$ 0,52). _______________________________________________________________ A grammar of Tetun Dili by Catharina Williams-van Klinken, John Hajek, Rachel Nordlinger PL 520 Tetun Dili is an Austronesian language spoken as a first language in Dili, East Timor. It is also spoken as a lingua franca throughout much of this fledgling nation, and is set to become its national language. This grammar describes the basic structure of Tetun Dili, covering phonology and morphology, as well as phrase-, clause- and sentence-level syntax. It is based on a corpus of both spoken and written texts, supplemented by elicitation. While the focus is primarily on the spoken language, comparisons are made with both written and liturgical varieties. In contrast to the more conservative Tetun Terik variety, Tetun Dili shows strong Portuguese influence after centuries of contact, particularly in its lexicon and phonology. This work constitutes the most detailed grammatical description to date of any language of East Timor, complementing an earlier description of Tetun Terik as spoken in West Timor. ISBN: 0 85883 509 6 AUS $24.75 International $22.50 _______________________________________________________________ The Lolovoli dialect of the North-East Ambae language, Vanuatu by Catriona Hyslop PL 515 North-East Ambae is a member of the Northern Vanuatu linkage of Oceanic. It is a conservative Oceanic Language, has strict AVO/SV word order and possesses head-marking characteristics. This description includes a detailed analysis of the system of spatial reference that operates in the language. Possessive and associative constructions are also described in detail. 2001 ISBN 0 85883 453 7 xxxvi + 476 pp. AUS $59.40 International $54.00 Weight 1000g _______________________________________________________________ A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory, Australia Mark Harvey, PL 516 This grammar provides a description of Limilngan, a previously undescribed and now extinct language of northern Australia. Australian languages generally show a high degree of structural similarity to one another. Limilngan shows some of the common Australian patterns, but in other areas it diverges significantly from them. It has a standard Australian phonological inventory, but its phonotactic patterns are unusual. Some heterorganic clusters such as /kb/ are of markedly higher frequency than homorganic clusters such as /nd/. Like a number of Australian languages, Limilngan has many vowel-initial morphemes. However, historically these result from lenition and not from initial dropping as elsewhere in Australia. Like many northern languages, it has complex systems of both prefixation and suffixation to nominals and verbs. Prefixation provides information about nominal classification (four classes), mood, and pronominal cross-reference (subjects and objects). Suffixation provides information about case, tense, and aspect. Limilngan differs from most Australian languages in that a considerable amount of its morphology is unproductive, showing complex and irregular allomorphic variation. Limilngan is like most Australian languages in that it may be described as a free word order language. However, word order is not totally free and strictly ordered phrasal compounding structures are significant (e.g. in the formation of denominal verbs). 2001 ISBN 0 85883 461 8 AUS $44.55 International $40.50 _______________________________________________________________ Taba: description of a South Halmahera Austronesian language John Bowden PL 521 Taba is an Austronesian language spoken in the Halmahera region of eastern Indonesia. This book is the only comprehensive modern grammar of any language from the South Halmahera-West New Guinea subgroup that is a sister to the much better documented Oceanic branch. Taba is a mixed split-S and accusative language with a rich variety of phonemic consonant clusters, a complex system of directionals, and many other features of interest to both Austronesianists and general typologists. The analysis of ditransitive clauses is a major innovation: the author contends that ditransitives exhibit a mixed primary object and 'split-P' pattern of argument alignment. The grammar also contains a wealth of information on the sometimes radical changes occuring in contemporary Taba under the impact of Malay. John Bowden is a Research Fellow in Linguistics at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University. After completing his undergraduate studies at the University of Auckland and a doctorate at the University of Melbourne, he spent a year as a post-doctoral research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. This grammar is a revised version of his PhD dissertation. His major research interests are in languages of the east Nusantara region, in grammatical typology, and in language contact phenomena. AUS $69.85 International $63.50 _______________________________________________________________ The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems Fay Wouk and Malcolm Ross (editors) PL 518 The 'focus' systems of western Austronesian languages have long intrigued grammarians, typologists and historical linguists, and this book significantly expands accessible information on them. It is the outcome of a workshop on focus held at the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics in Taipei in December 1997. Part I contains three overview contributions: one on some of the typological issues of ?focus? languages (Nikolaus Himmelman), on possible histories of western Austronesian voice (Malcolm Ross), and on the history of voice systems and on their study (Robert Blust). Part II, ?Languages of Sulawesi?, has descriptive papers by Mark Donohue, Phil Quick and Nikolaus Himmelmann and a historical contribution by David Mead. Part III, on the rest of Indonesia and Malaysia, has descriptive papers on Karo Batak (Clodagh Norwood), Riau Indonesian (David Gil) and Bonggi (Sabah, Michael Boutin), a comparative account of the languages of Lombok and Sumbawa (Fay Wouk), and a descriptivehistorical account of Javanese (Gloria Poejosoedarmo). The contributions in Part IV concern the Philippines and Taiwan. They range from Sama languages in the extreme southwest of the region (Jun Akamine and JoAnn Gault), through Hiligayonon and Yogad in the centre and north of the Philippines (Walter Spitz), to Seediq of northern Taiwan (Arthur Holmer). Erik Zobel examines Chamorro and Palauan evidence diachronically and proposes a new Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian subgroup. ISBN: 0 85883 477 4 AUS $76.45 International $69.50 The boy from Bundaburg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton Andrew Pawley, Malcolm Ross and Darrell Tryon (eds) PL 514 The essays in this book were written in honour of Dr Tom Dutton, who worked in the Department of Linguistics of the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at The Australian National University from 1969 until 1997. Tom made a major contribution to our understanding of the languages of Papua New Guinea, and especially of central and south-east Papua. Included in the book are essays on Papuan languages by Bernard Comrie (Haruai), Mark Donohue (Burmeso), Cynthia Farr (Korafe), Karl Franklin (Foe, Fasu and Enga), Volker Heeschen (Eipo and Yale), Francesca Merlan and Alan Rumsey (Ku Waru), the late Otto Nekitel (Abu' Arapesh), Meredith Osmond (Chimbu--Wahgi languages), Andrew Pawley (Proto Trans New Guinea), Malcolm Ross (east Papuan languages), Evelyn Todd (Bilua), C.L. Voorhoeve (Proto Awyu-Dumut) and Apoi Yarapea (Kewa). Contributions on Oceanic Austronesian languages are by Robert Blust (reduplicated colour terms), Joel Bradshaw (Iwal), Ann Chowning (plant names), Susanne Holzknecht (Duwet), John Lynch (possession) and Gunter Senft (Kilivila). There are two contributions are on Pacific pidgins, by Peter Muehlhaeusler and Darrell Tryon, and one on language endangerment by the late Stephen Wurm. 2001 ISBN 0 85883 445 6 vii + 417 pp. AUS $88.00 International $80.00 Weight 800g _______________________________________________________________ Orders may be placed by mail, e-mail or telephone with: Publishing, Imaging and Cartographic Services (PICS) Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 6125 3269 Fax: +61 (0)2 6125 9975 mailto://Jo.Bushby at anu.edu.au Credit card orders are accepted. For our catalogue and other materials, see: http://pacling.anu.edu.au (under construction) _______________________________________________________________ Other enquiries (but not orders) should go to: The Publications Administrator Pacific Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Tel: +61 (0)2 6125 2742 Fax: +61 (0)2 6125 4896 mailto://jmanley at coombs.anu.edu.au -- _____________________________________ Dr Malcolm D. Ross Senior Fellow Department of Linguistics Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies Australian National University CANBERRA ACT 0200