From lamb at RICE.EDU  Tue Oct  1 15:37:17 2002
From: lamb at RICE.EDU (Sydney Lamb)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:37:17 -0500
Subject: LACUS Forum 30 - Announcement and Call for Papers (fwd)
Message-ID: <TUE.1.OCT.2002.103717.0500.LAMB@RICE.EDU>

(Apologies for multiple postings!)

Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States
Association de Linguistique du Canada et des Etats-Unis

THE THIRTIETH LACUS FORUM

University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.

July 29 - August 2, 2003

Conference Theme: LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND REALITY

FEATURED SPEAKERS

        Penny Lee, University of Western Australia
        Gary Libben, University of Alberta
        Karen Rice, University of Toronto
        Angela Della Volpe, California State University,
                Fullerton, Presidential Address

CALL FOR PAPERS

While papers relating to the conference theme are especially
invited, abstracts are welcomed on all subjects in linguistics
and interdisciplinary areas involving language. The following
list of topics relating to the theme is intended as suggestive
rather than comprehensive:

LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND REALITY

1. Linguistic Relativity, including responses to recent work on
linguistic relativity (for example, Penny Lee, The Whorf Theory
Complex (Benjamins 1996), Gumperz and Levinson, Rethinking
Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge, 1996), Puetz and Verspoor,
Explorations in Linguistic Relativity (Benjamins, 2000)

2. Language and thought in indigenous societies

3. Neurocognitive perspectives on thought
        Cognitive styles
        Left-brain and right-brain thinking
        The neurological basis of thinking
        Thinking with and without language

4. Metaphor

5. Language and Culture

6. Translation

7. Semantic change

8. The real-world use of language

9. Real-world evidence in linguistics, including
   Experimental phonetics, Psychoacoustics,
   Psycholinguistics


GUIDELINES FOR ABSTRACTS

Papers accepted for the program will be scheduled for either 15
minutes or 25 minutes, with 5 minutes allowed for discussion.

Due Date for Abstracts: 15 January 2003

Maximum length: 400 words (not including references).
References should be limited to two or three (additional
references may be included on a separate page, but in that
case they will not appear in the meeting handbook.) Please
do not include tables or figures in the abstract.

Anonymity: The abstract should not identify the author(s).

What to Submit: Please submit abstracts only by e-mail.
Preferably, send the abstract as an e-mail attachment, in rich
text format (.rtf) or the equivalent.

Accompanying Information: In the body of your e-mail (not
part of the attachment) send the following information:
  1. Author's name(s) and affiliation(s).
  2. Title of paper.
  3. Presentation time desired -- 15 or 25 minutes.
  4. Audio-visual equipment required (beyond overhead
     projector).
  5. Eligibility for prize (if applicable -- see below).
  6. Name a topic (or two topics) to identify the area(s) in
which your paper lies. Choose a topic name from the list
above, or feel free to name another topic if you are
submitting an abstract that does not fit the conference
theme.

Where to Submit: David C. Bennett <db at soas.ac.uk>

Those without access to e-mail should send the abstract
and accompanying information via snail mail to:

David C. Bennett
Department of Linguistics
SOAS, University of London
Russell Square
London, WC1H 0XG
England

DESIRABLE PROPERTIES OF ABSTRACTS

Evaluators of abstracts will appreciate your attention to
these desiderata:
    Informative but brief title
    Clear statement of the problem or questions addressed
    Clear statement of the main point(s) or argument(s)
    Informative examples
    Clear indication of relevance to related work
    Avoidance of jargon and polemic
    References to literature (not included in 450-word limit)

ELIGIBILITY

   You do not have to be a member of LACUS to submit an
abstract. If your abstract is accepted, you must be a
member to present your paper at the meeting. Members
will automatically receive the publication resulting from
the conference.

SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS, TUTORIALS

Proposals for panels or special sessions or workshops or
tutorials are also welcome. Please contact David Bennett
<db at soas.ac.uk> or Syd Lamb (lamb at rice.edu) right away
with your ideas.

PRESIDENTS' PRIZES

Continuing a tradition started by the late Kenneth Pike, a
committee consisting of the President, the President-Elect,
and former Presidents of LACUS will select the winner of
the annual Presidents' Prize, with an award of $500, for 'the
best paper' by a junior scholar. For purposes of this prize,
'junior scholar' is defined as one who has had a doctoral
degree or its equivalent for less than five years.

The Presidents' Predoctoral prize, with an award of $100,
will be given for 'the best paper' by a student who has not
yet received a doctor's degree.

For purposes of these prizes, 'best paper' is defined as that
which in the judgement of the committee makes the most
important contribution to knowledge. Organization and
presentation and the quality of the abstract may also be
considered.

The prizes will be awarded at the annual banquet, to be
held at the end of the meeting, Saturday, August 3rd.

Only single-authored presentations will be considered for
prizes. A person who has won the same prize twice will no
longer be eligible.

Junior scholars and predoctoral scholars should identify
their status in the e-mail message sent in with the abstracts,
to indicate their eligibility for one of the prizes.

FINANCIAL AID

Thanks to the Ruth Brend Memorial Fund, limited assistance for
scholars coming from countries with weak currencies may be
available. For information contact the Conference Committee
Chair, David Bennett.

PUBLICATION

A panel of referees will select certain papers presented at
the meeting for publication, with appropriate revisions, in
LACUS Forum XXX.

VENUE

The University of Victoria is located in a picturesque setting
at the southern end of scenic Vancouver Island, British
Columbia. The URL for the University of Victoria is
http://www.uvic.ca

ACCOMMODATIONS

Low-cost housing will be available on campus, and
accommodations will also be available in nearby motels.
Watch the lacus web site (www.lacus.org) for further
information.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Updated conference information will be posted to the
LACUS website at approximately the beginning of every
month from now until July next. See http://www.lacus.org
or http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/lacus (mirror site)

Detailed information will be sent to all LACUS members
and to nonmember authors of accepted abstracts in March.

ADDRESS QUESTIONS about the conference program to
David C. Bennett <db at soas.ac.uk>

ADDRESS QUESTIONS about the University of Victoria to
Gordon Fulton <gdfulton at uvic.ca>

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:

  David Bennett, SOAS, London, Chair
  Lilly Chen, Rice University
  Angela Della Volpe, California State University, Fullerton
  Gordon Fulton, University of Victoria
  Sydney Lamb, Rice University
  Lois Stanford, University of Alberta
  William Sullivan, Univ. of Florida and Univ. of Krakow


From linjr at HUM.AU.DK  Wed Oct  2 08:50:36 2002
From: linjr at HUM.AU.DK (Jan Rijkhoff)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:50:36 +0200
Subject: New book 'The Noun Phrase'
Message-ID: <WED.2.OCT.2002.105036.0200.LINJR@HUM.AU.DK>

(Apologies for cross-postings)

New Publication by Oxford University Press

------------------------------------------

J. Rijkhoff

The Noun Phrase

2002. 234mm x 156mm. XIII + 413 pages.

Hardback £57.50 / US$ 90.00

ISBN 0-19-823782-0

(Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory)

A sample of this book is available in PDF format at:
 http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-823782-0

DESCRIPTION (from the jacket):
"The book presents a semantic model to describe the underlying structure of
noun phrases in any natural human language. It examines the semantic and
morpho-syntactic properties of the constituents of the noun phrase in a
representative sample of the world's 6000 or so languages and shows that
noun phrase word order patterns of any language can be derived from three
universal ordering principles."

"Rijkhoff analyses the noun phrase as a structure that consists of four
nested layers, which accommodate noun modifiers relating to quality,
quantity, location, and discourse. Noun phrases and sentences can be
similarly analysed, he argues, because they have the same underlying
semantic structure. He introduces the notion of Seinsart or 'mode of being'
as the nominal counterpart of 'mode of action' in verb semantics. He
proposes a new grammatical category of nominal aspect and an implicational
universal concerning the occurrence of adjectives as a major word class in
the part-of-spech system of a language."

CONTENTS:
  1. Preliminaries
  2. Nominal Subcategories: Seinsarten
  3. Nouns: Real and Apparent Nominal Subclasses
  4. Qualifying Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  5. Quantifying Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  6. Localizing Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  7. The Underlying Structure of Noun Phrases
  8. Ordering Principles, Domain Integrity, and Discontinuity
  9. Greenbergian Word Order Correlations and the Principle of
        Head Proximity
 10. The Principle of Scope
 11. Epilogue
     References
     Index of Subjects
     Index of Languages
     Index of Authors


Jan Rijkhoff, Institut for Lingvistik, Aarhus Universitet
Jens Chr. Skous Vej 7 (467-517), DK-8000  Aarhus C, DENMARK
Phone (+45) 8942 6550 * Fax (+45) 8942 6570 * E-mail linjr at hum.au.dk
http://www.hum.au.dk/lingvist/linjr/home.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021002/4af2cbbd/attachment.bin>

From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Wed Oct  2 20:05:18 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:05:18 -0700
Subject: New Book: WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS
Message-ID: <WED.2.OCT.2002.130518.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS; WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS; Dave
Barker-Plummer (Stanford University's Center for the Study of
Language and Information), David I. Beaver (Stanford University),
Johan van Benthem (Amsterdam University and Stanford University) and
Patrick Scotto di Luzio (Stanford University), eds.;paper ISBN:
1-57586-406-1, $25.00, cloth ISBN: 1-57586-405-3, $67.50, 286 pages.
CSLI Publications 2002. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email:
pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

The last twenty years have witnessed extensive collaborative research
between computer scientists, logicians, linguists, philosophers, and
psychologists. These interdisciplinary studies stem from the
realization that researchers drawn from all fields are studying the
same problem.  Specifically, a common concern amongst researchers
today is how logic sheds light on the nature of information. Ancient
questions concerning how humans communicate, reason and decide, and
modern questions about how computers should communicate, reason and
decide are of prime interest to researchers in various disciplines.

"Words, Proofs and Diagrams" is a collection of papers covering
active research areas at the interface of logic, computer science,
and linguistics. Readers of the volume will find traditional research
on process logics, issues in formal semantics, and language
processing.  In addition, the volume also highlights a particularly
new area where all three disciplines meet---the study of images and
graphics as information carriers and the diagrammatic reasoning
supported by them.

The volume is divided into three parts: Diagrammatic Reasoning,
Computation, and Logic and Language. Each of these parts is headed by
an editorial introduction that maps out the relation of the papers to
each other and to the wider field. While each chapter provides an
angle on the logic of information, it is their interconnections that
provide the total picture of the field today.


------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Fri Oct  4 21:21:00 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:21:00 -0700
Subject: New Book: IMPLEMENTING TYPED FEATURE STRUCTURE GRAMMARS
Message-ID: <FRI.4.OCT.2002.142100.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

IMPLEMENTING TYPED FEATURE STRUCTURE GRAMMARS; Ann Copestake
(University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and Stanford
University's Center for the Study of Language and Information);paper
ISBN: 1-57586-260-3, $22.00, cloth ISBN: 1-57586-261-1, $62.00, 244
pages. CSLI Publications 2002. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu ,
email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

Typed feature structure formalisms allow linguistically precise and
theoretically motivated descriptions of human languages to be used in
real-world applications such as email response, spoken dialogue
systems, and machine translation. This book provides a theoretical
and practical introduction to typed feature structures and their use
in computational linguistics.

Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars includes informal, yet
rigorous, descriptions of typed feature structure logic as well as
formal definitions. This presentation covers the basics of grammar
development, introducing the reader to treatments of syntax,
morphology, and semantics and discussing the computational issues
involved in parsing and generation.

This book also acts as a user manual for the Linguistic Knowledge
Building (LKB) system, which was developed by the author and her
colleagues. The LKB system is a grammar and lexicon development
environment that allows the reader to experiment with the various
grammars described in the book and learn the details of the
formalism. However it is also powerful and efficient enough to
support development of large-scale grammars.
The LKB system is freely available as Open Source and is compatible
with Windows, Linux, and Solaris.

------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Fri Oct  4 21:33:15 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:33:15 -0700
Subject: New Book: ANALYZING LINGUISTIC VARIATION
Message-ID: <FRI.4.OCT.2002.143315.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

ANALYZING LINGUISTIC VARIATION: STATISTICAL MODELS AND METHODS, John
C. Paolillo (Indiana University).;paper ISBN: 1-57586-276-X, $25.00,
cloth ISBN: 1-57586-275-1, $65.00, 280 pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

David Sankoff's VARBRUL computer program is widely used in analyzing
linguistic variation in sociolinguistics, language acquisition,
discourse, and other areas of linguistics, yet researchers have had
to depend on hard-to-find publications and one-on-one training in
order to learn how to use the program. For the first time, this
comprehensive guide explains every aspect of this singularly useful
computer program, from its most basic statistical foundations, to
data collection, coding, and analysis techniques. This is written
with researchers and students in the field of linguistics in mind and
assumes no prior familiarity with statistics.
Statistical and methodological issues are illustrated with examples
of linguistic variation research, and their bearing on issues of
theoretical consequence is thoroughly discussed. All quantitative
areas of linguistics will benefit from this book's careful
presentation of VARBRUL analysis and its relation to other
statistical procedures used in the social sciences.

------------------------------


From mhayashi at UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU  Sun Oct  6 00:33:53 2002
From: mhayashi at UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Makoto Hayashi)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:33:53 -0500
Subject: Job announcement at U. of Illinois
Message-ID: <SAT.5.OCT.2002.193353.0500.MHAYASHI@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

The Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is seeking a full-time Assistant
Professor (on tenure-track) to teach Japanese language and
linguistics, and direct the elementary and intermediate Japanese
language instructional program, beginning August 21, 2003.
Qualifications include: A doctorate in hand by the appointment date,
good evidence of strong research potential, relevant teaching
credentials, and experience in teaching Japanese and in Japanese
language program supervision.  We are especially interested in
candidates whose research expertise lies in Japanese language pedagogy
and the acquisition of Japanese as a second language.  One half of the
teaching obligation will be in language instruction, and the other
half will be in other departmental courses including those in the
candidate's areas of specialization.  Salary is competitive and
commensurate with experience and qualifications.  For full
consideration, send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and
concise statement of research and teaching interests, samples of
publications, if any, and three letters of recommendation, by December
10, 2002 to:

Japanese Language/Linguistics Search Committee Chair
Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures
2090-A FLB, MC-146
707 S. Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801 USA

Contact Information:

    Professor Jerome Packard
    Email: j-packard at uiuc.edu
    Tel: 217-244-1432

UIUC is an AA/EOE.


From bls at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU  Mon Oct  7 04:28:57 2002
From: bls at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew Simpson)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:28:57 -0700
Subject: Berkeley Linguistics Society Call for Papers
Message-ID: <SUN.6.OCT.2002.212857.0700.>

The Berkeley Linguistics Society is pleased to announce its Twenty-Ninth
Annual Meeting, to be held February 14-17, 2003.  The conference will
consist of a General Session, a Parasession and a Special Session.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*GENERAL SESSION*
The General Session will cover all areas of linguistic interest.  We
encourage proposals from diverse theoretical frameworks and also welcome
papers on language-related topics from disciplines such as Anthropology,
Cognitive Science, Literature, Neuroscience and Psychology.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Judith Aissen, University of California, Santa Cruz
                    Mark Hale, Concordia University
                    Royal Skousen, Brigham Young University
                    Arnold Zwicky, Stanford University

*PARASESSION* -- Phonetic Sources of Phonological Patterns:
                 Synchronic and Diachronic Explanations
The Parasession invites submissions on the role of phonetics in shaping
phonological patterns. Papers representing all views and approaches are
sought. Those addressing the relative merits of synchronic and diachronic
explanations of phonetically-motivated phonological patterns are
particularly welcomed.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Juliette Blevins, University of California, Berkeley
                    Charles Reiss, Concordia University
                    Donca Steriade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

*SPECIAL SESSION* -- Minority and Diasporic Languages of Europe
The Special Session will cover minority and diasporic languages of Europe.
Languages of interest include minority, threatened and diasporic European
languages and dialects, in both Europe and former colonies and in
immigrant and heritage situations, as well as pidgins and creoles based on
languages spoken in Europe.  Proposals from linguistics and related fields
are encouraged.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Julie Auger, Indiana University
                    J. Clancy Clements, Indiana University
                    Joshua Fishman, Yeshiva University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***ABSTRACT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES***
Presented papers are published in the BLS Proceedings.  Authors agree to
provide camera-ready copy (not exceeding 12 pages) by May 15, 2003.
Presentations are allotted 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions.

An author may submit at most one single and one joint abstract.  In case
of joint authorship, one address should be designated for communication
with BLS. Abstracts should be as specific as possible, with a statement of
topic, approach and conclusions.  Abstracts may be at most four hundred
words.  The reverse side of the single page may be used for data and
references only. 10 copies of an anonymous, one-page (8.5"x11") abstract
should be sent,  along with a 3"x5" card listing:

           (1)          paper title
           (2)          session (General/Para/Special)
           (3)          name(s) of author(s)
           (4)          affiliation(s) of author(s)
           (5)          address whither notification of acceptance should
                        be mailed (Nov-Dec 2002)
           (6)          contact phone number for each author
           (7)          email address for each author
                     ***for General Session submissions only***
           (8)          subfield (syntax, phonology, etc.)
                     ***for Para-/Special Session submissions only***
           (9)          indication of whether you wish to have your
                        abstract considered for the General Session if
                        the organizers determine that your paper will not
                        fit the other sessions

                    *SEND ABSTRACTS TO*
                              BLS 29 Abstracts Committee
                              University of California
                              Linguistics Department
                              1203 Dwinelle Hall
                              Berkeley, CA  94720-2650

Abstracts must be received in our office (not postmarked) by 4:00 p.m.,
November 27, 2002.  We cannot accept faxed abstracts.  Abstracts submitted
via e-mail are also accepted.  Only those abstracts formatted as ASCII
text or a Microsoft Word (Mac version strongly preferred) attachment can
be accepted.  The text of the message must contain the information
requested in (1)-(9) above.  Electronic submissions may be sent to

                    ***bls at socrates.berkeley.edu***

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***REGISTRATION INFORMATION***
All attendees, including presenters, must register for the meeting. For
advance registration, we can accept only checks or money orders drawn on
US banks in US dollars, made payable to Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Received in our office by February 2, 2003:
                   Students       $20
                   Non-students   $40
Received after February 2, 2003:
                   Students       $25
                   Non-students   $55

                    *SEND ADVANCE REGISTRATION TO*
                              BLS 29 Registration
                              University of California
                              Linguistics Department
                              1203 Dwinelle Hall
                              Berkeley, CA  94720-2650

***BLS will arrange ASL interpretation if requested through
   bls at socrates.berkeley.edu before 12/1/02***

We may be contacted by e-mail at bls at socrates.berkeley.edu.



..............................
Berkeley Linguistics Society
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Linguistics
1203 Dwinelle Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-2650
Phone/Fax: 510-642-5808

find information on BLS meetings and availability of proceedings at:
http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/BLS/
..............................


From bill_mann at SIL.ORG  Wed Oct  9 17:47:01 2002
From: bill_mann at SIL.ORG (William Mann)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:47:01 -0400
Subject: a new dialogue data corpus: Dialogue Diversity Corpus (DDC)
Message-ID: <WED.9.OCT.2002.134701.0400.BILLMANN@SIL.ORG>

 
Announcement

DIALOGUE DIVERSITY CORPUS

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/diversity

(apologies if you receive multiple copies)

A new corpus is available for facilitating research on human dialogue. 

The Dialogue Diversity Corpus (DDC) gives direct access to a set of dialogue transcripts (13 sources, more than 12 hours of dialogue, all in English.). It also gives a set of links and methods for accessing hundreds of additional dialogues (principally in English.) Several sources provide speech data as well as transcripts.

The dialogues in this corpus occurred in a very diverse collection of interactive situations. Thus it is a data resource for studies of the breadth of coverage of particular dialogue models, and for studies that compare dialogue from different situations. 

For smaller projects such as pilot studies, program testing and even some term papers, the direct access portion will be sufficient. The access methods may yield enough dialogue data for some much larger studies. 

The corpus is designed for data finding rather than for bulk processing. Taken as a whole, it is irregular and not homogeneous in any way. It is generally unsuitable for drawing any conclusions about dialogue taken as a single category.

===============
William C. Mann
 
bill_mann at sil.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021009/0747ead1/attachment.html>

From macw at CMU.EDU  Wed Oct  9 20:07:40 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:07:40 -0400
Subject: data
Message-ID: <WED.9.OCT.2002.160740.0400.MACW@CMU.EDU>

Bill,

  Thanks for the note on dialog corpora on the web and elsewhere.  The
status of these things is changing so fast that it is hard to keep up, but
let me add a few notes:

1.  The CHILDES database (http://childes.psy.cmu.edu), which you correctly
note as having been available on CD-ROM for many years is now available with
a lot of associated audio and even, in a few cases, video.  It has now been
converted to (1) Unicode, allowing inclusion of IPA and non-Roman scripts in
the same file and (2) to XML, allowing lots of new uses.

2.  The Nixon Watergate tapes you mentioned are being retranscribed in CA
format by Gail Jefferson with assistance from Johannes Wagner.  These data
are at http://talkbank.org/data/MOVIN/ along with four other corpora from
English, Danish, German, and Italian.

3.  The Santa Barbara corpus of Spoken American English is available along
with linked audio from http://talkbank.org/data/conversation/, along with
some of the most interesting conversations from the LDC CallFriend database.
LDC would be willing to release further segments of this corpus if there was
good evidence for a demand.

4.  The talkbank.org/data site has a lot of fascinating video linked to
transcripts for those who believe that a full study of discourse requires
not only transcripts and audio, but also video.  Examples include PBL
instruction in med school, clinical interviews, meetings with parolees, talk
shows, classroom discourse, and on and on.  We even have databases on bird
song, macaque calls, and meerkat squeaks.

Three major goals for the near term here are (1) to try to improve the links
between these resources so that users do not have to wander through a
labyrinth of URLs, formats, special permissions, (2) to link all discourse
to audio, and (3) to broaden coverage across languages and discourse types.
John Haviland's data at http://talkbank.org/data/exploration/Haviland/
illustrates the latter direction.

Suggestions for additions to both TalkBank and CHILDES are welcome, as well
as requests for new programs and data formats.

Let me also note that TalkBank and CHILDES data are freely downloadable
through the web, but we ask that users follow the ground rules given at the
sites.

--Brian MacWhinney, CMU


From stefan.grondelaers at ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE  Thu Oct 10 13:00:56 2002
From: stefan.grondelaers at ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Stefan Grondelaers)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:00:56 +0200
Subject: Conference announcement (Measuring lexical variation and change)
Message-ID: <THU.10.OCT.2002.150056.0200.STEFAN.GRONDELAERS@ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE>

Apologies for multiple postings

Conference announcement

On October 24-25, the research unit Quantitative lexicology and variational
linguistics of the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leuven
hosts the symposium

MEASURING LEXICAL VARIATION AND CHANGE
A Symposium on Quantitative Sociolexicology

Made possible by the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders

Aim

This workshop brings together researchers in the field of variational
lexicology and diachronic vocabulary studies who use quantitative methods.
Although such methods have been used less intensively in the study of
lexical variation and change than they have been employed in the field of
phonetics, morphology, or other linguistic variables, there is a growing
body of quantitative research on the distribution of words over language
varieties and the diffusion of lexical changes over time. The symposium
intends to create a forum for the confrontation and the comparison of the
different approaches involved.

Structure & schedule

The workshop consists of 5 plenary sessions (1 hour) and 12 regular
sessions (35').

Invited speakers are:

Nigel Armstrong (University of Leeds)
Peter Auer (University of Freiburg)
Harald Baayen (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen &
University of Nijmegen)
John Nerbonne (University of Groningen)
Terttu Nevalainen (University of Helsinki)

In order to ensure a highly focused event with maximal interaction between
the participants, the number of regular presentations is limited to 12, and
there are no parallell sessions. The full programme, as well as abstracts
of all the lectures can be found on the conference website

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/sociolex

Conference venue

The symposium will take place in the Groot Begijnhof "Grand Beguinage",
Leuven's magnificent Unesco heritage. The Begijnhof, which was founded in
the 13th century outside the town walls, is a microcosmos of picturesque
16th-17th C houses, little cobbled alleys, narrow bridges, and an early
Gothic church. It is now a residence for University staff and Foreign
guests. The lectures are organised in the neighboring Irish College (1607),
where a buffet lunch will also be served. Dinner will be served in the
magnificent 16th C infirmary of the Faculty Club.


Accommodation & fees

For participants who present a paper, participation in the symposium, as
well as lunch and dinner on Thursday and Friday are free of charge.
Accommodation will be arranged for active participants in the Begijnhof
Congress Hotel (www.begijnhofcongreshotel.be) (to be paid for by the
participants themselves).

If you are interested in attending the symposium as a passive participant,
please send an e-mail to Dirk Geeraerts, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Speelman
(by October 16 at the latest) at the following address:

sociolex at listserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be

Additional information on the conference organisers & the conference
schedule, the conference venue (how to get there) & registration, can be
found on the conference website

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/sociolex




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021010/e41033f1/attachment.html>

From gthomson at MAC.COM  Fri Oct 11 00:40:40 2002
From: gthomson at MAC.COM (Greg Thomson)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:10:40 +0630
Subject: Psycho/Sociolinguistics Conf., Kazakhstan: Final call
Message-ID: <FRI.11.OCT.2002.071040.0630.GTHOMSON@MAC.COM>

FINAL CALL
Apology for cross-postings

DEAR COLLEAGUES!

THE AL-FARABI KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL LINGUISTICS
KAZAKH LANGUAGE: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY

INVITES YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH
CONFERENCE IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF AL-FARABI
KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: CONDITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Conference date: September, 18-19, 2003.

THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION BY CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS:

SOCIOLINGUISTIC TOPICS
Ј LANGUAGE SITUATIONS AND LANGUAGE POLICY
Ј SOCIAL AND REGIONAL VARIATION
Ј INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES
Ј SOCIETAL BILINGUALISM
Ј LANGUAGES IN CONTACT
Ј SOCIOLINGUISTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TOPICS
Ј NATIVE LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND CHILD BILINGUALISM
Ј SPEECH PERCEPTION AND COMPREHENSION
Ј SPEECH PRODUCTION
Ј MENTAL LEXICON
Ј BILINGUALISM AND MULTILINGUALISM
Ј PSYCHOLINGUISTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
.
CONFERENCE WORKING LANGUAGES: KAZAKH, RUSSIAN, ENGLISH
PLEASE, ADD YOUR THESIS (1-2 PAGES) TO YOUR APPLICATION FORM .
THESIS TEXT SHOULD BE PRINTED AND IN ELECTRONIC FORM( IN RTF-FORMAT:
FILES SHOULD BE NAMED AFTER AUTHORS' SURNAMES).

