From matt at rice.edu Sat Oct 2 00:30:43 2004 From: matt at rice.edu (Matt Shibatani) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:30:43 -0500 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" Message-ID: Dear all, Please consult Masayoshi Shibatani "An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives" in BLS 20 (1994) and "Applicatives and benefactives: cognitive account" in Grammatical Constructions: Their form and meaning (eds.) M. Shibatani & S. Thompson OUP (1996). All the best, Matt Shibatani ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suzette Haden Elgin" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:40 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Re: "I'm gonna get me a dog" > > Clancy Clements wrote: > The term 'ethical dative' is often used to name a similar phenomenon in > Spanish, of the type > > Se ME murio' el gato. > EMPH 1sg-dative died the cat > 'My cat died on me.' > > Esta nena no me come. > this little.girl NEG 1sg-dative eats > 'This little girl is not wanting to eat (for me).' > > In Spanish, it seems more frequently in 1st and 2nd person than in > 3rd. I don't know if anyone has studied the distribution of this in > English. It'd be interesting to know whether the distribution is sensitive > to person and number distinctions. > ====== > > Ozark English also has the "on me" construction, as in "My cat died on me" > and "My barn burned down on me" and "This little girl is going all weird on > me and not wanting to eat" and so on. But I see no connection between that > construction and the "me" in "I'm gonna get me a dog." Nor do I see > anything "ethical" about the "me" in "I'm gonna get me a dog." Perhaps > "ethical" is like "competence," and has a technical meaning I'm unaware > of.... > > Dr. Clements ask whether the construction is sensitive to person and number > distinctions; here's a range of examples. > > "I got me a new pickup truck yesterday." > "We got us a new pickup truck yesterday." > > "You better get you a new pickup truck pretty soon." > "You got you a new pickup truck, sure, but you didn't pay your mortgage." > "Go get you some supper before it gets cold." > > "He got him a new pickup truck yesterday." > "She got her a new pickkup truck yesterday." > > [Note: I'm hesitant about "They got them a new pickup truck yesterday," but > have no idea why; something tells me that one has to go to the reflexive, > which of course means I'd have to choose between "themselves" and > "theirselves." Maybe it's just example fatigue, from running through the > set? > > Well. I've got me this example that's gone funny-sounding on me. > > Suzette > > > > > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Mon Oct 4 10:54:54 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:54:54 +0200 Subject: Ph.D. fellowship creole linguistics Message-ID: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Doctoral fellowship in linguistics: creole languages The Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany) seeks candidates for a doctoral fellowship in linguistics. The followship is for two years. Candidates should be interested in working in the interdisciplinary context of the Max Planck Institute. The dissertation research should be in the area of creole language structure, with particular emphasis on the role of the substrate language(s). The fellow should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification, and be either registered or qualified to register in a recognized doctoral program at a university or equivalent degree-awarding institution. Applicants should have previous experience in creole linguistics, in a substrate language, or in field linguistics. Good knowledge of English is required. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowship is available from 1 February 2005. Applicants should send a CV, a statement of research interests (a concrete proposal for a dissertation topic would be welcome), two letters of recommendation, and a sample of written work to: Julia Cissewski Department of Linguistics Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany Contact person: Dr. Susanne Michaelis, michaelis at eva.mpg.de Deadline for receipt of application: 15 November 2004 The Institute's URL is: http://www.eva.mpg.de/ From rberman at post.tau.ac.il Tue Oct 5 15:15:07 2004 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (Ruth Berman) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:15:07 -0700 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" In-Reply-To: <08E7F6310CCC7642A44FCD859F7740790EC6AE@email03.bsu.edu> Message-ID: the term "ethical dative" is familiar to me from a paper from way back in the 1970s on French, and I adopted it in discussing various kinds of datives in Hebrew, too, in the following paper, where you can find the full reference to the French study Ruth Berman. Dative marking of the affectee role. Hebrew Annual Review, 6, 35-59. Revised from: Dative marking of the benefactee/malefactee in Modern Hebrew., 1982 M.I.T. Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 150-179, 1981] Ruth Berman Tel Aviv University Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: >I'm interested that you use the term "ethical dative" for this. It's a term I also used when I suggested this analysis on the other list that Johanna and I discussed this on. I learned the term from Greek and Latin studies, but it doesn't show up in English studies much. There is one footnote on it in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > >Herb Stahlke > >============ > >I'm not a native speaker of English, so maybe I should be reluctant, but I >do know that I own an album by a contemporary American songwriter on which >the following line can be heard: > >"I