DEADLINE: NOVEMBER, 30, 2002.
PHONE NUMBERS (3272) 47-27-97 (13-29)
THE CONFERENCE MATERIALS ARE PLANNED TO BE PUBLISHED.
REGISTRATION COST: $50 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER TO ACCOUNT NUMBER
199117351, BENEFICIARY UMATOVA, ZHANNA, BANK: KAZKOMMERTZBANK,
ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN. SWIFT: KZKOKZKX; CORR/ACC. NO. 890-0223-057.
CORRESPONDING BANK: BANK OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA. SWIFT: IRVTUS3N.
CHIPS: 0001.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS: ALL  PAYMENTS CONNECTED WITH CONFERENCE
PARTICIPATION ARE PAID BY THE PARTICIPANT.
Place: 480078, Kazakhstan, Almaty -city, al-Farabi - avenue, 71,
KazNU, Philological Faculty.

WE WELCOME YOUR INVOLVEMENT!

             CONFERENCE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Sincerely yours,
Zhanna Umatova
email:  umatova at rambler.ru
cc: to greg_thomson at telus.net

--
****PLEASE NOTE: our email address is now greg_thomson at telus.net.
Please discontinue using gthomson at mac.com, as it will soon expire.****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021011/ff1d60cf/attachment.html>

From clements at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Oct 17 16:44:32 2002
From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (Clancy Clements)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:44:32 -0500
Subject: Second Call for papers -- LSRL 33
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.114432.0500.CLEMENTS@INDIANA.EDU>

Second Call for papers

The 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
April 24-27

Main session: All areas of Romance linguistics
Parasession: Romance Languages in Contact Situations

Deadline for receipt of abstracts: Dec. 6, 2002

Abstracts are invited for 20-minute talks (plus 10 minutes for discussion)
on any aspect of Romance linguistics. Abstracts should be no more than two
pages in length (including examples and references), in 12-point type. All
margins should be at least one inch wide (or 2.5 cm). Authors are asked to
submit their abstracts either by:
(a) e-mail attachment (MS Word or WordPerfect) with a hard copy to follow
within 1 week
OR
(b) postal services (send six copies of an anonymous abstract and one
additional copy with the author's name and affiliation.)
No faxes will be accepted. In the email message or on a separate sheet,
please also include the title of the paper, name of author(s),
affiliation(s), address, phone number, and e-mail address. To facilitate
the review process, please indicate the primary area of linguistics
addressed in the paper. Those who wish to be considered for both the Main
Session and the Parasession should send two sets of materials (please
indicate MAIN SESSION / PARASESSION). Submissions are limited to a maximum
of one individual and one joint abstract per author. Preference will be
given to presentations not duplicated at other major conferences (e.g.,
LSA, NELS, WCCFL). Authors are asked to indicate prior or planned
presentations of their papers.

Send abstracts to:
lsrl33 at indiana.edu
or
LSRL XXXIII
CREDLI
1020 E. Kirkwood Ave.
Ballantine Hall 604
Bloomington, IN 47405-7103
USA


From traugott at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Thu Oct 17 23:45:05 2002
From: traugott at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Elizabeth Traugott)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:45:05 -0700
Subject: job opportunity
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.164505.0700.TRAUGOTT@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

                  STANFORD UNIVERSITY
                LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT
                  JOB ANNOUNCEMENT

The Department of Linguistics at Stanford University
announces a full-time position for a tenure-track assistant
professor or beginning associate professor with a starting
date of September 1, 2003. Candidates must hold the Ph.D. in
linguistics or a related field by the starting date. The
department values research programs that link more than one
subfield of linguistics in the development of larger
theories of language and language use, and it emphasizes
rigorous theoretical work solidly based on empirical data
from, among other sources, corpora of spoken and written
usage, experimental findings, fieldwork, and computer
modeling. We are particularly interested in receiving
applications from candidates in the following areas:
phonetics/phonology, sociolinguistics/variation & change,
and computational linguistics/language processing.
Filling this position represents an initial step in our
long-range plans for the department.

To receive full consideration, hard-copy applications
should arrive by December 6th, 2002. (Please no
electronic applications.) Stanford University is an
equal opportunity employer and especially welcomes
applications from women and minority candidates. Please
include a CV, statements of research and teaching interests,
up to three research papers, and the names of three or
four references. All applicants should also have letters of
reference sent directly to the Search Committee.

Send materials to:

Search Committee
Department of Linguistics
Stanford University
Margaret Jacks Hall, Room 127
Stanford, CA 94305-2150
USA

(Tel:  650-723-4284; Fax:  650-723-5666)

E-mail inquiries should be directed to Professor Beth Levin,
the chair of the search committee, at bclevin at stanford.edu.

The Stanford Linguistics Department's web page is:
http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu.


From ward at BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU  Fri Oct 18 01:07:52 2002
From: ward at BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU (Gregory Ward)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:07:52 -0500
Subject: job
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.200752.0500.WARD@BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU>

Psycholinguistics or Computational Linguistics Position at Northwestern
University

The Department of Linguistics at Northwestern University has received
authorization to fill a tenure-line assistant professor position in
either psycholinguistics or computational linguistics with a start date
of September 1, 2003.  We are most interested in individuals whose
research focuses on the acquisition or processing of language by humans
or machines.  Preference will be given to those applicants whose
research interests mesh with those of the present faculty.  Although we
expect to hire at the rank of assistant professor, more senior
candidates will also be considered. Candidates must hold a Ph.D. in
linguistics, psychology, computer science, or other related field by the
start date.

To receive fullest consideration, applications should arrive in the
Department by December 1, 2002.  Please send a CV (indicating an e-mail
address), statements of research and teaching interests, reprints or
other written work, teaching evaluations (if available), and the names
of three references. Candidates should arrange to have the letters of
reference sent directly to the search committee.  Send all materials to:

Linguistics Search Committee
Department of Linguistics
Northwestern University
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208-4090 USA
(Tel: 847-491-7020, Fax: 847-491-3770)

E-mail inquiries should be directed to jlidz at northwestern.edu (our web
site can be found at: http://www.cas.northwestern.edu/linguistics).
Northwestern University is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action
Employer. Applications from minority and women candidates are especially
welcome. Hiring is contingent on eligibility to work in the United
States.


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Fri Oct 18 15:56:57 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:56:57 -0400
Subject: New Book: Hajicova et al.
Message-ID: <FRI.18.OCT.2002.115657.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

A new work of interest to functional linguists from John Benjamins Publishing
Thanks
Title: Prague Linguistic Circle Papers. Volume 4
Subtitle: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague nouvelle série
Series Title: Prague Linguistic Circle Papers / Travaux du cercle
               linguistique de Prague N.S.

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Editor: Eva Hajic^ová
Editor: Jirí Hana
Editor: Tomás^  Hoskovec
Editor: Petr  Sgall

Hardback: ISBN: 158811175X, Pages: viii, 376, Price: USD 113.00 (US & Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027254443, Pages: viii, 376, Price: EUR 125.00 (Rest of world)

Abstract:

The fourth volume of the revived series of "Travaux du Cercle
linguistique de Prague" brings three contributions (by J. Vachek,
O. Les^ka and V. Skalicka) connected with the classical period of the
Prague School, as well as papers delivered at the conference
"Function, Form, and Meaning: Bridges and Interfaces", held in Prague
in 1998. Some of the contributions concern issues of grammar of
different languages including a syntactic annotation of a large Czech
text corpus, a comparison of Hebrew conditionals with English, a
characterization of the typology of the Indo-European verb. A further
part focuses on topic-focus articulation (information sentence
structure, functional sentence perspective), with a concept of
"perspective" introduced as close to but distinct from "topic" and
with three different viewpoints on the semantics of information
structure. Two broader essays on the nature of language are then
presented, while the last section analyzes the structure of free
verse. The volume represents a contribution to the continuing fruitful
interaction between the work of the Prague School and the more and
less closely related approaches of linguists in other countries.

Table of Contents

Preface  vii
Section I: The Prague tradition in retrospect
Prolegomena to the history of the Prague School of Linguistics
      Josef Vachek  3
Anton Marty's philosophy of language
      Oldrich Les^ka  83
Die Typologie des Ungarischen
      Vladimír Skalicka  101
Section II: Grammar
Theoretical description of language as a basis of corpus annotation:
   The case of Prague Dependency Treebank
      Eva Hajicová  111
"Conditionals" in Hebrew and English: same or different?
      Yishai Tobin  129
Sur la paradigmatisation du verbe indo-européen
   (deuxième partie)
      Tomás^ Hoskovec  143
Section III: Topic - focus articulation
The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of
   Theme - Rheme structure reconsidered
      Vladimir Borschev and Barbara H. Partee  185
Synonymy vs. differentiation of variant syntactic realizations of FSP
   functions
      Libus^e Dus^ková  251
Topic - Focus articulation as generalized quantification
      Jaroslav Peregrin  263
Information structure and the partition of sentence meaning
      Klaus von Heusinger  275
Section IV: General views
Freedom of language: Its nature, its sources, and its consequences
      Petr Sgall  309
The natural order of cognitive events
      Philip A. Luelsdorff  331
Section V: Poetics
The principle of free verse
      Miroslav C^ervenka  365


Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





Paul Peranteau (paul at benjamins.com)
P O Box 27519                   Ph: 215 836-1200
Philadelphia PA 19118-0519      Fax: 215 836-1204
John Benjamins Publishing Co. website: http://www.benjamins.com


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Mon Oct 21 17:29:13 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:29:13 -0700
Subject: New Book: INFORMATION SHARING
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.102913.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

INFORMATION SHARING: REFERENCE AND PRESUPPOSITION IN LANGUAGE
GENERATION AND INTERPRETATION, Kees van Deemter (Information
Technology Research Institute) and Rodger Kibble (Goldsmiths
College), eds.;paper ISBN: 1-57586-404-5, $30.00, cloth ISBN:
1-57586-403-7, $75.00, 429pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

This book introduces the concept of information sharing as an area of
cognitive science. Information sharing is defined here as the process
by which speakers depend on `given' information (i.e., information
already shared with the hearer from previous communication) when they
convey `new' information   (i.e., information assumed to be new to
the hearer).  Information sharing is a key concept in linguistics and
philosophy, where it is related to notions like presupposition,
anaphora, focus, and indexicality.  It is also perceived as crucial
in various areas of language engineering because computer-based
processing of language and speech relies heavily on the computer's
ability to distinguish between given and new information.

Where previous work in information sharing is often fragmented
between different academic disciplines (in  particular, between
linguistics and computer science),  the present volume brings
together theoretical and  applied work, and it joins computational
contributions with papers based on an analysis of language corpora
and  on psycholinguistic experimentation. A remarkable number of the
contributions take a generation-oriented, rather than an
interpretation-oriented perspective, asking what is the most
appropriate verbal expression of an item  of information in a given
situation.

------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Mon Oct 21 17:37:50 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:37:50 -0700
Subject: New Book: SEMANTICS FOR DESCRIPTIONS
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.103750.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

SEMANTICS FOR DESCRIPTIONS: FROM LINGUISTICS TO COMPUTER SCIENCE,
Francois Rastier (National Center of Scientific Research, Marc
Cavazza (University of Teesside), and Anne Abeille (University of
Paris VII), eds.;  paper ISBN: 1-57586-352-9, $25.00, cloth ISBN:
1-57586-353-7, $65.00, 288 pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

In this multimedia age, text description raises the question of how
different perceptual modalities and different semiotic systems
actually interact. The semiotic paradigm could soon replace the
computational paradigm, especially as a means of modeling text
understanding. The field of automatic language processing has
encountered a number of difficulties because the semantic theories it
relies on do not take into account recent advances in linguistic
semantics. In particular, a text cannot be reduced to a string of
characters or to a series of instructions. Texts, which can even
encompass expert interviews and technical documents, are in fact
cultural objects. Interpreting them consequently requires a detailed
description of textual genres, communicative conditions, and the
language used. Where a positivist approach has proven unsuccessful, a
rational hermeneutics can offer more suitable descriptive methods
because it allows the theoretical and practical conditions of text
interpretation to be defined. It provides a methodological framework
capable of adapting corpus descriptions to the objectives of
applications. Drawing on the most recent studies, this
interdisciplinary work addresses itself as much to linguists as to
computer scientists. Its didactic format, along with the concrete
analyses it contains, also makes it accessible to students.

------------------------------


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Mon Oct 21 19:49:29 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:49:29 -0400
Subject: New title: Bybee & Noonan
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.154929.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjamins Publishing announces a new work relevant to functional
linguistics:


Title: Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse
Subtitle: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson
Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Author: Joan L. Bybee (University of New Mexico)
Author: Michael  Noonan (University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Hardback: ISBN: 1588111172, Pages: viii, 363 pp., Price: USD 100.00  (US &
Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027225850, Pages: viii, 363 pp., Price: EUR
110.00  (Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

The papers in this volume in honor of Sandra Annear Thompson deal with
complex sentences, an important topic in Thompson's career. The focus
of the contributions is on the ways in which the grammatical
properties of complex sentences are shaped by the communicative
context in which they are produced, an approach to grammatical
analysis that Thompson pioneered and developed in the course of her
distinguished career.


Table of Contents

Introduction
      Joan L. Bybee and Michael Noonan  vii - viii
Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative:
Consequences for the nature of constructions
      Joan L. Bybee  1 - 17
Participles in Tsez: An emergent word class?
      Bernard Comrie  19 - 30
Mini-grammars of some time-when expressions in English
      Charles J. Fillmore  31 - 59
Denial and the construction of conversational turns
      Cecilia E. Ford  61 - 78
On the embodied nature of grammar: Embodied being-in-the-world
      Barbara A. Fox  79 - 99
The symmetry of counterfactuals
      John Haiman and Tania A. Kuteva  101 - 124
Note on the grammar of Turkish nominalizations
      Pelin Engin Hennesy and T. Givón  125 - 144
Hendiadys and auxiliation in English
      Paul J. Hopper  145 - 173
"Sentence" in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse
      Shoichi Iwasaki and Tsuyoshi Ono  175 - 202
Some issues concerning the origin of language
      Charles N. Li  203 - 221
Are subordinate clauses more difficult?
      Carol Lord  223 - 233
Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view
      Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen  235 - 319
Overwrought utterances: "Complex sentences" in a different sense
      Emanuel A. Schegloff  321 - 336
Publications by Sandra A. Thompson  337 - 345
Name index  351 - 355
Subject index  357 - 363

Lingfield(s): Functional & Systemic Ling (Linguistic Theories)
               Linguistic Theories

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Mon Oct 21 20:05:48 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:05:48 -0400
Subject: New Book: Newman
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.160548.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjmains Publishing announces a new work of relevance to functional
linguistics


Title: The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying
Series Title: Typological Studies in Language 51

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Editor: John  Newman (Massey University)

Hardback: ISBN: 1588112047, Pages: xii, 409 pp., Price: USD 108.00 (US &
Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027229570, Pages: xii, 409 pp., Price: EUR 120.00
(Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

This volume explores properties of "sit", "stand", and "lie" verbs,
reflecting three of the most salient postures associated with
humans. An introductory chapter by the Editor provides an overview of
directions for research into posture verbs. These directions are then
explored in detail in a number of languages: Dutch; Korean; Japanese;
Lao; Chantyal, Magar (Tibeto-Burman); Chipewyan (Athapaskan); Trumai
(spoken in Brazil); Kxoe (Khoisan); Mbay (Nilo-Saharan); Oceanic;
Enga, Ku Waru (Papuan); Arrernte, Pitjantjatjara, Ngan'gityemerri
(Australian). The contributors discuss data relevant to many fields of
linguistic inquiry, including patterns of lexicalization (e.g.,
simplex or complex verb forms), morphology (e.g., state vs. action
formations), grammaticalization (e.g., extension to locational
predicates, aspect markers, auxiliaries, copulas, classifiers), and
figurative extension. A final chapter reports on an experimental
methodology designed to establish the relevant cognitive parameters
underlying speakers' judgements on the polysemy of English
stand. Taken together, the chapters provide a wealth of
cross-linguistic data on posture verbs.

Table of Contents

Preface  vii
1. A cross-linguistic overview of the posture verbs "sit", "stand",
    and "lie"
      John Newman  1
2. Semantics and combinatorics of "sit", "stand", and "lie" in Lao
      Nick J. Enfield  25
3. Action and state interpretations of "sit" in Japanese and English
      John Newman and Toshiko Yamaguchi  43
4. Posture and existence predicates in Dene Suline (Chipewyan):
    Lexical and semantic density as a function of the "stand"/"sit/"lie"
    continuum
      Sally Rice  61
5. Posture verbs in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal
      Michael Noonan and Karen Grunow-Harsta  79
6. The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs
      Maarten Lemmens  103
7. The syntax and semantics of posture forms in Trumai
      Raquel Guirardello-Damian  141
8. Men stand, women sit: On the grammaticalization of posture verbs in
    Papuan languages, its bodily basis and cultural correlates
      Alan L. Rumsey  179
9. Posture, location, existence, and states of being in two Central
    Australian languages
Cliff Goddard and Jean Harkins  213
10. Sit right down the back: Serialized posture verbs in
     Ngan'gityemerri and other Northern Australian languages
      Nicholas Reid  239
11. Posture verbs in Oceanic
      Frank Lichtenberk  269
12. The grammatical evolution of posture verbs in Kxoe
      Christa Kilian-Hatz  315
13. Posture verbs in Mbay
      John M. Keegan  333
14. The posture verbs in Korean: Basic and extended uses
      Jae Jung Song  359
15. Embodied standing and the psychological semantics of stand
      Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.  387
Index  401

Lingfield(s):  Linguistic Theories

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)




                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Thu Oct 24 09:24:59 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:24:59 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.112459.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Dear colleagues,
I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
"Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
Note (6) reads:
"This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
the idea of the unmarked or default order.
I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
there really no object initial languages?
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 n.chipere at READING.AC.UK  Thu Oct 24 10:25:39 2002
From: n.chipere at READING.AC.UK (Ngoni Chipere)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:25:39 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.112539.0100.N.CHIPERE@READING.AC.UK>

Dear Ron,

My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
variations in word order. It's quite possible to have

VOS
e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
       He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

OSV
e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
        Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

OVS
e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
      Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.

best,

Ngoni

*********************************************************
Dr Ngoni Chipere
Research Fellow
School of Education, University of Reading
Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943


> Dear colleagues,
> I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> Note (6) reads:
> "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> there really no object initial languages?
> Thanks
> Roni
> ====================================
>                  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 hstahlke at BSU.EDU  Thu Oct 24 18:32:29 2002
From: hstahlke at BSU.EDU (Stahlke, Herbert F.W.)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:32:29 -0500
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.133229.0500.HSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU>

Dear Ngoni,

Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
        Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
        To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
        Cc:
        Subject: Re: Object-initial languages



        Dear Ron,

        My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
        variations in word order. It's quite possible to have

        VOS
        e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
               He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

        OSV
        e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
                Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

        OVS
        e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
              Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.

        best,

        Ngoni

        *********************************************************
        Dr Ngoni Chipere
        Research Fellow
        School of Education, University of Reading
        Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
        tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943


        > Dear colleagues,
        > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
        > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
        > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
        > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
        > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
        > Note (6) reads:
        > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
        > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
        > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
        > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
        > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
        > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
        > there really no object initial languages?
        > Thanks
        > Roni
        > ====================================
        >                  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 dgolumbi at PANIX.COM  Thu Oct 24 18:56:05 2002
From: dgolumbi at PANIX.COM (David Golumbia)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:56:05 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021024110528.3C19.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il> from "Ron Kuzar"
 at Oct 24, 2002 11:24:59 AM
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.145605.0400.DGOLUMBI@PANIX.COM>

For a functional perspective, the most detailed treatment of O** orders
is found in the work of Matthew Dryer - see the references at

http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/dryer.htm

a couple of the downloadable .pdf papers there are applicable (see the
1996 "Word Order Typology"), but as far as I know the most direct comments
are in "On the 6-Way Word Order Typology," _Studies in Language_ 21 (1997),
and "SVO Languages and the OV/VO Typology," _Journal of Linguistics_ 27
(1991) (see above page for full references and others).

I expect that Dr. Dryer will see this exchange eventually and may have
more to add himself.

DG

>
> Dear colleagues,
> I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> Note (6) reads:
> "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> there really no object initial languages?
> Thanks
> Roni
> ====================================
>                  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
> ====================================
>


--
dgolumbi at panix.com
David Golumbia


From nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Thu Oct 24 19:26:24 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:24 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.122624.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

For what it's worth ...

    Sometimes I wonder why OVS languages aren't common.  In free word order
languages, such as those I work with (Sahaptian), OV and VS orders are quite
common ... as might be predicted on universal pragmatic principles (e.g.,
Doris Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, TSL 22, 1992).
Probably the rarety of syntacticised OVS has been accounted for, but I'd be
interested in a brief fill in if possible.

    Noel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kuzar" <kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:24 AM
Subject: Object-initial languages


Dear colleagues,
I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
"Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
Note (6) reads:
"This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
the idea of the unmarked or default order.
I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
there really no object initial languages?
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU  Thu Oct 24 22:45:06 2002
From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:45:06 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <F2259C34D637F048841A4AF1650B52F5328D14@EMAIL7.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.154506.0700.SPIKE@DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>

I am nervous at the suggestion that the subordinate clause word order
be considered a default for typing an entire language.  In general, I
am not sure that I believe in generalizations about a language's
"default order" that can extend across various constructions, which
individually show different ordering principles.  And while it might
be instructive for internal reconstruction of syntax to look at the
other aspects of word order typology in any given language, it
defeats the purpose when you go to a new language to test the
reliability of the published correlations from word order typology
and then you consider the orders of the things you want to correlate
as possible evidence to point you towards determining the "basic"
order (that is, the thing you want to then correlate the other orders
to).  If we want to correlate "basic" order order in independent
clauses with all the other orders, then we need to determine that
basic order independently.

And that's not always easy to do.  For instance, in the Cariban
language family, subordinate clause word order is more conservative
(in a historical sense) than main clause word order, but the
independent clauses in various individual languages seem to be
organized according to different syntactic principles, such that in a
single language different clause types (with different historical
origins) display distinct "default", or most frequent orders,
including OVS, Abs-V-Erg, SOV, SVO, and "free" (pragmatically
determined) order.


Spike



>Dear Ngoni,
>
>Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit
>a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate
>clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does
>Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial
>subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology
>manifest themselves in Shona?
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Ball State University
>


From nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Thu Oct 24 23:24:42 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:24:42 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.162442.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

Still ... let's keep in mind that because languages do differ such that at
one extreme are "free" word order lgs (with pragmatic function ... in
Sahaptian A is never distinguished from O by word order) and at the other
extreme are lgs that do exploit word order in coding grammatical relations.
I am not so sure that there is such a thing as "default" order in Sahaptian,
but in other lgs ... for ex., in VS lgs which require extra morphology for
SV ... I think you can.  It can be done via morphological (and intonational)
markedness.  Also one might describe a basic word order in languages with
variant word orders depending on voice (and/or aspect) if he is willing to
grant a basic clause type (active, perfective, main clause ... as in our
functionalist tradition).

Noel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spike Gildea" <spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


I am nervous at the suggestion that the subordinate clause word order
be considered a default for typing an entire language.  In general, I
am not sure that I believe in generalizations about a language's
"default order" that can extend across various constructions, which
individually show different ordering principles.  And while it might
be instructive for internal reconstruction of syntax to look at the
other aspects of word order typology in any given language, it
defeats the purpose when you go to a new language to test the
reliability of the published correlations from word order typology
and then you consider the orders of the things you want to correlate
as possible evidence to point you towards determining the "basic"
order (that is, the thing you want to then correlate the other orders
to).  If we want to correlate "basic" order order in independent
clauses with all the other orders, then we need to determine that
basic order independently.

And that's not always easy to do.  For instance, in the Cariban
language family, subordinate clause word order is more conservative
(in a historical sense) than main clause word order, but the
independent clauses in various individual languages seem to be
organized according to different syntactic principles, such that in a
single language different clause types (with different historical
origins) display distinct "default", or most frequent orders,
including OVS, Abs-V-Erg, SOV, SVO, and "free" (pragmatically
determined) order.


Spike



>Dear Ngoni,
>
>Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit
>a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate
>clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does
>Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial
>subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology
>manifest themselves in Shona?
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Ball State University
>


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Fri Oct 25 08:19:27 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:19:27 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.101927.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Thanks to all those who have answered both on Funknet and privately.
Clearly, the notion of default order is slippery. So let me reformulate
and narrow down my question: the word order that I am interested in is
the one used for narrating a story.
Have a look at the following English excerpt taken from the Brown corpus.
I have put the narrative sentences which form the skeleton of the story
in square brackets.

N12 0570  3       [Curt moved over beside the door and waited].
[Presently
N12 0580  1    he heard footsteps crossing the yard, and Jess's smothered
N12 0580 10    curses]. [The door swung open], and [Jess said sourly],
N12 0590  9    "What the hell's the matter with you?"
N12 0600  5       [The horse continued to snort]. [Curt doubted that
N12 0610  4    any animal belonging to Jess would find much reassurance
N12 0620  1    in its owner's voice.]
N12 0620  5       [Jess cursed again, and entered the barn]. [A match
N12 0630  5    flared], and [he reached above his head to light a
lantern
N12 0640  1    which hung from a wire loop]. As he crossed to the side
N12 0640 13    of the stall, [Curt drew his gun and clicked back the
N12 0650 10    hammer.]
N12 0650 11       "Before you try anything", [he said]. "Remember what
N12 0660  8    happened to Gruller".
N12 0670  1       [Jess caught his breath in surprise]. [He started to
N12 0670 10    reach for his gun], but apparently thought better of
N12 0680  9    it.
N12 0680 10       "That's the stuff", [Curt said]. "Just hold it that
N12 0690  9    way". [He reached out to pull the door shut and fasten
N12 0700  8    it with a sliding bolt]. "You and I have a little talking
N12 0710  6    to do, Jess. You won't be needing this". [He moved up
N12 0720  4    and lifted Jess's pistol out of its holster.]

The kind of English employed here has a rather sweeping SV order. In
other English styles "a match flared" may be rendered as "there flared a
match" and "Curt said" could be "said Curt". Modern Hebrew may also have
inversion of SV to VS after initial adjuncts, to mark a higher register.
In VS languages (in the same narrow sense) such as Biblical Hebrew and
Written Standard Arabic, most of these sentences would have VS order.
In sum, we obviously have languages with subject-initial and
verb-initial narrative styles.
My question is: are there languages in which these sentences - or many
or most of them - would be in an object-initial order?
I hope the question is clearer now.
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 hancock at CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU  Fri Oct 25 12:57:37 2002
From: hancock at CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU (Craig Hancock)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:57:37 -0400
Subject: Object-initial Languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.085737.0400.HANCOCK@CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU>

This isn't an answer to Ron's fine and thoughtful question, but I'm
wondering if I'm right in assuming that object initial order in English
is highly thematic, highly marked.  Her husband, I like; her, I can't
stand.  This example  also  moves the verb phrases into clause ending
prominence.  The highly given pronoun subjects are diminished.  Am I on
track?

Craig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/5680833a/attachment.html>

From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK  Fri Oct 25 13:08:11 2002
From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:08:11 +0100
Subject: Object-initial Languages
In-Reply-To: <3DB93FC1.F7E1B8DB@cnsunix.albany.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.140811.0100.DAN.EVERETT@MAN.AC.UK>

Folks,

Like Spike, I share concerns about using subordinate clauses
as a guideline for determining 'basic word order'. In fact, I am not in
favor of using guidelines like this at all, except as a posteriori
illustrations.

I suggest that we be a bit more Sapirian in our approach to these matters
and not allow ourselves to be misled by superficial similarities. The
following points might be worth bearing in mind:

1. In almost all languages, 'word order' is a misnomer for 'constituent
order'. What kinds of constituents are we talking about for a given
language? How did we arrive at this inventory of constituents? What
assumptions underly this inventory?

2. The term 'basic' has no status in linguistic theories. And as soon as
we attempt to make it more precise, we immediately expose the vast
differences between approaches and what one or the other will consider to
be subsumed by the informal term, 'basic'. For example, are we talking
about 'underlying'? 'input'? 'unmarked' in elicitation? 'unmarked' in
discourse? most frequent? etc. Comparing these terms (e.g. most frequent
vs. underlying) is likely to be unfruitful, falling into what Popper
called 'essentialism'.

3. Some theories (e.g. RRG) assert that there are no such things as
universally applicable grammatical relations. For such theories
classifying languages as SOV, VOS, etc. is always going to be misleading.

4. Languages should first be described carefully before they are plundered
for theoretical points. Does each language in a survey have a well-argued,
detailed grammar? What kind of field experience was that grammar based on?
What kind of corpus?

I suspect that most on this list already agree with most of what I just
said. Perhaps it is useful, though, to remind ourselves of such things
from time to time.

Best,

Dan Everett



**************************************************************

Daniel L. Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, UK
M13 9PL
dan.everett at man.ac.uk
44-161-275-3158


From ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU  Fri Oct 25 13:41:10 2002
From: ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Paul Hopper)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:41:10 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021025090628.818D.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.094110.0400.PH1U@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>

Ron Kuzar's reformulation of his question seems to bring us back full
circle to a body of literature on the subject of discourse and word order
that was around in the 1970s and 1980s, and that included such issues as
foregrounding/backgrounding, transitivity, topic continuity, default word
order, thematicity, and so on.  These studies usually took narrative as the
prime genre and assumed that conclusions based on continuous monologic
narrative would count as generally valid. Many of these conclusions had to
be revised when conversational data were introduced. Desmond Derbyshire's
work on Hixkaryana in the 1970s (championed by Geoff Pullum) discussed in
detail both clause and discourse aspects of OVS languages. John Myhill, of
the University of Haifa, did important studies of the alternation of VS and
SV in languages like Hebrew. The bibliography on all these issues of the
pragmatics of word order is quite large.

Paul Hopper

---------------------------
Paul Hopper
Thomas S. Baker Professor of English and Linguistics
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Telephone (412) 268-7174
Fax (412) 268-7989



--On Friday, October 25, 2002 10:19 AM +0200 Ron Kuzar
<kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il> wrote:

Thanks to all those who have answered both on Funknet and privately.
Clearly, the notion of default order is slippery. So let me reformulate
and narrow down my question: the word order that I am interested in is
the one used for narrating a story.
Have a look at the following English excerpt taken from the Brown corpus.
I have put the narrative sentences which form the skeleton of the story
in square brackets.

N12 0570  3       [Curt moved over beside the door and waited].
[Presently
N12 0580  1    he heard footsteps crossing the yard, and Jess's smothered
N12 0580 10    curses]. [The door swung open], and [Jess said sourly],
N12 0590  9    "What the hell's the matter with you?"
N12 0600  5       [The horse continued to snort]. [Curt doubted that
N12 0610  4    any animal belonging to Jess would find much reassurance
N12 0620  1    in its owner's voice.]
N12 0620  5       [Jess cursed again, and entered the barn]. [A match
N12 0630  5    flared], and [he reached above his head to light a
lantern
N12 0640  1    which hung from a wire loop]. As he crossed to the side
N12 0640 13    of the stall, [Curt drew his gun and clicked back the
N12 0650 10    hammer.]
N12 0650 11       "Before you try anything", [he said]. "Remember what
N12 0660  8    happened to Gruller".
N12 0670  1       [Jess caught his breath in surprise]. [He started to
N12 0670 10    reach for his gun], but apparently thought better of
N12 0680  9    it.
N12 0680 10       "That's the stuff", [Curt said]. "Just hold it that
N12 0690  9    way". [He reached out to pull the door shut and fasten
N12 0700  8    it with a sliding bolt]. "You and I have a little talking
N12 0710  6    to do, Jess. You won't be needing this". [He moved up
N12 0720  4    and lifted Jess's pistol out of its holster.]

The kind of English employed here has a rather sweeping SV order. In
other English styles "a match flared" may be rendered as "there flared a
match" and "Curt said" could be "said Curt". Modern Hebrew may also have
inversion of SV to VS after initial adjuncts, to mark a higher register.
In VS languages (in the same narrow sense) such as Biblical Hebrew and
Written Standard Arabic, most of these sentences would have VS order.
In sum, we obviously have languages with subject-initial and
verb-initial narrative styles.
My question is: are there languages in which these sentences - or many
or most of them - would be in an object-initial order?
I hope the question is clearer now.
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                  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 n.chipere at READING.AC.UK  Fri Oct 25 14:20:39 2002
From: n.chipere at READING.AC.UK (Ngoni Chipere)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:20:39 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.152039.0100.N.CHIPERE@READING.AC.UK>

Herb,

In answer to your question, word order variation does seem much more
constrained in subordinate clauses, at least as far as I can trust my
intuition. The main word order in subordinate clauses seems to be SVO, which
is also the main word order in main clauses - though I suspect my intuition
is heavily influenced by the sorts of sentences that I encountered in
children's books while learning to read! I haven't studied language typology
so I can't answer your second question intelligently, unless you ask me
about specific features.

I don't have any theoretical interest in this thread, by the way, though,
from a purely methodological point of view, I fully agree with Dan that
corpus data should be used to eliminate the subjective element as much as
possible in making linguistic generalisations (this is not a comment on
anything you said, Herb). I look forward to the day when linguistics is a
science, as opposed to a discipline which fondly likes to think it's one!

best,

Ngoni


> Dear Ngoni,
>
> Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a
default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where
there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same
flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do
other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?
>
> Herb Stahlke
> Ball State University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
> Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
> To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Object-initial languages
>
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
> variations in word order. It's quite possible to have
>
> VOS
> e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
>        He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OSV
> e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
>         Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OVS
> e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
>       Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.
>
> best,
>
> Ngoni
>
> *********************************************************
> Dr Ngoni Chipere
> Research Fellow
> School of Education, University of Reading
> Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
> tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> > Note (6) reads:
> > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> > there really no object initial languages?
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> > ====================================
> >                  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 oesten at LING.SU.SE  Fri Oct 25 15:14:26 2002
From: oesten at LING.SU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:14:26 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.171426.0200.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

Joining Spike in being nervous at "the suggestion that the subordinate
clause word order be considered a default for typing an entire
language", here are some considerations that have worried me for quite
some time:

In all Germanic languages that I know of, a simple sentence such as "I
love you" has SVO word order. Still, the majority opinion seems to be
that whereas English and Scandinavian do have basic SVO word order, the
continental Germanic languages are really SOV, the order in subordinate
clauses being decisive. Similarly, in Standard Mainland Scandinavian,
negation and various other elements follow the finite verb in main
clauses and precede it in subordinate clauses. So syntacticians tend to
declare the latter order basic. But subordinate clauses are both less
frequent and acquired much later than simple main clauses. One wonders
if there isn't something fundamentally wrong with linguists' assumptions
about "basicness" and "markedness". Clearly, subordinate clauses are
more rigid with respect to word order, and this has something to do with
"degree of grammaticalization", which in turn has to do with historical
processes that fix the word order in constructions. But the result of
such processes may not necessarily be "basic" in the language in any
sense.

Östen Dahl


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Fri Oct 25 15:20:02 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:20:02 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <451752314.1035538870@GROATS-3-50.PPP.andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.172002.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Dear Paul,
There is no reason to formulate a condescending answer. You could
imagine that I am aware of the complexities of non-narrative and
non-monologic text modes. I could still be entitled to believe that
monologic narrative style is - after all - central in human experience
and in language. I also didn't ask for VS literature, and I am quite aware
of the writings of my next-door neighbor Myhill. But all that aside, all
I wish to know is whether there are object-initial component orders for
the type of sentences in the type of style that I presented in my
previous message. And if at this particular position the term object
needs to be problematized, I would like to hear about that.
I am sorry I have hastily called this "the default order". I stand
corrected on this point.
Roni
====================================
                 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 nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Fri Oct 25 15:36:13 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:36:13 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.083613.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

Ah ... science ... yes but there're two ways to qualify: methodologically or
by association.  And so the Many Worlders and the tellers of Darwinian
just-so stories qualify because of their association with disciplines where
rigor resides, whereas historians and linguists (and others) who might
formulate risky hypotheses and test with real data don't qualify when
methodology doesn't count.

Noel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ngoni Chipere" <n.chipere at READING.AC.UK>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


Herb,

In answer to your question, word order variation does seem much more
constrained in subordinate clauses, at least as far as I can trust my
intuition. The main word order in subordinate clauses seems to be SVO, which
is also the main word order in main clauses - though I suspect my intuition
is heavily influenced by the sorts of sentences that I encountered in
children's books while learning to read! I haven't studied language typology
so I can't answer your second question intelligently, unless you ask me
about specific features.

I don't have any theoretical interest in this thread, by the way, though,
from a purely methodological point of view, I fully agree with Dan that
corpus data should be used to eliminate the subjective element as much as
possible in making linguistic generalisations (this is not a comment on
anything you said, Herb). I look forward to the day when linguistics is a
science, as opposed to a discipline which fondly likes to think it's one!

best,

Ngoni


> Dear Ngoni,
>
> Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a
default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where
there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same
flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do
other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?
>
> Herb Stahlke
> Ball State University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
> Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
> To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Object-initial languages
>
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
> variations in word order. It's quite possible to have
>
> VOS
> e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
>        He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OSV
> e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
>         Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OVS
> e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
>       Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.
>
> best,
>
> Ngoni
>
> *********************************************************
> Dr Ngoni Chipere
> Research Fellow
> School of Education, University of Reading
> Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
> tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> > Note (6) reads:
> > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> > there really no object initial languages?
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> > ====================================
> >                  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 ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU  Fri Oct 25 16:05:45 2002
From: ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Ellen F. Prince)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:05:45 EDT
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.120545.EDT.ELLEN@CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU>

Just a note to Oesten: It's not just the facts of subordinate clauses
that leads one to posit a basic SOV word order for German and Dutch --
it's also main clause facts. If you consider a sentence with a
complex verb or a compound tense, you'll see that the order is
quite clearly SOV, except that the finite part is in 2nd position.
Alas, I don't know German or Dutch, but it would be something like
this:       John has the bread up-eaten.

Furthermore, while subordinate clauses are generally acquired later
than main clauses, it appears that German-acquiring children use SOV
order until they acquire tense. (I don't have the reference handy but
I bet someone here does.) That seems to me a compelling bit of
evidence that SOV is not just 'subordinate' word order in German but
something more basic.

And one final nit-picking point: Yiddish is a continental Germanic
language that is SVO (and with the Verb-Second constraint extended to
subordinate clauses, like Icelandic). :-)

Ellen



------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:14:26 +0200
From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?= <oesten at LING.SU.SE>
To:      FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages

Joining Spike in being nervous at "the suggestion that the subordinate
clause word order be considered a default for typing an entire
language", here are some considerations that have worried me for quite
some time:

In all Germanic languages that I know of, a simple sentence such as "I
love you" has SVO word order. Still, the majority opinion seems to be
that whereas English and Scandinavian do have basic SVO word order, the
continental Germanic languages are really SOV, the order in subordinate
clauses being decisive. Similarly, in Standard Mainland Scandinavian,
negation and various other elements follow the finite verb in main
clauses and precede it in subordinate clauses. So syntacticians tend to
declare the latter order basic. But subordinate clauses are both less
frequent and acquired much later than simple main clauses. One wonders
if there isn't something fundamentally wrong with linguists' assumptions
about "basicness" and "markedness". Clearly, subordinate clauses are
more rigid with respect to word order, and this has something to do with
"degree of grammaticalization", which in turn has to do with historical
processes that fix the word order in constructions. But the result of
such processes may not necessarily be "basic" in the language in any
sense.

�sten Dahl

------- End of Forwarded Message


From hartmut at RUC.DK  Fri Oct 25 16:28:02 2002
From: hartmut at RUC.DK (Hartmut Haberland)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:28:02 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.182802.0200.HARTMUT@RUC.DK>

I think Östen is right that we have to consider our notions of basicness
and markedness. An example I never had thought of but which I came
across in my teaching recently:

Languages like German, Danish, Swedish have a class of verbs that have
strong past tense endings in the present tense (modal verbs & the verb
"to know"), like

German     ich weiß 'I know' (same ending as ich kam 'I came', not as
ich sag-e 'I say')
Danish       jeg ved (same meaning) (as jeg kom, not as jeg sig-er), etc.

Now the usual explanation is: these verbs are really old IE perfects
that have acquired a present meaning (cf. Latin novi and Classical Greek
oida). Thus they are called preteritopresents.

But what is basic and what is marked here? I don't know of any relevant
studies of language acquisition, but I'd guess that children acquire ich
weiß before they acquire strong pasts. So maybe the past tenses of
strong verbs are modelled after the alternative present of these verbs.

Another case are languages like Modern Greek, where VS, VO, VSO, VOS,
VAdv etc. are very common constituent order patterns, and statistically
probably more frequent than SVO (Greek is pro-drop, of course). Also, OV
or OVS are very common if the object is co-indexed on the verb with a
clitic pronoun (some call it an agglutinative object marker). Still,
many people would maintain that Greek is SVO, simply because they assume
that some order must be basic. But what are the arguments for this? Does
Greek have to have a basic constituent order?

Hartmut Haberland


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/19be9a9c/attachment.html>

From macw at CMU.EDU  Fri Oct 25 17:49:31 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:49:31 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <200210251605.g9PG5ja1023671@central.cis.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.134931.0400.MACW@CMU.EDU>

On 10/25/02 12:05 PM, "Ellen F. Prince" <ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU> wrote:

> Furthermore, while subordinate clauses are generally acquired later
> than main clauses, it appears that German-acquiring children use SOV
> order until they acquire tense. (I don't have the reference handy but
> I bet someone here does.) That seems to me a compelling bit of
> evidence that SOV is not just 'subordinate' word order in German but
> something more basic.
>

The claim that German children begin with SOV order, which was proposed at
about the same time in the late 1970s by Clahsen and by Park, is based
largely on sentences with either SV or OV order and seldom both.  There are
virtually no sentences in the earliest corpora with full SOV order.  Meisel
and Pienemann linked these SOV analyses to parallel analyses for L2 German,
but with similar interpretive problems.  Peter Jordens reviewed these claims
critically about 1990 pointing to the various flaws in the analyses.
Despite the clarity of Jordens arguments, workers in German child language
continue to accept the notion that children begin with SOV.  I can only
assume that they do so because of other theoretical commitments and not
because of the superficial pattern of the data.

My own interpretation of this literature and the relevant data is that
German children start with a competition between fragmentary SV, OV, and VO
item-based constructions.  (VS is rare, and VO seems to arise from
imperatives.)  They then use these during the third year to develop SVO
templates when the main verb is tensed and SOV templates when it is not.
Relative clauses, of course, come in much later and it would seem strange to
me to argue that they would be the basis of learning of these central main
clause patterns.

--Brian MacWhinney

P.S.  I'm still hoping that someone will take a plunge and try to answer
Ron's question.


From wsmith at CSUSB.EDU  Sat Oct 26 01:04:22 2002
From: wsmith at CSUSB.EDU (Wendy Smith)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:04:22 -0700
Subject: positiion announcement: assistant professor of
 Linguistics/Applied Linguistics
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.180422.0700.WSMITH@CSUSB.EDU>

Please Post and Disseminate:


Assistant Professor of English (Applied Linguistics/TESL)
California State University, San Bernardino
Department of English, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407

We expect to hire a tenure-track, assistant professor in applied linguistics, effective Fall 2003. Fields of specialization are open, but preference will be given to ESL testing and assessment, child language acquisition, ESL listening and speaking, corpus linguistics or a comparable area. We are seeking a colleague to teach a variety of undergraduate and M.A.-level courses in linguistics and TESL. He/she may also be asked to teach undergraduate ESL composition. Ph.D. required. Normal teaching load is three classes per quarter. Starting salaries are nationally competitive and commensurate with qualification and experience. Please send a letter and vita by November 12 to Philip Page, Chair, English Department, California State University, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407. California State University is an equal opportunity employer committed to a diversified workforce.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/f10437c1/attachment.html>

From ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU  Sat Oct 26 18:37:38 2002
From: ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Ellen F. Prince)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:37:38 EDT
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <SAT.26.OCT.2002.143738.EDT.ELLEN@CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU>

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:49:31 -0400
From:    Brian MacWhinney <macw at cmu.edu>
To:      <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
cc:      "Ellen F. Prince" <ellen at central.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages

The claim that German children begin with SOV order, which was proposed at
about the same time in the late 1970s by Clahsen and by Park, is based
largely on sentences with either SV or OV order and seldom both.  There are
virtually no sentences in the earliest corpora with full SOV order.  Meisel
and Pienemann linked these SOV analyses to parallel analyses for L2 German,
but with similar interpretive problems.  Peter Jordens reviewed these claims
critically about 1990 pointing to the various flaws in the analyses.
Despite the clarity of Jordens arguments, workers in German child language
continue to accept the notion that children begin with SOV.  I can only
assume that they do so because of other theoretical commitments and not
because of the superficial pattern of the data.

My own interpretation of this literature and the relevant data is that
German children start with a competition between fragmentary SV, OV, and VO
item-based constructions.  (VS is rare, and VO seems to arise from
imperatives.)  They then use these during the third year to develop SVO
templates when the main verb is tensed and SOV templates when it is not.
Relative clauses, of course, come in much later and it would seem strange to
me to argue that they would be the basis of learning of these central main
clause patterns.

- --Brian MacWhinney

P.S.  I'm still hoping that someone will take a plunge and try to answer
Ron's question.

------- End of Forwarded Message

Um, Brian -- your second paragraph seems to indicate that you too assume
that OV order comes first and that general declarative Verb-Second
(masquerading as SVO when the lexical verb and the tense are both simple)
doesn't set in until the acquisition of tense. Or am I missing something?

Btw, I don't know of ANYONE saying that relative clauses are the
source of children's SOV order. What the syntacticians say is that
relative clause do not undergo the Verb-Second Constraint and thus
the basic SOV order is transparent in them.

Ellen


From langconf at BU.EDU  Sun Oct 27 20:03:14 2002
From: langconf at BU.EDU (Boston University Conference on Language Development)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:03:14 -0500
Subject: Boston University Conference on Language Development
Message-ID: <SUN.27.OCT.2002.150314.0500.LANGCONF@BU.EDU>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *

F  I  N  A   L    A  N  N  O  U  N  C   E  M  E  N  T

27TH ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE
ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
November 1, 2 and 3, 2002

We are  pleased to announce the final schedule for the 27th Annual Boston
University  Conference on Language Development. We also wish to highlight
the keynote and  plenary addresses, the lunchtime symposium, and the special
funding and BUCLD business sessions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *
Special Session: BUCLD Business Meeting

This presentation will include information on how papers are selected for
BUCLD and will give statistics on what kinds of papers have been received
and selected in the last two years.

Speaker:  Shanley Allen

Friday, November 1st,  12:45PM
Box lunches will be available at the reception desk for $6.75

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *
Special Session: Federal funding: What's hot and how to apply

Speakers: Peggy McCardle (NIH), Marita Hopmann (NIH) and Cecile McKee  (NSF)

Saturday, November 2nd, 8:00AM

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * *
Lunchtime Symposium: The role of input in the acquisition of signed
languages

Speakers:  Rachel Mayberry, Elena Pizzuto, Bencie Woll

Saturday, November 2nd, 12:45PM
Box lunches will be available at the reception desk for $6.75

*  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Keynote Speaker: Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago

The resilience of language

Friday, November 1st, 8:00PM

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *
Plenary Speaker: Bonnie Schwartz, University of Hawai'i

Child L2 Acquisition: Paving the way

Saturday, November 2nd, 5:30PM

* * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full conference program  as well as general and travel information are
available on our web page  at

http://web.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/

Please  feel free to contact the Conference Office at (617) 353-3085, or
e-mail at langconf at bu.edu if you have any  questions.

Sincerely,

Barbara Beachley, Amanda Brown, and Frances Conlin
BUCLD 2002 Conference Organizers


From oesten at LING.SU.SE  Mon Oct 28 10:28:50 2002
From: oesten at LING.SU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:28:50 +0100
Subject: Object-iniital languages
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.112850.0100.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

In my previous posting, I somewhat rashly made the final position of the
verb in subordinate clauses the main argument for SOV as the basic word
order of Continental Germanic (should be Continental Germanic minus
Yiddish, as Ellen points out), neglecting OV order when V is non-tensed
(non-finite). The question is now if early cases of OV order in German
(and Dutch) child language should be seen as evidence that this order is
in some sense basic. A German child meets main clause word orders such
as the following:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject Auxiliary OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

If we suppose that the child reproduces these templates preserving word
order but deleting auxiliaries we get:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

Now, for a child who has not figured out the distinction between tensed
and non-tensed verb forms, this would look like two variants of the same
template. S/he could thus settle on one alternative, or use both of
them. If the OV order is preferred, this may depend on various factors.
It is of course also possible that the child does make a distinction
between the two templates even in the absence of an auxiliary. What
ought to be crucial for the basic OV hypothesis is how strong the
tendency is – in particular, how far it is extended. Does it influence
word order also after the acquisition of auxiliaries and/or the
emergence of the tensed/non-tensed distinction? It seems a little
implausible to me that German kids go around saying things like “Ich
krank bin”. Data about the development of verb-negation order in Swedish
child language (that Christer Platzack has reminded me of in an off-list
message – the interpretation is mine, though) suggest that it is hard to
find examples that do not follow adult word order, if one allows for the
omission of auxiliaries. 

But maybe Brian can tell us more about this.

 

- Östen Dahl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021028/fa855709/attachment.html>

From dryer at BUFFALO.EDU  Mon Oct 28 15:10:10 2002
From: dryer at BUFFALO.EDU (Matthew S Dryer)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:10:10 -0500
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021024110528.3C19.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il>
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.101010.0500.DRYER@BUFFALO.EDU>

My typological database codes 10 languages as having object-initial order
as the dominant order in clauses containing a nominal subject and a
nominal object.

Six of these are OVS:

Pari (Nilotic; Sudan)
Mangarayi (non-Pama-Nyungan; northern Australia)
Ungarinjin (non-Pama-Nyungan; northern Australia)
Selknam (Tierra del Fuego)
Asurini (Tupi-Guarani; Brazil)
Hixkaryana (Cariban; Brazil)

Four are OSV:

Tobati (Austronesian; West Papua (formerly Irian Jaya))
Wik Ngathana (Pama-Nyungan; north Queensland)
Warao (Venezuela)
Nadeb (Brazil)

A further relevant reference is

Tomlin, Russell.  1986.  Basic Word Order: Functional Principles.  London:
Croom Helm.

Matthew Dryer


From macw at CMU.EDU  Tue Oct 29 00:11:06 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:11:06 -0500
Subject: Object-iniital languages
In-Reply-To: <002701c27e6c$ce65eff0$50abed82@w2k.ling.su.se>
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.191106.0500.MACW@CMU.EDU>

Dear Östen,

  I have never seen a sentence like "Ich krank bin" in any of the German
child corpora in CHILDES.  I agree with you that it is difficult in general
to find German child language sentences that cannot be matched to some adult
word order, if one allows for omissions, which are typically possible even
for adults, although at a lower frequency.  What we see mostly in German
child language are lots of SV units, and a distinctly smaller number of VS,
OV and VO units.  Full combinations into SVO or SOV are absent at first and
rare for quite awhile.
  However, arguments based on the child's productions, although empirically
well grounded, may be making a fundamental error.  After all, the child is
spending a lot of time listening to sentences before speaking and it is
likely that she/he picks up a fuller word order in comprehension before it
is demonstrated in production.  This pushes the issue back a few more months
and makes it harder to verify exactly what the child is doing.
  Is the child picking up a set of templates, elaborating item-based
patterns, or selecting values on parameters?  The fact that there are so few
cases of what one could honestly call a word order error in early production
suggests that this earlier comprehension-based tuning works out pretty well.
Thus it is likely that the distinction between SVO and SOV in German is
already in place by the time of the first utterances.  But does this mean
that the child has discovered the "basic word order".  I don't see why one
would argue that.  Rather, simply that the child is doing a good job of
controlling the two major options and their secondary realizations first in
comprehension and then in production.

--Brian


From lieven at EVA.MPG.DE  Tue Oct 29 11:07:34 2002
From: lieven at EVA.MPG.DE (Elena Lieven)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:07:34 +0100
Subject: postdoc positions available
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.120734.0100.LIEVEN@EVA.MPG.DE>

The Department of Develomental and Comparative Psychology at the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has two postdoc positions

in Child Language Development available.

elena lieven


POSTDOCTORAL POSITION AVAILABLE - Leipzig

The Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology of the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has a postdoctoral
position with funding available for 2 years from January, 2003 or soon
thereafter.

The successful candidate will be expected to contribute to a working
group investigating various aspects of first language acquisition from a

crosslinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective.  The group is headed
by Michael Tomasello and Elena Lieven.  Ongoing research is conducted
both through experiments and the analysis of rich databases and focuses
on the cognitive and pragmatic bases of language; the development of
syntactic constructions; and the roles of frequency and entrenchment in
that development.

We are particularly looking for someone capable of working in both
German and English language development.

Requirements for the position: (a) PhD by the starting date; and (b)
research experience in first language acquisition, cognitive/functional
linguistics and/or corpus linguistics.   Salary will be according to
BAT.

Informal enquiries, requests for further particulars and applications
may be sent by mail, email or fax to:
Henriette Zeidler,
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Inselstrasse 22-26; D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
E-mail: zeidler at eva.mpg.de
Fax: 0049 341 99-52-119

Interested candidates should send a CV, reprints, and the names of 3
referees.

The deadline for applications is November 18th 2002, with a decision to
be made as soon as possible after that.

------------------------

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
MAX PLANCK CHILD STUDY CENTRE

RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
(Ref. no. 1009/02)

A postdoctoral position is being offered in the Max Planck Child Study
Centre in the Department of Psychology funded for 2 years from January,
2003 or soon thereafter.  Funding is provided by The Department of
Developmental and Comparative Psychology of the Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.

The successful candidate will be expected to contribute to a working
group investigating various aspects of first language acquisition from a

crosslinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective.  The group is headed
by Michael Tomasello and Elena Lieven.  Ongoing research is conducted
both through experiments and the analysis of rich databases and focuses
on the cognitive and pragmatic bases of language; the development of
syntactic constructions; and the roles of frequency and entrenchment in
that development. This position is available for someone who wants to
work with the uniquely dense naturalistic corpora that are available in
our group and also involves day-to-day coordination of the Centre under
the supervision of Professor Lieven.

Requirements for the position: (a) to hold, or be about to obtain, a PhD

in Psychology, Linguistics or Psycholinguistics; and (b) research
experience in first language acquisition, cognitive/functional
linguistics and/or corpus linguistics.   Starting salary in the range
£18265 - £20311 p.a.

Informal enquiries may be emailed Professor Lieven at: lieven at eva.mpg.de

Application forms and further particulars are available at
http://www.man.ac.uk/news/vacancies or from the Office of the Director
of Personnel, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13
9PL tel: +44 (0)161 275 2028; fax: +44 (0)161 275 2471; Minicom (for the

hearing impaired): +44 (0)161 275 7889; e-mail: personnel at man.ac.uk.
Please quote ref: 1009 /02.  Closing date for applications: 15 November
2002

AS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER THE UNIVERSITY WELCOMES APPLICATIONS
FROM SUITABLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE FROM ALL SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY
REGARDLESS OF RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR DISABILITY.


From haspelmath at EVA.MPG.DE  Tue Oct 29 11:20:32 2002
From: haspelmath at EVA.MPG.DE (Martin Haspelmath)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:32 +0100
Subject: FUNKNET: postdoc position evolutionary linguistics
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.122032.0100.HASPELMATH@EVA.MPG.DE>

Postdoctoral fellowship in linguistics

The Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) seeks candidates for a two-year
postdoctoral fellowship in linguistics. The candidates should be able to
make contributions to the department's areas of research.

The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology studies human
diversity and human origins in a multidisciplinary perspective. The
contribution of linguistics to this goal lies in the study of the
history and prehistory of languages (and peoples) around the world
(especially non-European languages), as well as the current diversity of
human languages (linguistic fieldwork on little-described and endangered
languages and language typology). The Department of Linguistics
collaborates with the Department of Evolutionary Genetics to compare the
evidence from both fields for the prehistory of human populations. The
largest current collaborative projects of the Department of Linguistics
are the Intercontinental Dictionary Series and the World Atlas of
Language Structures. The latter project implies an interest in questions
of areal typology, language contact and substratum effects. More
information on these and other projects is available on the institute's
website (see below).

The postdoctoral fellows are expected to come with a flexible research
agenda that fits into the department's current foci. They should be
ready to contribute to collaborative projects, and they will have the
opportunity to propose collaborative projects themselves. Regular
participation in the department's talks, seminars and workshops is
expected. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences,
vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowships are available
from 01 March 2003, but a later starting date may be negotiated.
Postdoctoral fellows must have their PhD in hand before the starting
date.

There are no teaching obligations, but the opportunity for teaching in
the linguistics program of the University of Leipzig exists.

Good knowledge of English is required.

Applicants are requested to send a C.V., statement of research
interests, two letters of recommendation, and a sample of written work
on a relevant topic to:

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Personnel Administration
Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie
- Postdoctoral fellow position -
Inselstrasse 22
D-01403 Leipzig Germany

fax:       +49 341 99 52 119 e_mail:   comrie at eva.mpg.de
web:  http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/


From v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET  Tue Oct 29 14:52:02 2002
From: v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET (Bittor Hidalgo)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:52:02 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.155202.0100.V.HIDALGO@EUSKALNET.NET>

(A very long message, sorry!)

I studied in some detail the word-order of Basque, a more or less free word
order language, with very rich verbal morphology (besides semantic
information and time, mode and aspect features, it gives detail of
subject -ergative or absolutive-, direct object -accusative-, and indirect
object -dative, and at times, it also informs about the sex of the
interlocutor, and the even level of familiarity of the speaker to him/her;
all that, inside a single word -sometimes two, ...-). Of course, Basque is a
pro-drop language.

Reputedly, Basque is a non-rigid SOV language (Greenberg, De Rijk). But
statistically, in the conditions of Greenberg, the most frequent order in
Basque (Hidalgo, 1995) is clearly SVO (between 40 and 65% of the sentences),
and not SOV (between 15 and 30% of the sentences). And the object initial
orders (OSV/OVS) account for between 10 and 20% of the sentences. So are
both, oral and written language, to the exception of the written language of
some artificial purist syntactic school that, curiously, has triumphed in
the standard written style of the last 30 years (De Rijk).

Anyway, in the absence of an open subject -a very common instance in
Basque-, surely OV order is commoner than VO, although we don't have
statistical data.

The question, the hypothesis, I want to raise here (to test), is that, in my
opinion, the verb acts, concerning its position respect to its most close
complements -including S and O-, I think in all languages, but at least in
the languages I more or less know -besides Basque, the meriodional European
romances including French, and English or German-, it works as a grammatical
function word, that according to Wackernagel's law, goes clitic respect to
some complement (let's call it X). Two possibilities then (Venneman,
Hawkins): XV (verb second, somehow, inside this complex) / VX (verb first,
at least inside the complex).

This complex constitutes normally a minimal intonation unit (or accentual
phrase in generative terms). In the complex, presumably all languages in the
world, would accentuate the complement (unless pronominal, deaccentuated,
...). So we'll have VX languages, of rising accent (languages with proclitic
elements, prepositions, ... -all verb-initial languages, but also SVO
languages with rich verbal morphology like Spanish, Italian, Catalan, ...-),
and XV languages of descending accent (with enclitics, postpositions,
... -like Basque, and I suppose Turkish, Japanese at least-). But there are
languages in the between. Languages that historically had been XV(OV), and
conserve some of its features, but that in contact with other VX languages,
or in its process to become culture languages, had become also XV. So could
be the evolution of Latin (Wackernagel, Marouzeau, Panhuis), and of Latin to
romances, but also of the languages now called second-verb languages like
German, were any kind of complement can occupy the first position, or
languages like English or French, where the first position has been almost
completely grammaticalized historically to subject position, because of the
poor verbal morphology. It could also be the case of languages like
Hungarian, where the first position in the XV complex is reputed (like
erroneously in Basque) as focus position, although sometimes it could lodge
also focus (specially in short sentences, ...). I don't know if something
similar happens in Finnish. I would like to know.

Languages like French or English that have grammaticalized SV position as a
realization of XV, act, afterwards, as VX languages (rising accent) in
respect to other complements as O, adverbs, etc.. (V doesn't go alone, but
in the almost inseparable complex [SV]). Old French and English, where the
grammaticalization of SV is not completed, and the verb morphology was
richer, admitted also other complements before the verb (adverbs, even
objects, ...), just like still today are normal "there is ." or some "adverb
+ verb" or inversion structures in both languages. And German still works as
an XV language doubly: XV (verb second language), that in complex verbs
repeats the XV structure with the main verb (with a tonic complement before
it). I don't know if some reputedly rigid final language like Japanese
(although it seems that in conversation, Japanese is not so rigid -Clancy,
1982-) could accommodate somehow in this description.

I would like to know what you think about this point of view. I would also
like to know about the recent evolution of some culture languages, like
Hungarian, from a potentially XV structure, to a prescript obligatory SOV
order (in the XIX century), and a posterior evolution to ([XV] + X)
structure, or the artificial role of grammarians (Port Royal) in the
fixation of SVO order in French abandoning the so called inversions (even in
English), or the role of German grammarians in the artificial rigid an
obligatory final position of verb in subordinate sentences, ... The question
is if we can reduce the 6 type word order typology to 2 type word order
(with some mixed situations), forgetting, at last, the inaprehensible
concepts of "basic" or "neutral" word orders, and assigning the order of all
other complements depending exclusively of contextual features, information
structure organization, and intonational (accentual) segmentation of phrases
and sentences, and in cases of specific grammaticalization processes, like
those of French, English, ...).

Too long. Too many questions. Forgive me, and surtout forgive my macaronic
English.

Bittor

---------------------------------------------
Victor Hidalgo Eizagirre
k/ Buztintxulo, 72, behea
20015 Donostia / Euskal Herrria / (Spain)
Tfnoa eta faxa: 943-282192
posta-e: v.hidalgo at euskalnet.net


From dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU  Tue Oct 29 16:05:38 2002
From: dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:05:38 -0700
Subject: Object-iniital languages
In-Reply-To: <B9E33C4A.445C%macw@cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.090538.0700.>

Just once, in watching my child (Josh) acquire language, did I hear him produce
an object initial sentence: "Pepsi want Josh"...he was probably 2.5 years
old (roughly...I could dig up my notes if anyone really cares...he's 17 now)...since
he was with either myself or my husband all the time, this is probably the
only word order violation of such magnitude that he produced outloud...probably
supporting your hypothesis that that this stuff is very rare and disappears
quickly once the mistake is realized.

Dianne Patterson, Ph.D.
University of Arizona

>-- Original Message --
>Date:         Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:11:06 -0500
>Reply-To: Brian MacWhinney <macw at CMU.EDU>
>From: Brian MacWhinney <macw at CMU.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Object-iniital languages
>To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
>
>
>Dear ?sten,
>
>  I have never seen a sentence like "Ich krank bin" in any of the German
>child corpora in CHILDES.  I agree with you that it is difficult in general
>to find German child language sentences that cannot be matched to some adult
>word order, if one allows for omissions, which are typically possible even
>for adults, although at a lower frequency.  What we see mostly in German
>child language are lots of SV units, and a distinctly smaller number of
VS,
>OV and VO units.  Full combinations into SVO or SOV are absent at first
and
>rare for quite awhile.
>  However, arguments based on the child's productions, although empirically
>well grounded, may be making a fundamental error.  After all, the child
is
>spending a lot of time listening to sentences before speaking and it is
>likely that she/he picks up a fuller word order in comprehension before
it
>is demonstrated in production.  This pushes the issue back a few more months
>and makes it harder to verify exactly what the child is doing.
>  Is the child picking up a set of templates, elaborating item-based
>patterns, or selecting values on parameters?  The fact that there are so
>few
>cases of what one could honestly call a word order error in early production
>suggests that this earlier comprehension-based tuning works out pretty well.
>Thus it is likely that the distinction between SVO and SOV in German is
>already in place by the time of the first utterances.  But does this mean
>that the child has discovered the "basic word order".  I don't see why one
>would argue that.  Rather, simply that the child is doing a good job of
>controlling the two major options and their secondary realizations first
>in
>comprehension and then in production.
>
>--Brian


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Tue Oct 29 20:35:09 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:09 -0500
Subject: New Book: Feigenbaum & Kurzon
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.153509.0500.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjamins Publishing announces a new work of interest to functional
linguists:


Title: Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context
Series Title: Typological Studies in Language 50

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/
            http://www.benjamins.nl

Editor: Susanne  Feigenbaum
Editor: Dennis  Kurzon
         both University of Haifa, Israel

Hardback: ISBN: 1588111725, Pages: vi, 304 pp., Price: USD 90.00 (US & Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027229562, Pages: vi, 304 pp., Price: EUR 100.00
(Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

The growing interest in prepositions is reflected by this impressive
collection of papers from leading scholars of various fields. The
selected contributions of Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic
and Pragmatic Context focus on the local and temporal semantics of
prepositions in relation to their context, too. Following an
introduction which puts this new approach into a thematical and
historical perspective, the volume presents fifteen studies in the
following areas: The semantics of space dynamics (mainly on French
prepositions); Language acquisition (aphasia and code-switching);
Artificial intelligence (mainly of English prepositions); Specific
languages: Hebrew (from a number of perspectives -- syntax, semiotics,
and sociolinguistic impact on morphology), Maltese, the Melanesian
English-based Creole Bislama, and Biblical translations into
Judeo-Greek.


Table of Contents

Preface
      Susanne Feigenbaum and Dennis Kurzon  1
Instability and the theory of semantic forms: Starting from the case
of prepositions
      Yves-Marie Visetti and Pierre Cadiot  9
Schematics and motifs in the semantics of prepositions
      Pierre Cadiot  41
The theoretical status of prepositions: The case of the "prospective
use" of in
      Franck Lebas  59
Temporal semantics of prepositions in context
      David S. Brée and Ian E. Pratt-Hartmann  75
Prepositions and context
      Ian E. Pratt-Hartmann and Nissim Francez  115
Prepositional phrases as noun modifiers in contemporary Hebrew:
Grammatical, semantic and pragmatic motivations
      Esther Borochovsky and Hava Reppen  127
The Hebrew prepositions mi-/min "from, of": Same or different?
      Yishai Tobin  145
A contrastive analysis of French and Hebrew prepositions: The case of
sans, bli-belo and lelo
      Susanne Feigenbaum  171
A language in change: Declined prepositions in spoken Modern Hebrew as
a case study
      Inbar Kimchi-Angert  193
The French preposition in contact with Hebrew
      Miriam Ben-Rafael  209
"Preposition" as functor: The case of long in Bislama
      Dennis Kurzon  231
Prepositions in modern Judeo-Greek (JG) Biblical translations
      Julia G. Krivoruchko  249
Quddiem and some remarks on grammatical aspects of Maltese
prepositions
      Rami Saari  269
Locative prepositions in language acquisition and aphasia
      Mark Leikin  283
Index  299

Lingfield(s):  Typology

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET  Wed Oct 30 09:55:10 2002
From: v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET (Bittor Hidalgo)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:55:10 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.105510.0100.V.HIDALGO@EUSKALNET.NET>

Thanks for your answer. I didn't know my message had circulated in the list
as I desired (I haven't received it as I expected).

Anyway, my hypothesis wouldn't divide languages between OV and SV languages
as you suggest, but between XV and VX languages (Vennemann). Sure, I didn't
explain myself clearly enough.

The grammaticalization of subject position in XV languages gives SV. And
this S, at least when pronominal, deslexicalized, functions just as a
morpheme of the verbal complex. Just as it happens in Basque where the
grammaticalization process has been far completed:

NOA (I go) = N (short of NI(nee) = I) +  OA (radical of the verb JOAN = GO)
HOA (you go) = H (short of HI(hee) = you) + OA
GOAZ (we go) = G (short of GU = we) + OA + Z (plural marker) // ...

If "I GO" functions as an inseparable verbal complex (just as NOA in
Basque), it constitutes a new V(SV) that again will tend to go proclitic, or
enclitic, with respect to a new X complement (inside a minimal
intonation -or accentual, or phonological- unit). English  makes VX [(I GO)
HOME], that is [V(SV) + X], and not normally "HOME I GO", because English
now works as a VX language. Meanwhile, Basque makes XV "ETXERA NOA" (I go
home), and not normally "NOA ETXERA", except if the verb NOA goes enclitic
with respect to a new X on its left "MIKELEKIN NOA ETXERA" (I go home with
Michel).

On the other side, there would be the languages that always have been VX. If
this languages have grammaticalized the S + V complex, it will have been in
VS position (not SV like English or French, former XV languages), and this
new V complex will go again proclitic with respect to a new X: [V(V+S) + X].

Changes could happen. For example, languages in contact could change because
of mutual influence from being XV to VX, or vice versa. But I think that
when a language becomes a culture language, when it is written, and long
sentences are commoner, even XV or VX, the normal position for long
complements (except specifically topical ones) is after the XV or VX
complex. And this option maight facilitate the conversion of XV languages in
VX languages (with intermediate steps -English, French, and in a diferrent
level Spanish, Italian,...-), and on the contrary, difficult the conversion
of VX languages in XV.

Rigid verb final culture languages (do they exist?) are a very serious
counterexample for this hypothesis. I don't know exactly what happens in
languages like Japanese or Korean, when a common sentence must have a lot of
complements and subordinate sentences inside (let's say, in a newspaper,
where language must be fluid). Basque purist syntacticians, who argued in
favor of a rigid verb final position, ask writers to use only short
sentences, because if not everybody knows that sentences become, if not
incomprehensible, at least very difficult to process, exhausting and
fatiguing.

You can see that my interest in word order question is really big.

Thanks

Bittor



---------------------------------------------
Victor Hidalgo Eizagirre
k/ Buztintxulo, 72, behea
20015 Donostia
Tfnoa eta faxa: 943-282192
posta-e: v.hidalgo at euskalnet.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian MacWhinney" <macw at cmu.edu>
To: "Bittor Hidalgo" <v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


Dear Viktor,
  I think you are basically right.  I think Theo Vennemann tried to make
this point many years ago, although he wandered into other issues too.  I
particularly like this idea from the viewpoint of child language.  To
summarize, you are saying that languages tend to go for either OV or SV and
that this is the fundamental divider.  Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Hungarian is, of course, a great example of a language stuck between the
two, but choosing OV for objects without articles and going for SV in all
other cases.  The motivation for OV is usually thought to be the
incorporation of the object into the verb.

--Brian MacWhinney


From amina.mettouchi at FREE.FR  Wed Oct 30 10:03:28 2002
From: amina.mettouchi at FREE.FR (Amina Mettouchi)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:03:28 +0100
Subject: Berber Corpus
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.110328.0100.AMINA.METTOUCHI@FREE.FR>

Dear Colleagues,

I need scientific and technical advice to put together a corpus of Berber
(Afroasiatic).
I am currently coordinating the project, which is to be launched by the
INALCO (Langues'O) in Paris. A workshop is scheduled on Friday 6 December,
in order to reflect on all aspects of the entreprise.
The main facts about this project are described below. If you can provide
advice on any aspect, please do. I would be very happy to benefit from your
experience.

Berber languages are mostly spoken (some of them have just recently started
to be written).
It is currently impossible to have access to Berber corpora other than by
recording one’s own material, or asking fellow-researchers for their tapes
or transcripts. The aim of this project is to constitute a unified
database/textbase accessible to researchers working on Berber.
The project involves cooperation among researchers working on Berber, since
the base will consist in transcripts of actual interactions provided by
researchers (together with interlinear glosses, a translation, and
audiotapes/videotapes).
We have already selected appropriate transcription symbols, but are still
discussing norms for the collection of data (wordprocessor, recording
standards for prosodic treatment, basic and unified information on
speakers, recording conditions, archivation system, access...). Emphasis is
on the variety of genres, of dialects, of speakers. Special attention will
be devoted to conversational corpora, as well as culture-specific interactions.
We are not planning to tag or parse the corpus right away, but if we can
proceed in a way that will allow this in future, it would be nice.

Thank you for your help,

Best wishes

Amina

Amina Mettouchi
Chercheur (Researcher) à l'AAI (JE2220, Nantes) et au CRB (EA2522,
Langues'O, Paris)
Maître de Conférences (Lecturer/Associate Professor) à l'Université de Nantes
Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines
Centre International des Langues
Rue de la Censive du Tertre
BP 81227
44312 Nantes Cedex 03
tel: (33) 2 40 14 11 39
Fax: (33) 2 40 14 12 94
email: amina.mettouchi at humana.univ-nantes.fr


From els603 at BANGOR.AC.UK  Wed Oct 30 11:53:10 2002
From: els603 at BANGOR.AC.UK (June Luchjenbroers)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:53:10 +0000
Subject: position announcement: Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics/TEFL
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.115310.0000.ELS603@BANGOR.AC.UK>

Please Post and Disseminate:


Department of Linguistics, University of Wales, Bangor


Applications are invited for a Senior Lectureship in Linguistics,
tenable from 1st February 2003 or as soon as possible thereafter. The
person appointed will be principally required to teach our established
and very popular undergraduate modules in Applied Linguistics and
English Language Teaching and to take responsibility for the Bangor
Certificate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. The person
appointed will also play a key role in the development of postgraduate
courses in Applied Linguistics and TEFL.

Applicants should have a PhD or equivalent, extensive TEFL experience, a
strong research record and proven excellence in teaching at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The appointment will be within the point range 20 - 23 of the Senior
Lecturer Scale.

Application forms and further particulars can be obtained from Personnel
Services, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG.  Tel. (01248)
382926/388132. Email: personnel at bangor.ac.uk

Informal enquiries can be made by contacting Professor Jenny Thomas,
Linguistics Department,  University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG.
Tel. (01248) 382270. Email: jenny.thomas at bangor.ac.uk

Please quote reference number 02-2/73 when applying.

Closing date for applications: Friday 22nd November 2002


--------------------------------------
Dr June Luchjenbroers
Univ. Wales at Bangor           Ph:   01248 + 38 8205
GWYNEDD, LL57 2DG               Fax: 01248 + 38 2928
N. Wales. U.K.          www.bangor.ac.uk/ling/home.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021030/b173192c/attachment.bin>

From ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au  Wed Oct 30 21:57:48 2002
From: ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au (Matthew Anstey)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:57:48 +1100
Subject: Berber Corpus
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021030110229.01accc38@pop.free.fr>
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.085748.1100.>

Dear Amina,

Perhaps you know this already, but Dr Ahmed Moutaouakil at the
University of Rabat in Morocco has supervised two phds on Berber. He may
be able to provide contact details for these or other scholars in
Morocco working on Berber. His email is:
a_moutaouakil at yahoo.fr

1987  Bassou Benkhallouq. Les structures focalisées en berbère, un
parler d’Azilal (Approche fonctionnelle). Faculté des Lettres et des
Sciences humaines de Rabat.
2001  Souad Oussikoum. Pragmatique et ordre des mots en berbère : le
parler des Aït Wirra. Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences humaines de
Rabat.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
Residence: Kambah, ACT, Australia
ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au
+61 (0)2 6296 4044


From rberman at POST.TAU.AC.IL  Thu Oct 31 07:12:47 2002
From: rberman at POST.TAU.AC.IL (Ruth Berman)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:12:47 +0200
Subject: Berber Corpus
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.091247.0200.RBERMAN@POST.TAU.AC.IL>

Dear Amina,

You might want to contact Naima Louali-Raynal, at the Laboratoire Dynamique
de Langage, Lyon 2 -- she works extensively on Berber (mainly phonology),
her e-mail is <louali at ish-lyon.cnrs.fr>

Best wishes,
Ruth Berman
Linguistics Department, Tel Aviv University

Matthew Anstey wrote:

> Dear Amina,
>
> Perhaps you know this already, but Dr Ahmed Moutaouakil at the
> University of Rabat in Morocco has supervised two phds on Berber. He may
> be able to provide contact details for these or other scholars in
> Morocco working on Berber. His email is:
> a_moutaouakil at yahoo.fr
>
> 1987  Bassou Benkhallouq. Les structures focalisées en berbère, un
> parler d’Azilal (Approche fonctionnelle). Faculté des Lettres et des
> Sciences humaines de Rabat.
> 2001  Souad Oussikoum. Pragmatique et ordre des mots en berbère : le
> parler des Aït Wirra. Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences humaines de
> Rabat.
>
> With regards,
> Matthew Anstey
>
> Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
> Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
> Residence: Kambah, ACT, Australia
> ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au
> +61 (0)2 6296 4044


From dparvaz at UNM.EDU  Thu Oct 31 07:36:04 2002
From: dparvaz at UNM.EDU (dparvaz at UNM.EDU)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:36:04 -0700
Subject: Berber Corpus
In-Reply-To: <3DC0D7EE.EA1C2A0B@post.tau.ac.il>
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.003604.0700.>

Is Jo Rubba on funknet? She did work in the Maghrib, and might have
some contacts on this, too.

Cheers,

Dan.


From lamb at RICE.EDU  Tue Oct  1 15:37:17 2002
From: lamb at RICE.EDU (Sydney Lamb)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:37:17 -0500
Subject: LACUS Forum 30 - Announcement and Call for Papers (fwd)
Message-ID: <TUE.1.OCT.2002.103717.0500.LAMB@RICE.EDU>

(Apologies for multiple postings!)

Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States
Association de Linguistique du Canada et des Etats-Unis

THE THIRTIETH LACUS FORUM

University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C.

July 29 - August 2, 2003

Conference Theme: LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND REALITY

FEATURED SPEAKERS

        Penny Lee, University of Western Australia
        Gary Libben, University of Alberta
        Karen Rice, University of Toronto
        Angela Della Volpe, California State University,
                Fullerton, Presidential Address

CALL FOR PAPERS

While papers relating to the conference theme are especially
invited, abstracts are welcomed on all subjects in linguistics
and interdisciplinary areas involving language. The following
list of topics relating to the theme is intended as suggestive
rather than comprehensive:

LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND REALITY

1. Linguistic Relativity, including responses to recent work on
linguistic relativity (for example, Penny Lee, The Whorf Theory
Complex (Benjamins 1996), Gumperz and Levinson, Rethinking
Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge, 1996), Puetz and Verspoor,
Explorations in Linguistic Relativity (Benjamins, 2000)

2. Language and thought in indigenous societies

3. Neurocognitive perspectives on thought
        Cognitive styles
        Left-brain and right-brain thinking
        The neurological basis of thinking
        Thinking with and without language

4. Metaphor

5. Language and Culture

6. Translation

7. Semantic change

8. The real-world use of language

9. Real-world evidence in linguistics, including
   Experimental phonetics, Psychoacoustics,
   Psycholinguistics


GUIDELINES FOR ABSTRACTS

Papers accepted for the program will be scheduled for either 15
minutes or 25 minutes, with 5 minutes allowed for discussion.

Due Date for Abstracts: 15 January 2003

Maximum length: 400 words (not including references).
References should be limited to two or three (additional
references may be included on a separate page, but in that
case they will not appear in the meeting handbook.) Please
do not include tables or figures in the abstract.

Anonymity: The abstract should not identify the author(s).

What to Submit: Please submit abstracts only by e-mail.
Preferably, send the abstract as an e-mail attachment, in rich
text format (.rtf) or the equivalent.

Accompanying Information: In the body of your e-mail (not
part of the attachment) send the following information:
  1. Author's name(s) and affiliation(s).
  2. Title of paper.
  3. Presentation time desired -- 15 or 25 minutes.
  4. Audio-visual equipment required (beyond overhead
     projector).
  5. Eligibility for prize (if applicable -- see below).
  6. Name a topic (or two topics) to identify the area(s) in
which your paper lies. Choose a topic name from the list
above, or feel free to name another topic if you are
submitting an abstract that does not fit the conference
theme.

Where to Submit: David C. Bennett <db at soas.ac.uk>

Those without access to e-mail should send the abstract
and accompanying information via snail mail to:

David C. Bennett
Department of Linguistics
SOAS, University of London
Russell Square
London, WC1H 0XG
England

DESIRABLE PROPERTIES OF ABSTRACTS

Evaluators of abstracts will appreciate your attention to
these desiderata:
    Informative but brief title
    Clear statement of the problem or questions addressed
    Clear statement of the main point(s) or argument(s)
    Informative examples
    Clear indication of relevance to related work
    Avoidance of jargon and polemic
    References to literature (not included in 450-word limit)

ELIGIBILITY

   You do not have to be a member of LACUS to submit an
abstract. If your abstract is accepted, you must be a
member to present your paper at the meeting. Members
will automatically receive the publication resulting from
the conference.

SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS, TUTORIALS

Proposals for panels or special sessions or workshops or
tutorials are also welcome. Please contact David Bennett
<db at soas.ac.uk> or Syd Lamb (lamb at rice.edu) right away
with your ideas.

PRESIDENTS' PRIZES

Continuing a tradition started by the late Kenneth Pike, a
committee consisting of the President, the President-Elect,
and former Presidents of LACUS will select the winner of
the annual Presidents' Prize, with an award of $500, for 'the
best paper' by a junior scholar. For purposes of this prize,
'junior scholar' is defined as one who has had a doctoral
degree or its equivalent for less than five years.

The Presidents' Predoctoral prize, with an award of $100,
will be given for 'the best paper' by a student who has not
yet received a doctor's degree.

For purposes of these prizes, 'best paper' is defined as that
which in the judgement of the committee makes the most
important contribution to knowledge. Organization and
presentation and the quality of the abstract may also be
considered.

The prizes will be awarded at the annual banquet, to be
held at the end of the meeting, Saturday, August 3rd.

Only single-authored presentations will be considered for
prizes. A person who has won the same prize twice will no
longer be eligible.

Junior scholars and predoctoral scholars should identify
their status in the e-mail message sent in with the abstracts,
to indicate their eligibility for one of the prizes.

FINANCIAL AID

Thanks to the Ruth Brend Memorial Fund, limited assistance for
scholars coming from countries with weak currencies may be
available. For information contact the Conference Committee
Chair, David Bennett.

PUBLICATION

A panel of referees will select certain papers presented at
the meeting for publication, with appropriate revisions, in
LACUS Forum XXX.

VENUE

The University of Victoria is located in a picturesque setting
at the southern end of scenic Vancouver Island, British
Columbia. The URL for the University of Victoria is
http://www.uvic.ca

ACCOMMODATIONS

Low-cost housing will be available on campus, and
accommodations will also be available in nearby motels.
Watch the lacus web site (www.lacus.org) for further
information.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Updated conference information will be posted to the
LACUS website at approximately the beginning of every
month from now until July next. See http://www.lacus.org
or http://www.glendon.yorku.ca/lacus (mirror site)

Detailed information will be sent to all LACUS members
and to nonmember authors of accepted abstracts in March.

ADDRESS QUESTIONS about the conference program to
David C. Bennett <db at soas.ac.uk>

ADDRESS QUESTIONS about the University of Victoria to
Gordon Fulton <gdfulton at uvic.ca>

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:

  David Bennett, SOAS, London, Chair
  Lilly Chen, Rice University
  Angela Della Volpe, California State University, Fullerton
  Gordon Fulton, University of Victoria
  Sydney Lamb, Rice University
  Lois Stanford, University of Alberta
  William Sullivan, Univ. of Florida and Univ. of Krakow


From linjr at HUM.AU.DK  Wed Oct  2 08:50:36 2002
From: linjr at HUM.AU.DK (Jan Rijkhoff)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:50:36 +0200
Subject: New book 'The Noun Phrase'
Message-ID: <WED.2.OCT.2002.105036.0200.LINJR@HUM.AU.DK>

(Apologies for cross-postings)

New Publication by Oxford University Press

------------------------------------------

J. Rijkhoff

The Noun Phrase

2002. 234mm x 156mm. XIII + 413 pages.

Hardback ?57.50 / US$ 90.00

ISBN 0-19-823782-0

(Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory)

A sample of this book is available in PDF format at:
 http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-823782-0

DESCRIPTION (from the jacket):
"The book presents a semantic model to describe the underlying structure of
noun phrases in any natural human language. It examines the semantic and
morpho-syntactic properties of the constituents of the noun phrase in a
representative sample of the world's 6000 or so languages and shows that
noun phrase word order patterns of any language can be derived from three
universal ordering principles."

"Rijkhoff analyses the noun phrase as a structure that consists of four
nested layers, which accommodate noun modifiers relating to quality,
quantity, location, and discourse. Noun phrases and sentences can be
similarly analysed, he argues, because they have the same underlying
semantic structure. He introduces the notion of Seinsart or 'mode of being'
as the nominal counterpart of 'mode of action' in verb semantics. He
proposes a new grammatical category of nominal aspect and an implicational
universal concerning the occurrence of adjectives as a major word class in
the part-of-spech system of a language."

CONTENTS:
  1. Preliminaries
  2. Nominal Subcategories: Seinsarten
  3. Nouns: Real and Apparent Nominal Subclasses
  4. Qualifying Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  5. Quantifying Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  6. Localizing Modifiers in the Noun Phrase
  7. The Underlying Structure of Noun Phrases
  8. Ordering Principles, Domain Integrity, and Discontinuity
  9. Greenbergian Word Order Correlations and the Principle of
        Head Proximity
 10. The Principle of Scope
 11. Epilogue
     References
     Index of Subjects
     Index of Languages
     Index of Authors


Jan Rijkhoff, Institut for Lingvistik, Aarhus Universitet
Jens Chr. Skous Vej 7 (467-517), DK-8000  Aarhus C, DENMARK
Phone (+45) 8942 6550 * Fax (+45) 8942 6570 * E-mail linjr at hum.au.dk
http://www.hum.au.dk/lingvist/linjr/home.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021002/4af2cbbd/attachment.bin>

From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Wed Oct  2 20:05:18 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:05:18 -0700
Subject: New Book: WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS
Message-ID: <WED.2.OCT.2002.130518.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS; WORDS, PROOFS, AND DIAGRAMS; Dave
Barker-Plummer (Stanford University's Center for the Study of
Language and Information), David I. Beaver (Stanford University),
Johan van Benthem (Amsterdam University and Stanford University) and
Patrick Scotto di Luzio (Stanford University), eds.;paper ISBN:
1-57586-406-1, $25.00, cloth ISBN: 1-57586-405-3, $67.50, 286 pages.
CSLI Publications 2002. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email:
pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

The last twenty years have witnessed extensive collaborative research
between computer scientists, logicians, linguists, philosophers, and
psychologists. These interdisciplinary studies stem from the
realization that researchers drawn from all fields are studying the
same problem.  Specifically, a common concern amongst researchers
today is how logic sheds light on the nature of information. Ancient
questions concerning how humans communicate, reason and decide, and
modern questions about how computers should communicate, reason and
decide are of prime interest to researchers in various disciplines.

"Words, Proofs and Diagrams" is a collection of papers covering
active research areas at the interface of logic, computer science,
and linguistics. Readers of the volume will find traditional research
on process logics, issues in formal semantics, and language
processing.  In addition, the volume also highlights a particularly
new area where all three disciplines meet---the study of images and
graphics as information carriers and the diagrammatic reasoning
supported by them.

The volume is divided into three parts: Diagrammatic Reasoning,
Computation, and Logic and Language. Each of these parts is headed by
an editorial introduction that maps out the relation of the papers to
each other and to the wider field. While each chapter provides an
angle on the logic of information, it is their interconnections that
provide the total picture of the field today.


------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Fri Oct  4 21:21:00 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:21:00 -0700
Subject: New Book: IMPLEMENTING TYPED FEATURE STRUCTURE GRAMMARS
Message-ID: <FRI.4.OCT.2002.142100.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

IMPLEMENTING TYPED FEATURE STRUCTURE GRAMMARS; Ann Copestake
(University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and Stanford
University's Center for the Study of Language and Information);paper
ISBN: 1-57586-260-3, $22.00, cloth ISBN: 1-57586-261-1, $62.00, 244
pages. CSLI Publications 2002. http://cslipublications.stanford.edu ,
email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

Typed feature structure formalisms allow linguistically precise and
theoretically motivated descriptions of human languages to be used in
real-world applications such as email response, spoken dialogue
systems, and machine translation. This book provides a theoretical
and practical introduction to typed feature structures and their use
in computational linguistics.

Implementing Typed Feature Structure Grammars includes informal, yet
rigorous, descriptions of typed feature structure logic as well as
formal definitions. This presentation covers the basics of grammar
development, introducing the reader to treatments of syntax,
morphology, and semantics and discussing the computational issues
involved in parsing and generation.

This book also acts as a user manual for the Linguistic Knowledge
Building (LKB) system, which was developed by the author and her
colleagues. The LKB system is a grammar and lexicon development
environment that allows the reader to experiment with the various
grammars described in the book and learn the details of the
formalism. However it is also powerful and efficient enough to
support development of large-scale grammars.
The LKB system is freely available as Open Source and is compatible
with Windows, Linux, and Solaris.

------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Fri Oct  4 21:33:15 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:33:15 -0700
Subject: New Book: ANALYZING LINGUISTIC VARIATION
Message-ID: <FRI.4.OCT.2002.143315.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

ANALYZING LINGUISTIC VARIATION: STATISTICAL MODELS AND METHODS, John
C. Paolillo (Indiana University).;paper ISBN: 1-57586-276-X, $25.00,
cloth ISBN: 1-57586-275-1, $65.00, 280 pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

David Sankoff's VARBRUL computer program is widely used in analyzing
linguistic variation in sociolinguistics, language acquisition,
discourse, and other areas of linguistics, yet researchers have had
to depend on hard-to-find publications and one-on-one training in
order to learn how to use the program. For the first time, this
comprehensive guide explains every aspect of this singularly useful
computer program, from its most basic statistical foundations, to
data collection, coding, and analysis techniques. This is written
with researchers and students in the field of linguistics in mind and
assumes no prior familiarity with statistics.
Statistical and methodological issues are illustrated with examples
of linguistic variation research, and their bearing on issues of
theoretical consequence is thoroughly discussed. All quantitative
areas of linguistics will benefit from this book's careful
presentation of VARBRUL analysis and its relation to other
statistical procedures used in the social sciences.

------------------------------


From mhayashi at UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU  Sun Oct  6 00:33:53 2002
From: mhayashi at UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU (Makoto Hayashi)
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 19:33:53 -0500
Subject: Job announcement at U. of Illinois
Message-ID: <SAT.5.OCT.2002.193353.0500.MHAYASHI@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU>

The Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is seeking a full-time Assistant
Professor (on tenure-track) to teach Japanese language and
linguistics, and direct the elementary and intermediate Japanese
language instructional program, beginning August 21, 2003.
Qualifications include: A doctorate in hand by the appointment date,
good evidence of strong research potential, relevant teaching
credentials, and experience in teaching Japanese and in Japanese
language program supervision.  We are especially interested in
candidates whose research expertise lies in Japanese language pedagogy
and the acquisition of Japanese as a second language.  One half of the
teaching obligation will be in language instruction, and the other
half will be in other departmental courses including those in the
candidate's areas of specialization.  Salary is competitive and
commensurate with experience and qualifications.  For full
consideration, send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and
concise statement of research and teaching interests, samples of
publications, if any, and three letters of recommendation, by December
10, 2002 to:

Japanese Language/Linguistics Search Committee Chair
Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures
2090-A FLB, MC-146
707 S. Mathews Avenue
Urbana, IL 61801 USA

Contact Information:

    Professor Jerome Packard
    Email: j-packard at uiuc.edu
    Tel: 217-244-1432

UIUC is an AA/EOE.


From bls at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU  Mon Oct  7 04:28:57 2002
From: bls at SOCRATES.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew Simpson)
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:28:57 -0700
Subject: Berkeley Linguistics Society Call for Papers
Message-ID: <SUN.6.OCT.2002.212857.0700.>

The Berkeley Linguistics Society is pleased to announce its Twenty-Ninth
Annual Meeting, to be held February 14-17, 2003.  The conference will
consist of a General Session, a Parasession and a Special Session.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*GENERAL SESSION*
The General Session will cover all areas of linguistic interest.  We
encourage proposals from diverse theoretical frameworks and also welcome
papers on language-related topics from disciplines such as Anthropology,
Cognitive Science, Literature, Neuroscience and Psychology.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Judith Aissen, University of California, Santa Cruz
                    Mark Hale, Concordia University
                    Royal Skousen, Brigham Young University
                    Arnold Zwicky, Stanford University

*PARASESSION* -- Phonetic Sources of Phonological Patterns:
                 Synchronic and Diachronic Explanations
The Parasession invites submissions on the role of phonetics in shaping
phonological patterns. Papers representing all views and approaches are
sought. Those addressing the relative merits of synchronic and diachronic
explanations of phonetically-motivated phonological patterns are
particularly welcomed.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Juliette Blevins, University of California, Berkeley
                    Charles Reiss, Concordia University
                    Donca Steriade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

*SPECIAL SESSION* -- Minority and Diasporic Languages of Europe
The Special Session will cover minority and diasporic languages of Europe.
Languages of interest include minority, threatened and diasporic European
languages and dialects, in both Europe and former colonies and in
immigrant and heritage situations, as well as pidgins and creoles based on
languages spoken in Europe.  Proposals from linguistics and related fields
are encouraged.

          *Invited Speakers*
                    Julie Auger, Indiana University
                    J. Clancy Clements, Indiana University
                    Joshua Fishman, Yeshiva University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***ABSTRACT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES***
Presented papers are published in the BLS Proceedings.  Authors agree to
provide camera-ready copy (not exceeding 12 pages) by May 15, 2003.
Presentations are allotted 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions.

An author may submit at most one single and one joint abstract.  In case
of joint authorship, one address should be designated for communication
with BLS. Abstracts should be as specific as possible, with a statement of
topic, approach and conclusions.  Abstracts may be at most four hundred
words.  The reverse side of the single page may be used for data and
references only. 10 copies of an anonymous, one-page (8.5"x11") abstract
should be sent,  along with a 3"x5" card listing:

           (1)          paper title
           (2)          session (General/Para/Special)
           (3)          name(s) of author(s)
           (4)          affiliation(s) of author(s)
           (5)          address whither notification of acceptance should
                        be mailed (Nov-Dec 2002)
           (6)          contact phone number for each author
           (7)          email address for each author
                     ***for General Session submissions only***
           (8)          subfield (syntax, phonology, etc.)
                     ***for Para-/Special Session submissions only***
           (9)          indication of whether you wish to have your
                        abstract considered for the General Session if
                        the organizers determine that your paper will not
                        fit the other sessions

                    *SEND ABSTRACTS TO*
                              BLS 29 Abstracts Committee
                              University of California
                              Linguistics Department
                              1203 Dwinelle Hall
                              Berkeley, CA  94720-2650

Abstracts must be received in our office (not postmarked) by 4:00 p.m.,
November 27, 2002.  We cannot accept faxed abstracts.  Abstracts submitted
via e-mail are also accepted.  Only those abstracts formatted as ASCII
text or a Microsoft Word (Mac version strongly preferred) attachment can
be accepted.  The text of the message must contain the information
requested in (1)-(9) above.  Electronic submissions may be sent to

                    ***bls at socrates.berkeley.edu***

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

***REGISTRATION INFORMATION***
All attendees, including presenters, must register for the meeting. For
advance registration, we can accept only checks or money orders drawn on
US banks in US dollars, made payable to Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Received in our office by February 2, 2003:
                   Students       $20
                   Non-students   $40
Received after February 2, 2003:
                   Students       $25
                   Non-students   $55

                    *SEND ADVANCE REGISTRATION TO*
                              BLS 29 Registration
                              University of California
                              Linguistics Department
                              1203 Dwinelle Hall
                              Berkeley, CA  94720-2650

***BLS will arrange ASL interpretation if requested through
   bls at socrates.berkeley.edu before 12/1/02***

We may be contacted by e-mail at bls at socrates.berkeley.edu.



..............................
Berkeley Linguistics Society
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Linguistics
1203 Dwinelle Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-2650
Phone/Fax: 510-642-5808

find information on BLS meetings and availability of proceedings at:
http://www.linguistics.berkeley.edu/BLS/
..............................


From bill_mann at SIL.ORG  Wed Oct  9 17:47:01 2002
From: bill_mann at SIL.ORG (William Mann)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:47:01 -0400
Subject: a new dialogue data corpus: Dialogue Diversity Corpus (DDC)
Message-ID: <WED.9.OCT.2002.134701.0400.BILLMANN@SIL.ORG>

 
Announcement

DIALOGUE DIVERSITY CORPUS

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~billmann/diversity

(apologies if you receive multiple copies)

A new corpus is available for facilitating research on human dialogue. 

The Dialogue Diversity Corpus (DDC) gives direct access to a set of dialogue transcripts (13 sources, more than 12 hours of dialogue, all in English.). It also gives a set of links and methods for accessing hundreds of additional dialogues (principally in English.) Several sources provide speech data as well as transcripts.

The dialogues in this corpus occurred in a very diverse collection of interactive situations. Thus it is a data resource for studies of the breadth of coverage of particular dialogue models, and for studies that compare dialogue from different situations. 

For smaller projects such as pilot studies, program testing and even some term papers, the direct access portion will be sufficient. The access methods may yield enough dialogue data for some much larger studies. 

The corpus is designed for data finding rather than for bulk processing. Taken as a whole, it is irregular and not homogeneous in any way. It is generally unsuitable for drawing any conclusions about dialogue taken as a single category.

===============
William C. Mann
 
bill_mann at sil.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021009/0747ead1/attachment.htm>

From macw at CMU.EDU  Wed Oct  9 20:07:40 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:07:40 -0400
Subject: data
Message-ID: <WED.9.OCT.2002.160740.0400.MACW@CMU.EDU>

Bill,

  Thanks for the note on dialog corpora on the web and elsewhere.  The
status of these things is changing so fast that it is hard to keep up, but
let me add a few notes:

1.  The CHILDES database (http://childes.psy.cmu.edu), which you correctly
note as having been available on CD-ROM for many years is now available with
a lot of associated audio and even, in a few cases, video.  It has now been
converted to (1) Unicode, allowing inclusion of IPA and non-Roman scripts in
the same file and (2) to XML, allowing lots of new uses.

2.  The Nixon Watergate tapes you mentioned are being retranscribed in CA
format by Gail Jefferson with assistance from Johannes Wagner.  These data
are at http://talkbank.org/data/MOVIN/ along with four other corpora from
English, Danish, German, and Italian.

3.  The Santa Barbara corpus of Spoken American English is available along
with linked audio from http://talkbank.org/data/conversation/, along with
some of the most interesting conversations from the LDC CallFriend database.
LDC would be willing to release further segments of this corpus if there was
good evidence for a demand.

4.  The talkbank.org/data site has a lot of fascinating video linked to
transcripts for those who believe that a full study of discourse requires
not only transcripts and audio, but also video.  Examples include PBL
instruction in med school, clinical interviews, meetings with parolees, talk
shows, classroom discourse, and on and on.  We even have databases on bird
song, macaque calls, and meerkat squeaks.

Three major goals for the near term here are (1) to try to improve the links
between these resources so that users do not have to wander through a
labyrinth of URLs, formats, special permissions, (2) to link all discourse
to audio, and (3) to broaden coverage across languages and discourse types.
John Haviland's data at http://talkbank.org/data/exploration/Haviland/
illustrates the latter direction.

Suggestions for additions to both TalkBank and CHILDES are welcome, as well
as requests for new programs and data formats.

Let me also note that TalkBank and CHILDES data are freely downloadable
through the web, but we ask that users follow the ground rules given at the
sites.

--Brian MacWhinney, CMU


From stefan.grondelaers at ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE  Thu Oct 10 13:00:56 2002
From: stefan.grondelaers at ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE (Stefan Grondelaers)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:00:56 +0200
Subject: Conference announcement (Measuring lexical variation and change)
Message-ID: <THU.10.OCT.2002.150056.0200.STEFAN.GRONDELAERS@ARTS.KULEUVEN.AC.BE>

Apologies for multiple postings

Conference announcement

On October 24-25, the research unit Quantitative lexicology and variational
linguistics of the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leuven
hosts the symposium

MEASURING LEXICAL VARIATION AND CHANGE
A Symposium on Quantitative Sociolexicology

Made possible by the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders

Aim

This workshop brings together researchers in the field of variational
lexicology and diachronic vocabulary studies who use quantitative methods.
Although such methods have been used less intensively in the study of
lexical variation and change than they have been employed in the field of
phonetics, morphology, or other linguistic variables, there is a growing
body of quantitative research on the distribution of words over language
varieties and the diffusion of lexical changes over time. The symposium
intends to create a forum for the confrontation and the comparison of the
different approaches involved.

Structure & schedule

The workshop consists of 5 plenary sessions (1 hour) and 12 regular
sessions (35').

Invited speakers are:

Nigel Armstrong (University of Leeds)
Peter Auer (University of Freiburg)
Harald Baayen (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen &
University of Nijmegen)
John Nerbonne (University of Groningen)
Terttu Nevalainen (University of Helsinki)

In order to ensure a highly focused event with maximal interaction between
the participants, the number of regular presentations is limited to 12, and
there are no parallell sessions. The full programme, as well as abstracts
of all the lectures can be found on the conference website

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/sociolex

Conference venue

The symposium will take place in the Groot Begijnhof "Grand Beguinage",
Leuven's magnificent Unesco heritage. The Begijnhof, which was founded in
the 13th century outside the town walls, is a microcosmos of picturesque
16th-17th C houses, little cobbled alleys, narrow bridges, and an early
Gothic church. It is now a residence for University staff and Foreign
guests. The lectures are organised in the neighboring Irish College (1607),
where a buffet lunch will also be served. Dinner will be served in the
magnificent 16th C infirmary of the Faculty Club.


Accommodation & fees

For participants who present a paper, participation in the symposium, as
well as lunch and dinner on Thursday and Friday are free of charge.
Accommodation will be arranged for active participants in the Begijnhof
Congress Hotel (www.begijnhofcongreshotel.be) (to be paid for by the
participants themselves).

If you are interested in attending the symposium as a passive participant,
please send an e-mail to Dirk Geeraerts, Stefan Grondelaers & Dirk Speelman
(by October 16 at the latest) at the following address:

sociolex at listserv.cc.kuleuven.ac.be

Additional information on the conference organisers & the conference
schedule, the conference venue (how to get there) & registration, can be
found on the conference website

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/sociolex




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021010/e41033f1/attachment.htm>

From gthomson at MAC.COM  Fri Oct 11 00:40:40 2002
From: gthomson at MAC.COM (Greg Thomson)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 07:10:40 +0630
Subject: Psycho/Sociolinguistics Conf., Kazakhstan: Final call
Message-ID: <FRI.11.OCT.2002.071040.0630.GTHOMSON@MAC.COM>

FINAL CALL
Apology for cross-postings

DEAR COLLEAGUES!

THE AL-FARABI KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL LINGUISTICS
KAZAKH LANGUAGE: PSYCHOLINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY

INVITES YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH
CONFERENCE IN COMMEMORATION OF THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF AL-FARABI
KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

PSYCHOLINGUISTICS AND SOCIOLINGUISTICS: CONDITIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Conference date: September, 18-19, 2003.

THE FOLLOWING AREAS ARE OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION BY CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS:

SOCIOLINGUISTIC TOPICS
? LANGUAGE SITUATIONS AND LANGUAGE POLICY
? SOCIAL AND REGIONAL VARIATION
? INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES
? SOCIETAL BILINGUALISM
? LANGUAGES IN CONTACT
? SOCIOLINGUISTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS

PSYCHOLINGUISTIC TOPICS
? NATIVE LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND CHILD BILINGUALISM
? SPEECH PERCEPTION AND COMPREHENSION
? SPEECH PRODUCTION
? MENTAL LEXICON
? BILINGUALISM AND MULTILINGUALISM
? PSYCHOLINGUISTICS IN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
.
CONFERENCE WORKING LANGUAGES: KAZAKH, RUSSIAN, ENGLISH
PLEASE, ADD YOUR THESIS (1-2 PAGES) TO YOUR APPLICATION FORM .
THESIS TEXT SHOULD BE PRINTED AND IN ELECTRONIC FORM( IN RTF-FORMAT:
FILES SHOULD BE NAMED AFTER AUTHORS' SURNAMES).

DEADLINE: NOVEMBER, 30, 2002.
PHONE NUMBERS (3272) 47-27-97 (13-29)
THE CONFERENCE MATERIALS ARE PLANNED TO BE PUBLISHED.
REGISTRATION COST: $50 BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER TO ACCOUNT NUMBER
199117351, BENEFICIARY UMATOVA, ZHANNA, BANK: KAZKOMMERTZBANK,
ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN. SWIFT: KZKOKZKX; CORR/ACC. NO. 890-0223-057.
CORRESPONDING BANK: BANK OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA. SWIFT: IRVTUS3N.
CHIPS: 0001.
FINANCIAL CONDITIONS: ALL  PAYMENTS CONNECTED WITH CONFERENCE
PARTICIPATION ARE PAID BY THE PARTICIPANT.
Place: 480078, Kazakhstan, Almaty -city, al-Farabi - avenue, 71,
KazNU, Philological Faculty.

WE WELCOME YOUR INVOLVEMENT!

             CONFERENCE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Sincerely yours,
Zhanna Umatova
email:  umatova at rambler.ru
cc: to greg_thomson at telus.net

--
****PLEASE NOTE: our email address is now greg_thomson at telus.net.
Please discontinue using gthomson at mac.com, as it will soon expire.****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021011/ff1d60cf/attachment.htm>

From clements at INDIANA.EDU  Thu Oct 17 16:44:32 2002
From: clements at INDIANA.EDU (Clancy Clements)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:44:32 -0500
Subject: Second Call for papers -- LSRL 33
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.114432.0500.CLEMENTS@INDIANA.EDU>

Second Call for papers

The 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
April 24-27

Main session: All areas of Romance linguistics
Parasession: Romance Languages in Contact Situations

Deadline for receipt of abstracts: Dec. 6, 2002

Abstracts are invited for 20-minute talks (plus 10 minutes for discussion)
on any aspect of Romance linguistics. Abstracts should be no more than two
pages in length (including examples and references), in 12-point type. All
margins should be at least one inch wide (or 2.5 cm). Authors are asked to
submit their abstracts either by:
(a) e-mail attachment (MS Word or WordPerfect) with a hard copy to follow
within 1 week
OR
(b) postal services (send six copies of an anonymous abstract and one
additional copy with the author's name and affiliation.)
No faxes will be accepted. In the email message or on a separate sheet,
please also include the title of the paper, name of author(s),
affiliation(s), address, phone number, and e-mail address. To facilitate
the review process, please indicate the primary area of linguistics
addressed in the paper. Those who wish to be considered for both the Main
Session and the Parasession should send two sets of materials (please
indicate MAIN SESSION / PARASESSION). Submissions are limited to a maximum
of one individual and one joint abstract per author. Preference will be
given to presentations not duplicated at other major conferences (e.g.,
LSA, NELS, WCCFL). Authors are asked to indicate prior or planned
presentations of their papers.

Send abstracts to:
lsrl33 at indiana.edu
or
LSRL XXXIII
CREDLI
1020 E. Kirkwood Ave.
Ballantine Hall 604
Bloomington, IN 47405-7103
USA


From traugott at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Thu Oct 17 23:45:05 2002
From: traugott at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Elizabeth Traugott)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 16:45:05 -0700
Subject: job opportunity
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.164505.0700.TRAUGOTT@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

                  STANFORD UNIVERSITY
                LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT
                  JOB ANNOUNCEMENT

The Department of Linguistics at Stanford University
announces a full-time position for a tenure-track assistant
professor or beginning associate professor with a starting
date of September 1, 2003. Candidates must hold the Ph.D. in
linguistics or a related field by the starting date. The
department values research programs that link more than one
subfield of linguistics in the development of larger
theories of language and language use, and it emphasizes
rigorous theoretical work solidly based on empirical data
from, among other sources, corpora of spoken and written
usage, experimental findings, fieldwork, and computer
modeling. We are particularly interested in receiving
applications from candidates in the following areas:
phonetics/phonology, sociolinguistics/variation & change,
and computational linguistics/language processing.
Filling this position represents an initial step in our
long-range plans for the department.

To receive full consideration, hard-copy applications
should arrive by December 6th, 2002. (Please no
electronic applications.) Stanford University is an
equal opportunity employer and especially welcomes
applications from women and minority candidates. Please
include a CV, statements of research and teaching interests,
up to three research papers, and the names of three or
four references. All applicants should also have letters of
reference sent directly to the Search Committee.

Send materials to:

Search Committee
Department of Linguistics
Stanford University
Margaret Jacks Hall, Room 127
Stanford, CA 94305-2150
USA

(Tel:  650-723-4284; Fax:  650-723-5666)

E-mail inquiries should be directed to Professor Beth Levin,
the chair of the search committee, at bclevin at stanford.edu.

The Stanford Linguistics Department's web page is:
http://www-linguistics.stanford.edu.


From ward at BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU  Fri Oct 18 01:07:52 2002
From: ward at BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU (Gregory Ward)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:07:52 -0500
Subject: job
Message-ID: <THU.17.OCT.2002.200752.0500.WARD@BABEL.LING.NORTHWESTERN.EDU>

Psycholinguistics or Computational Linguistics Position at Northwestern
University

The Department of Linguistics at Northwestern University has received
authorization to fill a tenure-line assistant professor position in
either psycholinguistics or computational linguistics with a start date
of September 1, 2003.  We are most interested in individuals whose
research focuses on the acquisition or processing of language by humans
or machines.  Preference will be given to those applicants whose
research interests mesh with those of the present faculty.  Although we
expect to hire at the rank of assistant professor, more senior
candidates will also be considered. Candidates must hold a Ph.D. in
linguistics, psychology, computer science, or other related field by the
start date.

To receive fullest consideration, applications should arrive in the
Department by December 1, 2002.  Please send a CV (indicating an e-mail
address), statements of research and teaching interests, reprints or
other written work, teaching evaluations (if available), and the names
of three references. Candidates should arrange to have the letters of
reference sent directly to the search committee.  Send all materials to:

Linguistics Search Committee
Department of Linguistics
Northwestern University
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208-4090 USA
(Tel: 847-491-7020, Fax: 847-491-3770)

E-mail inquiries should be directed to jlidz at northwestern.edu (our web
site can be found at: http://www.cas.northwestern.edu/linguistics).
Northwestern University is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action
Employer. Applications from minority and women candidates are especially
welcome. Hiring is contingent on eligibility to work in the United
States.


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Fri Oct 18 15:56:57 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:56:57 -0400
Subject: New Book: Hajicova et al.
Message-ID: <FRI.18.OCT.2002.115657.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

A new work of interest to functional linguists from John Benjamins Publishing
Thanks
Title: Prague Linguistic Circle Papers. Volume 4
Subtitle: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague nouvelle s?rie
Series Title: Prague Linguistic Circle Papers / Travaux du cercle
               linguistique de Prague N.S.

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Editor: Eva Hajic^ov?
Editor: Jir? Hana
Editor: Tom?s^  Hoskovec
Editor: Petr  Sgall

Hardback: ISBN: 158811175X, Pages: viii, 376, Price: USD 113.00 (US & Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027254443, Pages: viii, 376, Price: EUR 125.00 (Rest of world)

Abstract:

The fourth volume of the revived series of "Travaux du Cercle
linguistique de Prague" brings three contributions (by J. Vachek,
O. Les^ka and V. Skalicka) connected with the classical period of the
Prague School, as well as papers delivered at the conference
"Function, Form, and Meaning: Bridges and Interfaces", held in Prague
in 1998. Some of the contributions concern issues of grammar of
different languages including a syntactic annotation of a large Czech
text corpus, a comparison of Hebrew conditionals with English, a
characterization of the typology of the Indo-European verb. A further
part focuses on topic-focus articulation (information sentence
structure, functional sentence perspective), with a concept of
"perspective" introduced as close to but distinct from "topic" and
with three different viewpoints on the semantics of information
structure. Two broader essays on the nature of language are then
presented, while the last section analyzes the structure of free
verse. The volume represents a contribution to the continuing fruitful
interaction between the work of the Prague School and the more and
less closely related approaches of linguists in other countries.

Table of Contents

Preface  vii
Section I: The Prague tradition in retrospect
Prolegomena to the history of the Prague School of Linguistics
      Josef Vachek  3
Anton Marty's philosophy of language
      Oldrich Les^ka  83
Die Typologie des Ungarischen
      Vladim?r Skalicka  101
Section II: Grammar
Theoretical description of language as a basis of corpus annotation:
   The case of Prague Dependency Treebank
      Eva Hajicov?  111
"Conditionals" in Hebrew and English: same or different?
      Yishai Tobin  129
Sur la paradigmatisation du verbe indo-europ?en
   (deuxi?me partie)
      Tom?s^ Hoskovec  143
Section III: Topic - focus articulation
The Russian genitive of negation in existential sentences: The role of
   Theme - Rheme structure reconsidered
      Vladimir Borschev and Barbara H. Partee  185
Synonymy vs. differentiation of variant syntactic realizations of FSP
   functions
      Libus^e Dus^kov?  251
Topic - Focus articulation as generalized quantification
      Jaroslav Peregrin  263
Information structure and the partition of sentence meaning
      Klaus von Heusinger  275
Section IV: General views
Freedom of language: Its nature, its sources, and its consequences
      Petr Sgall  309
The natural order of cognitive events
      Philip A. Luelsdorff  331
Section V: Poetics
The principle of free verse
      Miroslav C^ervenka  365


Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





Paul Peranteau (paul at benjamins.com)
P O Box 27519                   Ph: 215 836-1200
Philadelphia PA 19118-0519      Fax: 215 836-1204
John Benjamins Publishing Co. website: http://www.benjamins.com


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Mon Oct 21 17:29:13 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:29:13 -0700
Subject: New Book: INFORMATION SHARING
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.102913.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

INFORMATION SHARING: REFERENCE AND PRESUPPOSITION IN LANGUAGE
GENERATION AND INTERPRETATION, Kees van Deemter (Information
Technology Research Institute) and Rodger Kibble (Goldsmiths
College), eds.;paper ISBN: 1-57586-404-5, $30.00, cloth ISBN:
1-57586-403-7, $75.00, 429pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

This book introduces the concept of information sharing as an area of
cognitive science. Information sharing is defined here as the process
by which speakers depend on `given' information (i.e., information
already shared with the hearer from previous communication) when they
convey `new' information   (i.e., information assumed to be new to
the hearer).  Information sharing is a key concept in linguistics and
philosophy, where it is related to notions like presupposition,
anaphora, focus, and indexicality.  It is also perceived as crucial
in various areas of language engineering because computer-based
processing of language and speech relies heavily on the computer's
ability to distinguish between given and new information.

Where previous work in information sharing is often fragmented
between different academic disciplines (in  particular, between
linguistics and computer science),  the present volume brings
together theoretical and  applied work, and it joins computational
contributions with papers based on an analysis of language corpora
and  on psycholinguistic experimentation. A remarkable number of the
contributions take a generation-oriented, rather than an
interpretation-oriented perspective, asking what is the most
appropriate verbal expression of an item  of information in a given
situation.

------------------------------


From sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU  Mon Oct 21 17:37:50 2002
From: sosa at CSLI.STANFORD.EDU (Christine Sosa)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:37:50 -0700
Subject: New Book: SEMANTICS FOR DESCRIPTIONS
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.103750.0700.SOSA@CSLI.STANFORD.EDU>

CSLI Publications is pleased to announce the publication of:

SEMANTICS FOR DESCRIPTIONS: FROM LINGUISTICS TO COMPUTER SCIENCE,
Francois Rastier (National Center of Scientific Research, Marc
Cavazza (University of Teesside), and Anne Abeille (University of
Paris VII), eds.;  paper ISBN: 1-57586-352-9, $25.00, cloth ISBN:
1-57586-353-7, $65.00, 288 pages. CSLI Publications 2002.
http://cslipublications.stanford.edu , email: pubs at csli.stanford.edu.

To order this book, contact The University of Chicago Press. Call
their toll free order number 1-800-621-2736  (U.S. & Canada only)  or
order online at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ (use the search
feature to locate the book, then order).

Book description:

In this multimedia age, text description raises the question of how
different perceptual modalities and different semiotic systems
actually interact. The semiotic paradigm could soon replace the
computational paradigm, especially as a means of modeling text
understanding. The field of automatic language processing has
encountered a number of difficulties because the semantic theories it
relies on do not take into account recent advances in linguistic
semantics. In particular, a text cannot be reduced to a string of
characters or to a series of instructions. Texts, which can even
encompass expert interviews and technical documents, are in fact
cultural objects. Interpreting them consequently requires a detailed
description of textual genres, communicative conditions, and the
language used. Where a positivist approach has proven unsuccessful, a
rational hermeneutics can offer more suitable descriptive methods
because it allows the theoretical and practical conditions of text
interpretation to be defined. It provides a methodological framework
capable of adapting corpus descriptions to the objectives of
applications. Drawing on the most recent studies, this
interdisciplinary work addresses itself as much to linguists as to
computer scientists. Its didactic format, along with the concrete
analyses it contains, also makes it accessible to students.

------------------------------


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Mon Oct 21 19:49:29 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:49:29 -0400
Subject: New title: Bybee & Noonan
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.154929.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjamins Publishing announces a new work relevant to functional
linguistics:


Title: Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse
Subtitle: Essays in honor of Sandra A. Thompson
Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Author: Joan L. Bybee (University of New Mexico)
Author: Michael  Noonan (University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Hardback: ISBN: 1588111172, Pages: viii, 363 pp., Price: USD 100.00  (US &
Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027225850, Pages: viii, 363 pp., Price: EUR
110.00  (Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

The papers in this volume in honor of Sandra Annear Thompson deal with
complex sentences, an important topic in Thompson's career. The focus
of the contributions is on the ways in which the grammatical
properties of complex sentences are shaped by the communicative
context in which they are produced, an approach to grammatical
analysis that Thompson pioneered and developed in the course of her
distinguished career.


Table of Contents

Introduction
      Joan L. Bybee and Michael Noonan  vii - viii
Main clauses are innovative, subordinate clauses are conservative:
Consequences for the nature of constructions
      Joan L. Bybee  1 - 17
Participles in Tsez: An emergent word class?
      Bernard Comrie  19 - 30
Mini-grammars of some time-when expressions in English
      Charles J. Fillmore  31 - 59
Denial and the construction of conversational turns
      Cecilia E. Ford  61 - 78
On the embodied nature of grammar: Embodied being-in-the-world
      Barbara A. Fox  79 - 99
The symmetry of counterfactuals
      John Haiman and Tania A. Kuteva  101 - 124
Note on the grammar of Turkish nominalizations
      Pelin Engin Hennesy and T. Giv?n  125 - 144
Hendiadys and auxiliation in English
      Paul J. Hopper  145 - 173
"Sentence" in spontaneous spoken Japanese discourse
      Shoichi Iwasaki and Tsuyoshi Ono  175 - 202
Some issues concerning the origin of language
      Charles N. Li  203 - 221
Are subordinate clauses more difficult?
      Carol Lord  223 - 233
Combining clauses into clause complexes: A multi-faceted view
      Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen  235 - 319
Overwrought utterances: "Complex sentences" in a different sense
      Emanuel A. Schegloff  321 - 336
Publications by Sandra A. Thompson  337 - 345
Name index  351 - 355
Subject index  357 - 363

Lingfield(s): Functional & Systemic Ling (Linguistic Theories)
               Linguistic Theories

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Mon Oct 21 20:05:48 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:05:48 -0400
Subject: New Book: Newman
Message-ID: <MON.21.OCT.2002.160548.0400.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjmains Publishing announces a new work of relevance to functional
linguistics


Title: The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying
Series Title: Typological Studies in Language 51

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/

Editor: John  Newman (Massey University)

Hardback: ISBN: 1588112047, Pages: xii, 409 pp., Price: USD 108.00 (US &
Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027229570, Pages: xii, 409 pp., Price: EUR 120.00
(Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

This volume explores properties of "sit", "stand", and "lie" verbs,
reflecting three of the most salient postures associated with
humans. An introductory chapter by the Editor provides an overview of
directions for research into posture verbs. These directions are then
explored in detail in a number of languages: Dutch; Korean; Japanese;
Lao; Chantyal, Magar (Tibeto-Burman); Chipewyan (Athapaskan); Trumai
(spoken in Brazil); Kxoe (Khoisan); Mbay (Nilo-Saharan); Oceanic;
Enga, Ku Waru (Papuan); Arrernte, Pitjantjatjara, Ngan'gityemerri
(Australian). The contributors discuss data relevant to many fields of
linguistic inquiry, including patterns of lexicalization (e.g.,
simplex or complex verb forms), morphology (e.g., state vs. action
formations), grammaticalization (e.g., extension to locational
predicates, aspect markers, auxiliaries, copulas, classifiers), and
figurative extension. A final chapter reports on an experimental
methodology designed to establish the relevant cognitive parameters
underlying speakers' judgements on the polysemy of English
stand. Taken together, the chapters provide a wealth of
cross-linguistic data on posture verbs.

Table of Contents

Preface  vii
1. A cross-linguistic overview of the posture verbs "sit", "stand",
    and "lie"
      John Newman  1
2. Semantics and combinatorics of "sit", "stand", and "lie" in Lao
      Nick J. Enfield  25
3. Action and state interpretations of "sit" in Japanese and English
      John Newman and Toshiko Yamaguchi  43
4. Posture and existence predicates in Dene Suline (Chipewyan):
    Lexical and semantic density as a function of the "stand"/"sit/"lie"
    continuum
      Sally Rice  61
5. Posture verbs in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal
      Michael Noonan and Karen Grunow-Harsta  79
6. The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs
      Maarten Lemmens  103
7. The syntax and semantics of posture forms in Trumai
      Raquel Guirardello-Damian  141
8. Men stand, women sit: On the grammaticalization of posture verbs in
    Papuan languages, its bodily basis and cultural correlates
      Alan L. Rumsey  179
9. Posture, location, existence, and states of being in two Central
    Australian languages
Cliff Goddard and Jean Harkins  213
10. Sit right down the back: Serialized posture verbs in
     Ngan'gityemerri and other Northern Australian languages
      Nicholas Reid  239
11. Posture verbs in Oceanic
      Frank Lichtenberk  269
12. The grammatical evolution of posture verbs in Kxoe
      Christa Kilian-Hatz  315
13. Posture verbs in Mbay
      John M. Keegan  333
14. The posture verbs in Korean: Basic and extended uses
      Jae Jung Song  359
15. Embodied standing and the psychological semantics of stand
      Raymond W. Gibbs Jr.  387
Index  401

Lingfield(s):  Linguistic Theories

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)




                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Thu Oct 24 09:24:59 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:24:59 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.112459.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Dear colleagues,
I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
"Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
Note (6) reads:
"This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
the idea of the unmarked or default order.
I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
there really no object initial languages?
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 n.chipere at READING.AC.UK  Thu Oct 24 10:25:39 2002
From: n.chipere at READING.AC.UK (Ngoni Chipere)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 11:25:39 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.112539.0100.N.CHIPERE@READING.AC.UK>

Dear Ron,

My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
variations in word order. It's quite possible to have

VOS
e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
       He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

OSV
e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
        Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

OVS
e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
      Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.

best,

Ngoni

*********************************************************
Dr Ngoni Chipere
Research Fellow
School of Education, University of Reading
Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943


> Dear colleagues,
> I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> Note (6) reads:
> "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> there really no object initial languages?
> Thanks
> Roni
> ====================================
>                  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 hstahlke at BSU.EDU  Thu Oct 24 18:32:29 2002
From: hstahlke at BSU.EDU (Stahlke, Herbert F.W.)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:32:29 -0500
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.133229.0500.HSTAHLKE@BSU.EDU>

Dear Ngoni,

Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?

Herb Stahlke
Ball State University

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
        Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
        To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
        Cc:
        Subject: Re: Object-initial languages



        Dear Ron,

        My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
        variations in word order. It's quite possible to have

        VOS
        e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
               He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

        OSV
        e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
                Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.

        OVS
        e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
              Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.

        best,

        Ngoni

        *********************************************************
        Dr Ngoni Chipere
        Research Fellow
        School of Education, University of Reading
        Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
        tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943


        > Dear colleagues,
        > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
        > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
        > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
        > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
        > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
        > Note (6) reads:
        > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
        > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
        > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
        > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
        > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
        > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
        > there really no object initial languages?
        > Thanks
        > Roni
        > ====================================
        >                  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 dgolumbi at PANIX.COM  Thu Oct 24 18:56:05 2002
From: dgolumbi at PANIX.COM (David Golumbia)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:56:05 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021024110528.3C19.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il> from "Ron Kuzar"
 at Oct 24, 2002 11:24:59 AM
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.145605.0400.DGOLUMBI@PANIX.COM>

For a functional perspective, the most detailed treatment of O** orders
is found in the work of Matthew Dryer - see the references at

http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/dryer.htm

a couple of the downloadable .pdf papers there are applicable (see the
1996 "Word Order Typology"), but as far as I know the most direct comments
are in "On the 6-Way Word Order Typology," _Studies in Language_ 21 (1997),
and "SVO Languages and the OV/VO Typology," _Journal of Linguistics_ 27
(1991) (see above page for full references and others).

I expect that Dr. Dryer will see this exchange eventually and may have
more to add himself.

DG

>
> Dear colleagues,
> I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> Note (6) reads:
> "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> there really no object initial languages?
> Thanks
> Roni
> ====================================
>                  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
> ====================================
>


--
dgolumbi at panix.com
David Golumbia


From nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Thu Oct 24 19:26:24 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:26:24 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.122624.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

For what it's worth ...

    Sometimes I wonder why OVS languages aren't common.  In free word order
languages, such as those I work with (Sahaptian), OV and VS orders are quite
common ... as might be predicted on universal pragmatic principles (e.g.,
Doris Payne, ed., Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility, TSL 22, 1992).
Probably the rarety of syntacticised OVS has been accounted for, but I'd be
interested in a brief fill in if possible.

    Noel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Kuzar" <kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:24 AM
Subject: Object-initial languages


Dear colleagues,
I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
"Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
Note (6) reads:
"This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
the idea of the unmarked or default order.
I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
there really no object initial languages?
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU  Thu Oct 24 22:45:06 2002
From: spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU (Spike Gildea)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:45:06 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <F2259C34D637F048841A4AF1650B52F5328D14@EMAIL7.bsu.edu>
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.154506.0700.SPIKE@DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>

I am nervous at the suggestion that the subordinate clause word order
be considered a default for typing an entire language.  In general, I
am not sure that I believe in generalizations about a language's
"default order" that can extend across various constructions, which
individually show different ordering principles.  And while it might
be instructive for internal reconstruction of syntax to look at the
other aspects of word order typology in any given language, it
defeats the purpose when you go to a new language to test the
reliability of the published correlations from word order typology
and then you consider the orders of the things you want to correlate
as possible evidence to point you towards determining the "basic"
order (that is, the thing you want to then correlate the other orders
to).  If we want to correlate "basic" order order in independent
clauses with all the other orders, then we need to determine that
basic order independently.

And that's not always easy to do.  For instance, in the Cariban
language family, subordinate clause word order is more conservative
(in a historical sense) than main clause word order, but the
independent clauses in various individual languages seem to be
organized according to different syntactic principles, such that in a
single language different clause types (with different historical
origins) display distinct "default", or most frequent orders,
including OVS, Abs-V-Erg, SOV, SVO, and "free" (pragmatically
determined) order.


Spike



>Dear Ngoni,
>
>Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit
>a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate
>clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does
>Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial
>subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology
>manifest themselves in Shona?
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Ball State University
>


From nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Thu Oct 24 23:24:42 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:24:42 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <THU.24.OCT.2002.162442.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

Still ... let's keep in mind that because languages do differ such that at
one extreme are "free" word order lgs (with pragmatic function ... in
Sahaptian A is never distinguished from O by word order) and at the other
extreme are lgs that do exploit word order in coding grammatical relations.
I am not so sure that there is such a thing as "default" order in Sahaptian,
but in other lgs ... for ex., in VS lgs which require extra morphology for
SV ... I think you can.  It can be done via morphological (and intonational)
markedness.  Also one might describe a basic word order in languages with
variant word orders depending on voice (and/or aspect) if he is willing to
grant a basic clause type (active, perfective, main clause ... as in our
functionalist tradition).

Noel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Spike Gildea" <spike at DARKWING.UOREGON.EDU>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


I am nervous at the suggestion that the subordinate clause word order
be considered a default for typing an entire language.  In general, I
am not sure that I believe in generalizations about a language's
"default order" that can extend across various constructions, which
individually show different ordering principles.  And while it might
be instructive for internal reconstruction of syntax to look at the
other aspects of word order typology in any given language, it
defeats the purpose when you go to a new language to test the
reliability of the published correlations from word order typology
and then you consider the orders of the things you want to correlate
as possible evidence to point you towards determining the "basic"
order (that is, the thing you want to then correlate the other orders
to).  If we want to correlate "basic" order order in independent
clauses with all the other orders, then we need to determine that
basic order independently.

And that's not always easy to do.  For instance, in the Cariban
language family, subordinate clause word order is more conservative
(in a historical sense) than main clause word order, but the
independent clauses in various individual languages seem to be
organized according to different syntactic principles, such that in a
single language different clause types (with different historical
origins) display distinct "default", or most frequent orders,
including OVS, Abs-V-Erg, SOV, SVO, and "free" (pragmatically
determined) order.


Spike



>Dear Ngoni,
>
>Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit
>a default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate
>clauses, where there tends to be less word order variation.  Does
>Shona allow the same flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial
>subordinate clauses?  How do other aspects of word order typology
>manifest themselves in Shona?
>
>Herb Stahlke
>Ball State University
>


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Fri Oct 25 08:19:27 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:19:27 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.101927.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Thanks to all those who have answered both on Funknet and privately.
Clearly, the notion of default order is slippery. So let me reformulate
and narrow down my question: the word order that I am interested in is
the one used for narrating a story.
Have a look at the following English excerpt taken from the Brown corpus.
I have put the narrative sentences which form the skeleton of the story
in square brackets.

N12 0570  3       [Curt moved over beside the door and waited].
[Presently
N12 0580  1    he heard footsteps crossing the yard, and Jess's smothered
N12 0580 10    curses]. [The door swung open], and [Jess said sourly],
N12 0590  9    "What the hell's the matter with you?"
N12 0600  5       [The horse continued to snort]. [Curt doubted that
N12 0610  4    any animal belonging to Jess would find much reassurance
N12 0620  1    in its owner's voice.]
N12 0620  5       [Jess cursed again, and entered the barn]. [A match
N12 0630  5    flared], and [he reached above his head to light a
lantern
N12 0640  1    which hung from a wire loop]. As he crossed to the side
N12 0640 13    of the stall, [Curt drew his gun and clicked back the
N12 0650 10    hammer.]
N12 0650 11       "Before you try anything", [he said]. "Remember what
N12 0660  8    happened to Gruller".
N12 0670  1       [Jess caught his breath in surprise]. [He started to
N12 0670 10    reach for his gun], but apparently thought better of
N12 0680  9    it.
N12 0680 10       "That's the stuff", [Curt said]. "Just hold it that
N12 0690  9    way". [He reached out to pull the door shut and fasten
N12 0700  8    it with a sliding bolt]. "You and I have a little talking
N12 0710  6    to do, Jess. You won't be needing this". [He moved up
N12 0720  4    and lifted Jess's pistol out of its holster.]

The kind of English employed here has a rather sweeping SV order. In
other English styles "a match flared" may be rendered as "there flared a
match" and "Curt said" could be "said Curt". Modern Hebrew may also have
inversion of SV to VS after initial adjuncts, to mark a higher register.
In VS languages (in the same narrow sense) such as Biblical Hebrew and
Written Standard Arabic, most of these sentences would have VS order.
In sum, we obviously have languages with subject-initial and
verb-initial narrative styles.
My question is: are there languages in which these sentences - or many
or most of them - would be in an object-initial order?
I hope the question is clearer now.
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                 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 hancock at CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU  Fri Oct 25 12:57:37 2002
From: hancock at CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU (Craig Hancock)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:57:37 -0400
Subject: Object-initial Languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.085737.0400.HANCOCK@CNSUNIX.ALBANY.EDU>

This isn't an answer to Ron's fine and thoughtful question, but I'm
wondering if I'm right in assuming that object initial order in English
is highly thematic, highly marked.  Her husband, I like; her, I can't
stand.  This example  also  moves the verb phrases into clause ending
prominence.  The highly given pronoun subjects are diminished.  Am I on
track?

Craig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/5680833a/attachment.htm>

From Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK  Fri Oct 25 13:08:11 2002
From: Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK (Dan Everett)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 14:08:11 +0100
Subject: Object-initial Languages
In-Reply-To: <3DB93FC1.F7E1B8DB@cnsunix.albany.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.140811.0100.DAN.EVERETT@MAN.AC.UK>

Folks,

Like Spike, I share concerns about using subordinate clauses
as a guideline for determining 'basic word order'. In fact, I am not in
favor of using guidelines like this at all, except as a posteriori
illustrations.

I suggest that we be a bit more Sapirian in our approach to these matters
and not allow ourselves to be misled by superficial similarities. The
following points might be worth bearing in mind:

1. In almost all languages, 'word order' is a misnomer for 'constituent
order'. What kinds of constituents are we talking about for a given
language? How did we arrive at this inventory of constituents? What
assumptions underly this inventory?

2. The term 'basic' has no status in linguistic theories. And as soon as
we attempt to make it more precise, we immediately expose the vast
differences between approaches and what one or the other will consider to
be subsumed by the informal term, 'basic'. For example, are we talking
about 'underlying'? 'input'? 'unmarked' in elicitation? 'unmarked' in
discourse? most frequent? etc. Comparing these terms (e.g. most frequent
vs. underlying) is likely to be unfruitful, falling into what Popper
called 'essentialism'.

3. Some theories (e.g. RRG) assert that there are no such things as
universally applicable grammatical relations. For such theories
classifying languages as SOV, VOS, etc. is always going to be misleading.

4. Languages should first be described carefully before they are plundered
for theoretical points. Does each language in a survey have a well-argued,
detailed grammar? What kind of field experience was that grammar based on?
What kind of corpus?

I suspect that most on this list already agree with most of what I just
said. Perhaps it is useful, though, to remind ourselves of such things
from time to time.

Best,

Dan Everett



**************************************************************

Daniel L. Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, UK
M13 9PL
dan.everett at man.ac.uk
44-161-275-3158


From ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU  Fri Oct 25 13:41:10 2002
From: ph1u at ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Paul Hopper)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:41:10 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021025090628.818D.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.094110.0400.PH1U@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>

Ron Kuzar's reformulation of his question seems to bring us back full
circle to a body of literature on the subject of discourse and word order
that was around in the 1970s and 1980s, and that included such issues as
foregrounding/backgrounding, transitivity, topic continuity, default word
order, thematicity, and so on.  These studies usually took narrative as the
prime genre and assumed that conclusions based on continuous monologic
narrative would count as generally valid. Many of these conclusions had to
be revised when conversational data were introduced. Desmond Derbyshire's
work on Hixkaryana in the 1970s (championed by Geoff Pullum) discussed in
detail both clause and discourse aspects of OVS languages. John Myhill, of
the University of Haifa, did important studies of the alternation of VS and
SV in languages like Hebrew. The bibliography on all these issues of the
pragmatics of word order is quite large.

Paul Hopper

---------------------------
Paul Hopper
Thomas S. Baker Professor of English and Linguistics
Department of English
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Telephone (412) 268-7174
Fax (412) 268-7989



--On Friday, October 25, 2002 10:19 AM +0200 Ron Kuzar
<kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il> wrote:

Thanks to all those who have answered both on Funknet and privately.
Clearly, the notion of default order is slippery. So let me reformulate
and narrow down my question: the word order that I am interested in is
the one used for narrating a story.
Have a look at the following English excerpt taken from the Brown corpus.
I have put the narrative sentences which form the skeleton of the story
in square brackets.

N12 0570  3       [Curt moved over beside the door and waited].
[Presently
N12 0580  1    he heard footsteps crossing the yard, and Jess's smothered
N12 0580 10    curses]. [The door swung open], and [Jess said sourly],
N12 0590  9    "What the hell's the matter with you?"
N12 0600  5       [The horse continued to snort]. [Curt doubted that
N12 0610  4    any animal belonging to Jess would find much reassurance
N12 0620  1    in its owner's voice.]
N12 0620  5       [Jess cursed again, and entered the barn]. [A match
N12 0630  5    flared], and [he reached above his head to light a
lantern
N12 0640  1    which hung from a wire loop]. As he crossed to the side
N12 0640 13    of the stall, [Curt drew his gun and clicked back the
N12 0650 10    hammer.]
N12 0650 11       "Before you try anything", [he said]. "Remember what
N12 0660  8    happened to Gruller".
N12 0670  1       [Jess caught his breath in surprise]. [He started to
N12 0670 10    reach for his gun], but apparently thought better of
N12 0680  9    it.
N12 0680 10       "That's the stuff", [Curt said]. "Just hold it that
N12 0690  9    way". [He reached out to pull the door shut and fasten
N12 0700  8    it with a sliding bolt]. "You and I have a little talking
N12 0710  6    to do, Jess. You won't be needing this". [He moved up
N12 0720  4    and lifted Jess's pistol out of its holster.]

The kind of English employed here has a rather sweeping SV order. In
other English styles "a match flared" may be rendered as "there flared a
match" and "Curt said" could be "said Curt". Modern Hebrew may also have
inversion of SV to VS after initial adjuncts, to mark a higher register.
In VS languages (in the same narrow sense) such as Biblical Hebrew and
Written Standard Arabic, most of these sentences would have VS order.
In sum, we obviously have languages with subject-initial and
verb-initial narrative styles.
My question is: are there languages in which these sentences - or many
or most of them - would be in an object-initial order?
I hope the question is clearer now.
Thanks
Roni
====================================
                  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 n.chipere at READING.AC.UK  Fri Oct 25 14:20:39 2002
From: n.chipere at READING.AC.UK (Ngoni Chipere)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:20:39 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.152039.0100.N.CHIPERE@READING.AC.UK>

Herb,

In answer to your question, word order variation does seem much more
constrained in subordinate clauses, at least as far as I can trust my
intuition. The main word order in subordinate clauses seems to be SVO, which
is also the main word order in main clauses - though I suspect my intuition
is heavily influenced by the sorts of sentences that I encountered in
children's books while learning to read! I haven't studied language typology
so I can't answer your second question intelligently, unless you ask me
about specific features.

I don't have any theoretical interest in this thread, by the way, though,
from a purely methodological point of view, I fully agree with Dan that
corpus data should be used to eliminate the subjective element as much as
possible in making linguistic generalisations (this is not a comment on
anything you said, Herb). I look forward to the day when linguistics is a
science, as opposed to a discipline which fondly likes to think it's one!

best,

Ngoni


> Dear Ngoni,
>
> Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a
default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where
there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same
flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do
other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?
>
> Herb Stahlke
> Ball State University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
> Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
> To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Object-initial languages
>
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
> variations in word order. It's quite possible to have
>
> VOS
> e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
>        He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OSV
> e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
>         Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OVS
> e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
>       Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.
>
> best,
>
> Ngoni
>
> *********************************************************
> Dr Ngoni Chipere
> Research Fellow
> School of Education, University of Reading
> Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
> tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> > Note (6) reads:
> > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> > there really no object initial languages?
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> > ====================================
> >                  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 oesten at LING.SU.SE  Fri Oct 25 15:14:26 2002
From: oesten at LING.SU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:14:26 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.171426.0200.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

Joining Spike in being nervous at "the suggestion that the subordinate
clause word order be considered a default for typing an entire
language", here are some considerations that have worried me for quite
some time:

In all Germanic languages that I know of, a simple sentence such as "I
love you" has SVO word order. Still, the majority opinion seems to be
that whereas English and Scandinavian do have basic SVO word order, the
continental Germanic languages are really SOV, the order in subordinate
clauses being decisive. Similarly, in Standard Mainland Scandinavian,
negation and various other elements follow the finite verb in main
clauses and precede it in subordinate clauses. So syntacticians tend to
declare the latter order basic. But subordinate clauses are both less
frequent and acquired much later than simple main clauses. One wonders
if there isn't something fundamentally wrong with linguists' assumptions
about "basicness" and "markedness". Clearly, subordinate clauses are
more rigid with respect to word order, and this has something to do with
"degree of grammaticalization", which in turn has to do with historical
processes that fix the word order in constructions. But the result of
such processes may not necessarily be "basic" in the language in any
sense.

?sten Dahl


From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il  Fri Oct 25 15:20:02 2002
From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:20:02 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <451752314.1035538870@GROATS-3-50.PPP.andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.172002.0200.KUZAR@RESEARCH.HAIFA.AC.IL>

Dear Paul,
There is no reason to formulate a condescending answer. You could
imagine that I am aware of the complexities of non-narrative and
non-monologic text modes. I could still be entitled to believe that
monologic narrative style is - after all - central in human experience
and in language. I also didn't ask for VS literature, and I am quite aware
of the writings of my next-door neighbor Myhill. But all that aside, all
I wish to know is whether there are object-initial component orders for
the type of sentences in the type of style that I presented in my
previous message. And if at this particular position the term object
needs to be problematized, I would like to hear about that.
I am sorry I have hastily called this "the default order". I stand
corrected on this point.
Roni
====================================
                 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 nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM  Fri Oct 25 15:36:13 2002
From: nrude at BALLANGRUD.COM (Noel Rude)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:36:13 -0700
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.083613.0700.NRUDE@BALLANGRUD.COM>

Ah ... science ... yes but there're two ways to qualify: methodologically or
by association.  And so the Many Worlders and the tellers of Darwinian
just-so stories qualify because of their association with disciplines where
rigor resides, whereas historians and linguists (and others) who might
formulate risky hypotheses and test with real data don't qualify when
methodology doesn't count.

Noel


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ngoni Chipere" <n.chipere at READING.AC.UK>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


Herb,

In answer to your question, word order variation does seem much more
constrained in subordinate clauses, at least as far as I can trust my
intuition. The main word order in subordinate clauses seems to be SVO, which
is also the main word order in main clauses - though I suspect my intuition
is heavily influenced by the sorts of sentences that I encountered in
children's books while learning to read! I haven't studied language typology
so I can't answer your second question intelligently, unless you ask me
about specific features.

I don't have any theoretical interest in this thread, by the way, though,
from a purely methodological point of view, I fully agree with Dan that
corpus data should be used to eliminate the subjective element as much as
possible in making linguistic generalisations (this is not a comment on
anything you said, Herb). I look forward to the day when linguistics is a
science, as opposed to a discipline which fondly likes to think it's one!

best,

Ngoni


> Dear Ngoni,
>
> Lots of languages can do this sort of thing, but still they exhibit a
default word order.  This typically shows up in subordinate clauses, where
there tends to be less word order variation.  Does Shona allow the same
flexibility in relative clauses or adverbial subordinate clauses?  How do
other aspects of word order typology manifest themselves in Shona?
>
> Herb Stahlke
> Ball State University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ngoni Chipere [mailto:n.chipere at READING.AC.UK]
> Sent: Thu 10/24/2002 5:25 AM
> To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Object-initial languages
>
>
>
> Dear Ron,
>
> My native language - Shona - has a rich morphology which allows great
> variations in word order. It's quite possible to have
>
> VOS
> e.g. Anonwa doro Tendai
>        He-drinks beer Tendai, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OSV
> e.g. Doro Tendai anonwa
>         Beer Tendai he-drinks, i.e. Tendai drinks beer.
>
> OVS
> e.g. Doro anonwa Tendai
>       Beer he-drinks Tendai, again meaning Tendai drinks beer.
>
> best,
>
> Ngoni
>
> *********************************************************
> Dr Ngoni Chipere
> Research Fellow
> School of Education, University of Reading
> Bulmershe Court, Earley, Reading, RG6 1HY, UK
> tel 0118 9875123 ext 4943
>
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> > I his recent textbook, Andrew Carnie (2002) Syntax: A Generative
> > Introduction, p. 18-19, says:
> > "Oversimplifying slightly, most languages put the order of elements in
> > a sentence in one of the following word orders: SVO, SOV, VSO. A few
> > languages use VOS. No (or almost no)(6) languages use OSV, OVS."
> > Note (6) reads:
> > "This is a matter of some debate. Derbyshire (1985) has claimed that the
> > language Hixkaryana has object initial order."
> > Obviously, the very definition of the term subject (and object) may
> > depend on theoretical considerations (ergative languages?), and so would
> > the idea of the unmarked or default order.
> > I am interested in functionally-oriented comments on this issue. Are
> > there really no object initial languages?
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> > ====================================
> >                  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 ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU  Fri Oct 25 16:05:45 2002
From: ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Ellen F. Prince)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:05:45 EDT
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.120545.EDT.ELLEN@CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU>

Just a note to Oesten: It's not just the facts of subordinate clauses
that leads one to posit a basic SOV word order for German and Dutch --
it's also main clause facts. If you consider a sentence with a
complex verb or a compound tense, you'll see that the order is
quite clearly SOV, except that the finite part is in 2nd position.
Alas, I don't know German or Dutch, but it would be something like
this:       John has the bread up-eaten.

Furthermore, while subordinate clauses are generally acquired later
than main clauses, it appears that German-acquiring children use SOV
order until they acquire tense. (I don't have the reference handy but
I bet someone here does.) That seems to me a compelling bit of
evidence that SOV is not just 'subordinate' word order in German but
something more basic.

And one final nit-picking point: Yiddish is a continental Germanic
language that is SVO (and with the Verb-Second constraint extended to
subordinate clauses, like Icelandic). :-)

Ellen



------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:14:26 +0200
From:    =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?= <oesten at LING.SU.SE>
To:      FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages

Joining Spike in being nervous at "the suggestion that the subordinate
clause word order be considered a default for typing an entire
language", here are some considerations that have worried me for quite
some time:

In all Germanic languages that I know of, a simple sentence such as "I
love you" has SVO word order. Still, the majority opinion seems to be
that whereas English and Scandinavian do have basic SVO word order, the
continental Germanic languages are really SOV, the order in subordinate
clauses being decisive. Similarly, in Standard Mainland Scandinavian,
negation and various other elements follow the finite verb in main
clauses and precede it in subordinate clauses. So syntacticians tend to
declare the latter order basic. But subordinate clauses are both less
frequent and acquired much later than simple main clauses. One wonders
if there isn't something fundamentally wrong with linguists' assumptions
about "basicness" and "markedness". Clearly, subordinate clauses are
more rigid with respect to word order, and this has something to do with
"degree of grammaticalization", which in turn has to do with historical
processes that fix the word order in constructions. But the result of
such processes may not necessarily be "basic" in the language in any
sense.

?sten Dahl

------- End of Forwarded Message


From hartmut at RUC.DK  Fri Oct 25 16:28:02 2002
From: hartmut at RUC.DK (Hartmut Haberland)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:28:02 +0200
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.182802.0200.HARTMUT@RUC.DK>

I think ?sten is right that we have to consider our notions of basicness
and markedness. An example I never had thought of but which I came
across in my teaching recently:

Languages like German, Danish, Swedish have a class of verbs that have
strong past tense endings in the present tense (modal verbs & the verb
"to know"), like

German     ich wei? 'I know' (same ending as ich kam 'I came', not as
ich sag-e 'I say')
Danish       jeg ved (same meaning) (as jeg kom, not as jeg sig-er), etc.

Now the usual explanation is: these verbs are really old IE perfects
that have acquired a present meaning (cf. Latin novi and Classical Greek
oida). Thus they are called preteritopresents.

But what is basic and what is marked here? I don't know of any relevant
studies of language acquisition, but I'd guess that children acquire ich
wei? before they acquire strong pasts. So maybe the past tenses of
strong verbs are modelled after the alternative present of these verbs.

Another case are languages like Modern Greek, where VS, VO, VSO, VOS,
VAdv etc. are very common constituent order patterns, and statistically
probably more frequent than SVO (Greek is pro-drop, of course). Also, OV
or OVS are very common if the object is co-indexed on the verb with a
clitic pronoun (some call it an agglutinative object marker). Still,
many people would maintain that Greek is SVO, simply because they assume
that some order must be basic. But what are the arguments for this? Does
Greek have to have a basic constituent order?

Hartmut Haberland


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/19be9a9c/attachment.htm>

From macw at CMU.EDU  Fri Oct 25 17:49:31 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:49:31 -0400
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <200210251605.g9PG5ja1023671@central.cis.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.134931.0400.MACW@CMU.EDU>

On 10/25/02 12:05 PM, "Ellen F. Prince" <ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU> wrote:

> Furthermore, while subordinate clauses are generally acquired later
> than main clauses, it appears that German-acquiring children use SOV
> order until they acquire tense. (I don't have the reference handy but
> I bet someone here does.) That seems to me a compelling bit of
> evidence that SOV is not just 'subordinate' word order in German but
> something more basic.
>

The claim that German children begin with SOV order, which was proposed at
about the same time in the late 1970s by Clahsen and by Park, is based
largely on sentences with either SV or OV order and seldom both.  There are
virtually no sentences in the earliest corpora with full SOV order.  Meisel
and Pienemann linked these SOV analyses to parallel analyses for L2 German,
but with similar interpretive problems.  Peter Jordens reviewed these claims
critically about 1990 pointing to the various flaws in the analyses.
Despite the clarity of Jordens arguments, workers in German child language
continue to accept the notion that children begin with SOV.  I can only
assume that they do so because of other theoretical commitments and not
because of the superficial pattern of the data.

My own interpretation of this literature and the relevant data is that
German children start with a competition between fragmentary SV, OV, and VO
item-based constructions.  (VS is rare, and VO seems to arise from
imperatives.)  They then use these during the third year to develop SVO
templates when the main verb is tensed and SOV templates when it is not.
Relative clauses, of course, come in much later and it would seem strange to
me to argue that they would be the basis of learning of these central main
clause patterns.

--Brian MacWhinney

P.S.  I'm still hoping that someone will take a plunge and try to answer
Ron's question.


From wsmith at CSUSB.EDU  Sat Oct 26 01:04:22 2002
From: wsmith at CSUSB.EDU (Wendy Smith)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 18:04:22 -0700
Subject: positiion announcement: assistant professor of
 Linguistics/Applied Linguistics
Message-ID: <FRI.25.OCT.2002.180422.0700.WSMITH@CSUSB.EDU>

Please Post and Disseminate:


Assistant Professor of English (Applied Linguistics/TESL)
California State University, San Bernardino
Department of English, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407

We expect to hire a tenure-track, assistant professor in applied linguistics, effective Fall 2003. Fields of specialization are open, but preference will be given to ESL testing and assessment, child language acquisition, ESL listening and speaking, corpus linguistics or a comparable area. We are seeking a colleague to teach a variety of undergraduate and M.A.-level courses in linguistics and TESL. He/she may also be asked to teach undergraduate ESL composition. Ph.D. required. Normal teaching load is three classes per quarter. Starting salaries are nationally competitive and commensurate with qualification and experience. Please send a letter and vita by November 12 to Philip Page, Chair, English Department, California State University, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407. California State University is an equal opportunity employer committed to a diversified workforce.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021025/f10437c1/attachment.htm>

From ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU  Sat Oct 26 18:37:38 2002
From: ellen at CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU (Ellen F. Prince)
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:37:38 EDT
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <SAT.26.OCT.2002.143738.EDT.ELLEN@CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU>

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:49:31 -0400
From:    Brian MacWhinney <macw at cmu.edu>
To:      <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
cc:      "Ellen F. Prince" <ellen at central.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages

The claim that German children begin with SOV order, which was proposed at
about the same time in the late 1970s by Clahsen and by Park, is based
largely on sentences with either SV or OV order and seldom both.  There are
virtually no sentences in the earliest corpora with full SOV order.  Meisel
and Pienemann linked these SOV analyses to parallel analyses for L2 German,
but with similar interpretive problems.  Peter Jordens reviewed these claims
critically about 1990 pointing to the various flaws in the analyses.
Despite the clarity of Jordens arguments, workers in German child language
continue to accept the notion that children begin with SOV.  I can only
assume that they do so because of other theoretical commitments and not
because of the superficial pattern of the data.

My own interpretation of this literature and the relevant data is that
German children start with a competition between fragmentary SV, OV, and VO
item-based constructions.  (VS is rare, and VO seems to arise from
imperatives.)  They then use these during the third year to develop SVO
templates when the main verb is tensed and SOV templates when it is not.
Relative clauses, of course, come in much later and it would seem strange to
me to argue that they would be the basis of learning of these central main
clause patterns.

- --Brian MacWhinney

P.S.  I'm still hoping that someone will take a plunge and try to answer
Ron's question.

------- End of Forwarded Message

Um, Brian -- your second paragraph seems to indicate that you too assume
that OV order comes first and that general declarative Verb-Second
(masquerading as SVO when the lexical verb and the tense are both simple)
doesn't set in until the acquisition of tense. Or am I missing something?

Btw, I don't know of ANYONE saying that relative clauses are the
source of children's SOV order. What the syntacticians say is that
relative clause do not undergo the Verb-Second Constraint and thus
the basic SOV order is transparent in them.

Ellen


From langconf at BU.EDU  Sun Oct 27 20:03:14 2002
From: langconf at BU.EDU (Boston University Conference on Language Development)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:03:14 -0500
Subject: Boston University Conference on Language Development
Message-ID: <SUN.27.OCT.2002.150314.0500.LANGCONF@BU.EDU>

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *

F  I  N  A   L    A  N  N  O  U  N  C   E  M  E  N  T

27TH ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE
ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
November 1, 2 and 3, 2002

We are  pleased to announce the final schedule for the 27th Annual Boston
University  Conference on Language Development. We also wish to highlight
the keynote and  plenary addresses, the lunchtime symposium, and the special
funding and BUCLD business sessions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *
Special Session: BUCLD Business Meeting

This presentation will include information on how papers are selected for
BUCLD and will give statistics on what kinds of papers have been received
and selected in the last two years.

Speaker:  Shanley Allen

Friday, November 1st,  12:45PM
Box lunches will be available at the reception desk for $6.75

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * *
Special Session: Federal funding: What's hot and how to apply

Speakers: Peggy McCardle (NIH), Marita Hopmann (NIH) and Cecile McKee  (NSF)

Saturday, November 2nd, 8:00AM

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * *
Lunchtime Symposium: The role of input in the acquisition of signed
languages

Speakers:  Rachel Mayberry, Elena Pizzuto, Bencie Woll

Saturday, November 2nd, 12:45PM
Box lunches will be available at the reception desk for $6.75

*  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Keynote Speaker: Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago

The resilience of language

Friday, November 1st, 8:00PM

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   *  *  *  *  *  *
Plenary Speaker: Bonnie Schwartz, University of Hawai'i

Child L2 Acquisition: Paving the way

Saturday, November 2nd, 5:30PM

* * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The full conference program  as well as general and travel information are
available on our web page  at

http://web.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/

Please  feel free to contact the Conference Office at (617) 353-3085, or
e-mail at langconf at bu.edu if you have any  questions.

Sincerely,

Barbara Beachley, Amanda Brown, and Frances Conlin
BUCLD 2002 Conference Organizers


From oesten at LING.SU.SE  Mon Oct 28 10:28:50 2002
From: oesten at LING.SU.SE (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:28:50 +0100
Subject: Object-iniital languages
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.112850.0100.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

In my previous posting, I somewhat rashly made the final position of the
verb in subordinate clauses the main argument for SOV as the basic word
order of Continental Germanic (should be Continental Germanic minus
Yiddish, as Ellen points out), neglecting OV order when V is non-tensed
(non-finite). The question is now if early cases of OV order in German
(and Dutch) child language should be seen as evidence that this order is
in some sense basic. A German child meets main clause word orders such
as the following:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject Auxiliary OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

If we suppose that the child reproduces these templates preserving word
order but deleting auxiliaries we get:

 

Subject TensedVerb OtherThings

Subject OtherThings NonTensedVerb

 

Now, for a child who has not figured out the distinction between tensed
and non-tensed verb forms, this would look like two variants of the same
template. S/he could thus settle on one alternative, or use both of
them. If the OV order is preferred, this may depend on various factors.
It is of course also possible that the child does make a distinction
between the two templates even in the absence of an auxiliary. What
ought to be crucial for the basic OV hypothesis is how strong the
tendency is ? in particular, how far it is extended. Does it influence
word order also after the acquisition of auxiliaries and/or the
emergence of the tensed/non-tensed distinction? It seems a little
implausible to me that German kids go around saying things like ?Ich
krank bin?. Data about the development of verb-negation order in Swedish
child language (that Christer Platzack has reminded me of in an off-list
message ? the interpretation is mine, though) suggest that it is hard to
find examples that do not follow adult word order, if one allows for the
omission of auxiliaries. 

But maybe Brian can tell us more about this.

 

- ?sten Dahl

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021028/fa855709/attachment.htm>

From dryer at BUFFALO.EDU  Mon Oct 28 15:10:10 2002
From: dryer at BUFFALO.EDU (Matthew S Dryer)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:10:10 -0500
Subject: Object-initial languages
In-Reply-To: <20021024110528.3C19.KUZAR@research.haifa.ac.il>
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.101010.0500.DRYER@BUFFALO.EDU>

My typological database codes 10 languages as having object-initial order
as the dominant order in clauses containing a nominal subject and a
nominal object.

Six of these are OVS:

Pari (Nilotic; Sudan)
Mangarayi (non-Pama-Nyungan; northern Australia)
Ungarinjin (non-Pama-Nyungan; northern Australia)
Selknam (Tierra del Fuego)
Asurini (Tupi-Guarani; Brazil)
Hixkaryana (Cariban; Brazil)

Four are OSV:

Tobati (Austronesian; West Papua (formerly Irian Jaya))
Wik Ngathana (Pama-Nyungan; north Queensland)
Warao (Venezuela)
Nadeb (Brazil)

A further relevant reference is

Tomlin, Russell.  1986.  Basic Word Order: Functional Principles.  London:
Croom Helm.

Matthew Dryer


From macw at CMU.EDU  Tue Oct 29 00:11:06 2002
From: macw at CMU.EDU (Brian MacWhinney)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:11:06 -0500
Subject: Object-iniital languages
In-Reply-To: <002701c27e6c$ce65eff0$50abed82@w2k.ling.su.se>
Message-ID: <MON.28.OCT.2002.191106.0500.MACW@CMU.EDU>

Dear ?sten,

  I have never seen a sentence like "Ich krank bin" in any of the German
child corpora in CHILDES.  I agree with you that it is difficult in general
to find German child language sentences that cannot be matched to some adult
word order, if one allows for omissions, which are typically possible even
for adults, although at a lower frequency.  What we see mostly in German
child language are lots of SV units, and a distinctly smaller number of VS,
OV and VO units.  Full combinations into SVO or SOV are absent at first and
rare for quite awhile.
  However, arguments based on the child's productions, although empirically
well grounded, may be making a fundamental error.  After all, the child is
spending a lot of time listening to sentences before speaking and it is
likely that she/he picks up a fuller word order in comprehension before it
is demonstrated in production.  This pushes the issue back a few more months
and makes it harder to verify exactly what the child is doing.
  Is the child picking up a set of templates, elaborating item-based
patterns, or selecting values on parameters?  The fact that there are so few
cases of what one could honestly call a word order error in early production
suggests that this earlier comprehension-based tuning works out pretty well.
Thus it is likely that the distinction between SVO and SOV in German is
already in place by the time of the first utterances.  But does this mean
that the child has discovered the "basic word order".  I don't see why one
would argue that.  Rather, simply that the child is doing a good job of
controlling the two major options and their secondary realizations first in
comprehension and then in production.

--Brian


From lieven at EVA.MPG.DE  Tue Oct 29 11:07:34 2002
From: lieven at EVA.MPG.DE (Elena Lieven)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:07:34 +0100
Subject: postdoc positions available
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.120734.0100.LIEVEN@EVA.MPG.DE>

The Department of Develomental and Comparative Psychology at the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has two postdoc positions

in Child Language Development available.

elena lieven


POSTDOCTORAL POSITION AVAILABLE - Leipzig

The Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology of the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has a postdoctoral
position with funding available for 2 years from January, 2003 or soon
thereafter.

The successful candidate will be expected to contribute to a working
group investigating various aspects of first language acquisition from a

crosslinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective.  The group is headed
by Michael Tomasello and Elena Lieven.  Ongoing research is conducted
both through experiments and the analysis of rich databases and focuses
on the cognitive and pragmatic bases of language; the development of
syntactic constructions; and the roles of frequency and entrenchment in
that development.

We are particularly looking for someone capable of working in both
German and English language development.

Requirements for the position: (a) PhD by the starting date; and (b)
research experience in first language acquisition, cognitive/functional
linguistics and/or corpus linguistics.   Salary will be according to
BAT.

Informal enquiries, requests for further particulars and applications
may be sent by mail, email or fax to:
Henriette Zeidler,
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Inselstrasse 22-26; D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
E-mail: zeidler at eva.mpg.de
Fax: 0049 341 99-52-119

Interested candidates should send a CV, reprints, and the names of 3
referees.

The deadline for applications is November 18th 2002, with a decision to
be made as soon as possible after that.

------------------------

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
MAX PLANCK CHILD STUDY CENTRE

RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
(Ref. no. 1009/02)

A postdoctoral position is being offered in the Max Planck Child Study
Centre in the Department of Psychology funded for 2 years from January,
2003 or soon thereafter.  Funding is provided by The Department of
Developmental and Comparative Psychology of the Max Planck Institute for

Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.

The successful candidate will be expected to contribute to a working
group investigating various aspects of first language acquisition from a

crosslinguistic and psycholinguistic perspective.  The group is headed
by Michael Tomasello and Elena Lieven.  Ongoing research is conducted
both through experiments and the analysis of rich databases and focuses
on the cognitive and pragmatic bases of language; the development of
syntactic constructions; and the roles of frequency and entrenchment in
that development. This position is available for someone who wants to
work with the uniquely dense naturalistic corpora that are available in
our group and also involves day-to-day coordination of the Centre under
the supervision of Professor Lieven.

Requirements for the position: (a) to hold, or be about to obtain, a PhD

in Psychology, Linguistics or Psycholinguistics; and (b) research
experience in first language acquisition, cognitive/functional
linguistics and/or corpus linguistics.   Starting salary in the range
?18265 - ?20311 p.a.

Informal enquiries may be emailed Professor Lieven at: lieven at eva.mpg.de

Application forms and further particulars are available at
http://www.man.ac.uk/news/vacancies or from the Office of the Director
of Personnel, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13
9PL tel: +44 (0)161 275 2028; fax: +44 (0)161 275 2471; Minicom (for the

hearing impaired): +44 (0)161 275 7889; e-mail: personnel at man.ac.uk.
Please quote ref: 1009 /02.  Closing date for applications: 15 November
2002

AS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES EMPLOYER THE UNIVERSITY WELCOMES APPLICATIONS
FROM SUITABLY QUALIFIED PEOPLE FROM ALL SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY
REGARDLESS OF RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR DISABILITY.


From haspelmath at EVA.MPG.DE  Tue Oct 29 11:20:32 2002
From: haspelmath at EVA.MPG.DE (Martin Haspelmath)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:20:32 +0100
Subject: FUNKNET: postdoc position evolutionary linguistics
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.122032.0100.HASPELMATH@EVA.MPG.DE>

Postdoctoral fellowship in linguistics

The Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig) seeks candidates for a two-year
postdoctoral fellowship in linguistics. The candidates should be able to
make contributions to the department's areas of research.

The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology studies human
diversity and human origins in a multidisciplinary perspective. The
contribution of linguistics to this goal lies in the study of the
history and prehistory of languages (and peoples) around the world
(especially non-European languages), as well as the current diversity of
human languages (linguistic fieldwork on little-described and endangered
languages and language typology). The Department of Linguistics
collaborates with the Department of Evolutionary Genetics to compare the
evidence from both fields for the prehistory of human populations. The
largest current collaborative projects of the Department of Linguistics
are the Intercontinental Dictionary Series and the World Atlas of
Language Structures. The latter project implies an interest in questions
of areal typology, language contact and substratum effects. More
information on these and other projects is available on the institute's
website (see below).

The postdoctoral fellows are expected to come with a flexible research
agenda that fits into the department's current foci. They should be
ready to contribute to collaborative projects, and they will have the
opportunity to propose collaborative projects themselves. Regular
participation in the department's talks, seminars and workshops is
expected. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences,
vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowships are available
from 01 March 2003, but a later starting date may be negotiated.
Postdoctoral fellows must have their PhD in hand before the starting
date.

There are no teaching obligations, but the opportunity for teaching in
the linguistics program of the University of Leipzig exists.

Good knowledge of English is required.

Applicants are requested to send a C.V., statement of research
interests, two letters of recommendation, and a sample of written work
on a relevant topic to:

Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Personnel Administration
Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie
- Postdoctoral fellow position -
Inselstrasse 22
D-01403 Leipzig Germany

fax:       +49 341 99 52 119 e_mail:   comrie at eva.mpg.de
web:  http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/


From v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET  Tue Oct 29 14:52:02 2002
From: v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET (Bittor Hidalgo)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:52:02 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.155202.0100.V.HIDALGO@EUSKALNET.NET>

(A very long message, sorry!)

I studied in some detail the word-order of Basque, a more or less free word
order language, with very rich verbal morphology (besides semantic
information and time, mode and aspect features, it gives detail of
subject -ergative or absolutive-, direct object -accusative-, and indirect
object -dative, and at times, it also informs about the sex of the
interlocutor, and the even level of familiarity of the speaker to him/her;
all that, inside a single word -sometimes two, ...-). Of course, Basque is a
pro-drop language.

Reputedly, Basque is a non-rigid SOV language (Greenberg, De Rijk). But
statistically, in the conditions of Greenberg, the most frequent order in
Basque (Hidalgo, 1995) is clearly SVO (between 40 and 65% of the sentences),
and not SOV (between 15 and 30% of the sentences). And the object initial
orders (OSV/OVS) account for between 10 and 20% of the sentences. So are
both, oral and written language, to the exception of the written language of
some artificial purist syntactic school that, curiously, has triumphed in
the standard written style of the last 30 years (De Rijk).

Anyway, in the absence of an open subject -a very common instance in
Basque-, surely OV order is commoner than VO, although we don't have
statistical data.

The question, the hypothesis, I want to raise here (to test), is that, in my
opinion, the verb acts, concerning its position respect to its most close
complements -including S and O-, I think in all languages, but at least in
the languages I more or less know -besides Basque, the meriodional European
romances including French, and English or German-, it works as a grammatical
function word, that according to Wackernagel's law, goes clitic respect to
some complement (let's call it X). Two possibilities then (Venneman,
Hawkins): XV (verb second, somehow, inside this complex) / VX (verb first,
at least inside the complex).

This complex constitutes normally a minimal intonation unit (or accentual
phrase in generative terms). In the complex, presumably all languages in the
world, would accentuate the complement (unless pronominal, deaccentuated,
...). So we'll have VX languages, of rising accent (languages with proclitic
elements, prepositions, ... -all verb-initial languages, but also SVO
languages with rich verbal morphology like Spanish, Italian, Catalan, ...-),
and XV languages of descending accent (with enclitics, postpositions,
... -like Basque, and I suppose Turkish, Japanese at least-). But there are
languages in the between. Languages that historically had been XV(OV), and
conserve some of its features, but that in contact with other VX languages,
or in its process to become culture languages, had become also XV. So could
be the evolution of Latin (Wackernagel, Marouzeau, Panhuis), and of Latin to
romances, but also of the languages now called second-verb languages like
German, were any kind of complement can occupy the first position, or
languages like English or French, where the first position has been almost
completely grammaticalized historically to subject position, because of the
poor verbal morphology. It could also be the case of languages like
Hungarian, where the first position in the XV complex is reputed (like
erroneously in Basque) as focus position, although sometimes it could lodge
also focus (specially in short sentences, ...). I don't know if something
similar happens in Finnish. I would like to know.

Languages like French or English that have grammaticalized SV position as a
realization of XV, act, afterwards, as VX languages (rising accent) in
respect to other complements as O, adverbs, etc.. (V doesn't go alone, but
in the almost inseparable complex [SV]). Old French and English, where the
grammaticalization of SV is not completed, and the verb morphology was
richer, admitted also other complements before the verb (adverbs, even
objects, ...), just like still today are normal "there is ." or some "adverb
+ verb" or inversion structures in both languages. And German still works as
an XV language doubly: XV (verb second language), that in complex verbs
repeats the XV structure with the main verb (with a tonic complement before
it). I don't know if some reputedly rigid final language like Japanese
(although it seems that in conversation, Japanese is not so rigid -Clancy,
1982-) could accommodate somehow in this description.

I would like to know what you think about this point of view. I would also
like to know about the recent evolution of some culture languages, like
Hungarian, from a potentially XV structure, to a prescript obligatory SOV
order (in the XIX century), and a posterior evolution to ([XV] + X)
structure, or the artificial role of grammarians (Port Royal) in the
fixation of SVO order in French abandoning the so called inversions (even in
English), or the role of German grammarians in the artificial rigid an
obligatory final position of verb in subordinate sentences, ... The question
is if we can reduce the 6 type word order typology to 2 type word order
(with some mixed situations), forgetting, at last, the inaprehensible
concepts of "basic" or "neutral" word orders, and assigning the order of all
other complements depending exclusively of contextual features, information
structure organization, and intonational (accentual) segmentation of phrases
and sentences, and in cases of specific grammaticalization processes, like
those of French, English, ...).

Too long. Too many questions. Forgive me, and surtout forgive my macaronic
English.

Bittor

---------------------------------------------
Victor Hidalgo Eizagirre
k/ Buztintxulo, 72, behea
20015 Donostia / Euskal Herrria / (Spain)
Tfnoa eta faxa: 943-282192
posta-e: v.hidalgo at euskalnet.net


From dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU  Tue Oct 29 16:05:38 2002
From: dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU (dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:05:38 -0700
Subject: Object-iniital languages
In-Reply-To: <B9E33C4A.445C%macw@cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.090538.0700.>

Just once, in watching my child (Josh) acquire language, did I hear him produce
an object initial sentence: "Pepsi want Josh"...he was probably 2.5 years
old (roughly...I could dig up my notes if anyone really cares...he's 17 now)...since
he was with either myself or my husband all the time, this is probably the
only word order violation of such magnitude that he produced outloud...probably
supporting your hypothesis that that this stuff is very rare and disappears
quickly once the mistake is realized.

Dianne Patterson, Ph.D.
University of Arizona

>-- Original Message --
>Date:         Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:11:06 -0500
>Reply-To: Brian MacWhinney <macw at CMU.EDU>
>From: Brian MacWhinney <macw at CMU.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Object-iniital languages
>To: FUNKNET at LISTSERV.RICE.EDU
>
>
>Dear ?sten,
>
>  I have never seen a sentence like "Ich krank bin" in any of the German
>child corpora in CHILDES.  I agree with you that it is difficult in general
>to find German child language sentences that cannot be matched to some adult
>word order, if one allows for omissions, which are typically possible even
>for adults, although at a lower frequency.  What we see mostly in German
>child language are lots of SV units, and a distinctly smaller number of
VS,
>OV and VO units.  Full combinations into SVO or SOV are absent at first
and
>rare for quite awhile.
>  However, arguments based on the child's productions, although empirically
>well grounded, may be making a fundamental error.  After all, the child
is
>spending a lot of time listening to sentences before speaking and it is
>likely that she/he picks up a fuller word order in comprehension before
it
>is demonstrated in production.  This pushes the issue back a few more months
>and makes it harder to verify exactly what the child is doing.
>  Is the child picking up a set of templates, elaborating item-based
>patterns, or selecting values on parameters?  The fact that there are so
>few
>cases of what one could honestly call a word order error in early production
>suggests that this earlier comprehension-based tuning works out pretty well.
>Thus it is likely that the distinction between SVO and SOV in German is
>already in place by the time of the first utterances.  But does this mean
>that the child has discovered the "basic word order".  I don't see why one
>would argue that.  Rather, simply that the child is doing a good job of
>controlling the two major options and their secondary realizations first
>in
>comprehension and then in production.
>
>--Brian


From paul at BENJAMINS.COM  Tue Oct 29 20:35:09 2002
From: paul at BENJAMINS.COM (Paul Peranteau)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:35:09 -0500
Subject: New Book: Feigenbaum & Kurzon
Message-ID: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.153509.0500.PAUL@BENJAMINS.COM>

John Benjamins Publishing announces a new work of interest to functional
linguists:


Title: Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context
Series Title: Typological Studies in Language 50

Publication Year: 2002
Publisher: John Benjamins
            http://www.benjamins.com/
            http://www.benjamins.nl

Editor: Susanne  Feigenbaum
Editor: Dennis  Kurzon
         both University of Haifa, Israel

Hardback: ISBN: 1588111725, Pages: vi, 304 pp., Price: USD 90.00 (US & Canada)
Hardback: ISBN: 9027229562, Pages: vi, 304 pp., Price: EUR 100.00
(Everywhere Else)

Abstract:

The growing interest in prepositions is reflected by this impressive
collection of papers from leading scholars of various fields. The
selected contributions of Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic
and Pragmatic Context focus on the local and temporal semantics of
prepositions in relation to their context, too. Following an
introduction which puts this new approach into a thematical and
historical perspective, the volume presents fifteen studies in the
following areas: The semantics of space dynamics (mainly on French
prepositions); Language acquisition (aphasia and code-switching);
Artificial intelligence (mainly of English prepositions); Specific
languages: Hebrew (from a number of perspectives -- syntax, semiotics,
and sociolinguistic impact on morphology), Maltese, the Melanesian
English-based Creole Bislama, and Biblical translations into
Judeo-Greek.


Table of Contents

Preface
      Susanne Feigenbaum and Dennis Kurzon  1
Instability and the theory of semantic forms: Starting from the case
of prepositions
      Yves-Marie Visetti and Pierre Cadiot  9
Schematics and motifs in the semantics of prepositions
      Pierre Cadiot  41
The theoretical status of prepositions: The case of the "prospective
use" of in
      Franck Lebas  59
Temporal semantics of prepositions in context
      David S. Br?e and Ian E. Pratt-Hartmann  75
Prepositions and context
      Ian E. Pratt-Hartmann and Nissim Francez  115
Prepositional phrases as noun modifiers in contemporary Hebrew:
Grammatical, semantic and pragmatic motivations
      Esther Borochovsky and Hava Reppen  127
The Hebrew prepositions mi-/min "from, of": Same or different?
      Yishai Tobin  145
A contrastive analysis of French and Hebrew prepositions: The case of
sans, bli-belo and lelo
      Susanne Feigenbaum  171
A language in change: Declined prepositions in spoken Modern Hebrew as
a case study
      Inbar Kimchi-Angert  193
The French preposition in contact with Hebrew
      Miriam Ben-Rafael  209
"Preposition" as functor: The case of long in Bislama
      Dennis Kurzon  231
Prepositions in modern Judeo-Greek (JG) Biblical translations
      Julia G. Krivoruchko  249
Quddiem and some remarks on grammatical aspects of Maltese
prepositions
      Rami Saari  269
Locative prepositions in language acquisition and aphasia
      Mark Leikin  283
Index  299

Lingfield(s):  Typology

Written In:  English (Language Code: ENG)





                                 John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Offices:                Philadelphia
Amsterdam:
Websites:               http://www.benjamins.com
http://www.benjamins.nl
E-mail:         service at benjamins.com
customer.services at benjamins.nl
Phone:          +215 836-1200                           +31 20 6304747
Fax:                    +215 836-1204                           +31 20 6739773


From v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET  Wed Oct 30 09:55:10 2002
From: v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET (Bittor Hidalgo)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:55:10 +0100
Subject: Object-initial languages
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.105510.0100.V.HIDALGO@EUSKALNET.NET>

Thanks for your answer. I didn't know my message had circulated in the list
as I desired (I haven't received it as I expected).

Anyway, my hypothesis wouldn't divide languages between OV and SV languages
as you suggest, but between XV and VX languages (Vennemann). Sure, I didn't
explain myself clearly enough.

The grammaticalization of subject position in XV languages gives SV. And
this S, at least when pronominal, deslexicalized, functions just as a
morpheme of the verbal complex. Just as it happens in Basque where the
grammaticalization process has been far completed:

NOA (I go) = N (short of NI(nee) = I) +  OA (radical of the verb JOAN = GO)
HOA (you go) = H (short of HI(hee) = you) + OA
GOAZ (we go) = G (short of GU = we) + OA + Z (plural marker) // ...

If "I GO" functions as an inseparable verbal complex (just as NOA in
Basque), it constitutes a new V(SV) that again will tend to go proclitic, or
enclitic, with respect to a new X complement (inside a minimal
intonation -or accentual, or phonological- unit). English  makes VX [(I GO)
HOME], that is [V(SV) + X], and not normally "HOME I GO", because English
now works as a VX language. Meanwhile, Basque makes XV "ETXERA NOA" (I go
home), and not normally "NOA ETXERA", except if the verb NOA goes enclitic
with respect to a new X on its left "MIKELEKIN NOA ETXERA" (I go home with
Michel).

On the other side, there would be the languages that always have been VX. If
this languages have grammaticalized the S + V complex, it will have been in
VS position (not SV like English or French, former XV languages), and this
new V complex will go again proclitic with respect to a new X: [V(V+S) + X].

Changes could happen. For example, languages in contact could change because
of mutual influence from being XV to VX, or vice versa. But I think that
when a language becomes a culture language, when it is written, and long
sentences are commoner, even XV or VX, the normal position for long
complements (except specifically topical ones) is after the XV or VX
complex. And this option maight facilitate the conversion of XV languages in
VX languages (with intermediate steps -English, French, and in a diferrent
level Spanish, Italian,...-), and on the contrary, difficult the conversion
of VX languages in XV.

Rigid verb final culture languages (do they exist?) are a very serious
counterexample for this hypothesis. I don't know exactly what happens in
languages like Japanese or Korean, when a common sentence must have a lot of
complements and subordinate sentences inside (let's say, in a newspaper,
where language must be fluid). Basque purist syntacticians, who argued in
favor of a rigid verb final position, ask writers to use only short
sentences, because if not everybody knows that sentences become, if not
incomprehensible, at least very difficult to process, exhausting and
fatiguing.

You can see that my interest in word order question is really big.

Thanks

Bittor



---------------------------------------------
Victor Hidalgo Eizagirre
k/ Buztintxulo, 72, behea
20015 Donostia
Tfnoa eta faxa: 943-282192
posta-e: v.hidalgo at euskalnet.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian MacWhinney" <macw at cmu.edu>
To: "Bittor Hidalgo" <v.hidalgo at EUSKALNET.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Object-initial languages


Dear Viktor,
  I think you are basically right.  I think Theo Vennemann tried to make
this point many years ago, although he wandered into other issues too.  I
particularly like this idea from the viewpoint of child language.  To
summarize, you are saying that languages tend to go for either OV or SV and
that this is the fundamental divider.  Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Hungarian is, of course, a great example of a language stuck between the
two, but choosing OV for objects without articles and going for SV in all
other cases.  The motivation for OV is usually thought to be the
incorporation of the object into the verb.

--Brian MacWhinney


From amina.mettouchi at FREE.FR  Wed Oct 30 10:03:28 2002
From: amina.mettouchi at FREE.FR (Amina Mettouchi)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:03:28 +0100
Subject: Berber Corpus
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.110328.0100.AMINA.METTOUCHI@FREE.FR>

Dear Colleagues,

I need scientific and technical advice to put together a corpus of Berber
(Afroasiatic).
I am currently coordinating the project, which is to be launched by the
INALCO (Langues'O) in Paris. A workshop is scheduled on Friday 6 December,
in order to reflect on all aspects of the entreprise.
The main facts about this project are described below. If you can provide
advice on any aspect, please do. I would be very happy to benefit from your
experience.

Berber languages are mostly spoken (some of them have just recently started
to be written).
It is currently impossible to have access to Berber corpora other than by
recording one?s own material, or asking fellow-researchers for their tapes
or transcripts. The aim of this project is to constitute a unified
database/textbase accessible to researchers working on Berber.
The project involves cooperation among researchers working on Berber, since
the base will consist in transcripts of actual interactions provided by
researchers (together with interlinear glosses, a translation, and
audiotapes/videotapes).
We have already selected appropriate transcription symbols, but are still
discussing norms for the collection of data (wordprocessor, recording
standards for prosodic treatment, basic and unified information on
speakers, recording conditions, archivation system, access...). Emphasis is
on the variety of genres, of dialects, of speakers. Special attention will
be devoted to conversational corpora, as well as culture-specific interactions.
We are not planning to tag or parse the corpus right away, but if we can
proceed in a way that will allow this in future, it would be nice.

Thank you for your help,

Best wishes

Amina

Amina Mettouchi
Chercheur (Researcher) ? l'AAI (JE2220, Nantes) et au CRB (EA2522,
Langues'O, Paris)
Ma?tre de Conf?rences (Lecturer/Associate Professor) ? l'Universit? de Nantes
Facult? des Lettres et Sciences Humaines
Centre International des Langues
Rue de la Censive du Tertre
BP 81227
44312 Nantes Cedex 03
tel: (33) 2 40 14 11 39
Fax: (33) 2 40 14 12 94
email: amina.mettouchi at humana.univ-nantes.fr


From els603 at BANGOR.AC.UK  Wed Oct 30 11:53:10 2002
From: els603 at BANGOR.AC.UK (June Luchjenbroers)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:53:10 +0000
Subject: position announcement: Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics/TEFL
Message-ID: <WED.30.OCT.2002.115310.0000.ELS603@BANGOR.AC.UK>

Please Post and Disseminate:


Department of Linguistics, University of Wales, Bangor


Applications are invited for a Senior Lectureship in Linguistics,
tenable from 1st February 2003 or as soon as possible thereafter. The
person appointed will be principally required to teach our established
and very popular undergraduate modules in Applied Linguistics and
English Language Teaching and to take responsibility for the Bangor
Certificate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language. The person
appointed will also play a key role in the development of postgraduate
courses in Applied Linguistics and TEFL.

Applicants should have a PhD or equivalent, extensive TEFL experience, a
strong research record and proven excellence in teaching at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

The appointment will be within the point range 20 - 23 of the Senior
Lecturer Scale.

Application forms and further particulars can be obtained from Personnel
Services, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG.  Tel. (01248)
382926/388132. Email: personnel at bangor.ac.uk

Informal enquiries can be made by contacting Professor Jenny Thomas,
Linguistics Department,  University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG.
Tel. (01248) 382270. Email: jenny.thomas at bangor.ac.uk

Please quote reference number 02-2/73 when applying.

Closing date for applications: Friday 22nd November 2002


--------------------------------------
Dr June Luchjenbroers
Univ. Wales at Bangor           Ph:   01248 + 38 8205
GWYNEDD, LL57 2DG               Fax: 01248 + 38 2928
N. Wales. U.K.          www.bangor.ac.uk/ling/home.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021030/b173192c/attachment.bin>

From ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au  Wed Oct 30 21:57:48 2002
From: ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au (Matthew Anstey)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:57:48 +1100
Subject: Berber Corpus
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021030110229.01accc38@pop.free.fr>
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.085748.1100.>

Dear Amina,

Perhaps you know this already, but Dr Ahmed Moutaouakil at the
University of Rabat in Morocco has supervised two phds on Berber. He may
be able to provide contact details for these or other scholars in
Morocco working on Berber. His email is:
a_moutaouakil at yahoo.fr

1987  Bassou Benkhallouq. Les structures focalis?es en berb?re, un
parler d?Azilal (Approche fonctionnelle). Facult? des Lettres et des
Sciences humaines de Rabat.
2001  Souad Oussikoum. Pragmatique et ordre des mots en berb?re : le
parler des A?t Wirra. Facult? des Lettres et des Sciences humaines de
Rabat.

With regards,
Matthew Anstey

Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
Residence: Kambah, ACT, Australia
ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au
+61 (0)2 6296 4044


From rberman at POST.TAU.AC.IL  Thu Oct 31 07:12:47 2002
From: rberman at POST.TAU.AC.IL (Ruth Berman)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:12:47 +0200
Subject: Berber Corpus
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.091247.0200.RBERMAN@POST.TAU.AC.IL>

Dear Amina,

You might want to contact Naima Louali-Raynal, at the Laboratoire Dynamique
de Langage, Lyon 2 -- she works extensively on Berber (mainly phonology),
her e-mail is <louali at ish-lyon.cnrs.fr>

Best wishes,
Ruth Berman
Linguistics Department, Tel Aviv University

Matthew Anstey wrote:

> Dear Amina,
>
> Perhaps you know this already, but Dr Ahmed Moutaouakil at the
> University of Rabat in Morocco has supervised two phds on Berber. He may
> be able to provide contact details for these or other scholars in
> Morocco working on Berber. His email is:
> a_moutaouakil at yahoo.fr
>
> 1987  Bassou Benkhallouq. Les structures focalis?es en berb?re, un
> parler d?Azilal (Approche fonctionnelle). Facult? des Lettres et des
> Sciences humaines de Rabat.
> 2001  Souad Oussikoum. Pragmatique et ordre des mots en berb?re : le
> parler des A?t Wirra. Facult? des Lettres et des Sciences humaines de
> Rabat.
>
> With regards,
> Matthew Anstey
>
> Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
> Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid
> Residence: Kambah, ACT, Australia
> ansteyfamily at optusnet.com.au
> +61 (0)2 6296 4044


From dparvaz at UNM.EDU  Thu Oct 31 07:36:04 2002
From: dparvaz at UNM.EDU (dparvaz at UNM.EDU)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:36:04 -0700
Subject: Berber Corpus
In-Reply-To: <3DC0D7EE.EA1C2A0B@post.tau.ac.il>
Message-ID: <THU.31.OCT.2002.003604.0700.>

Is Jo Rubba on funknet? She did work in the Maghrib, and might have
some contacts on this, too.

Cheers,

Dan.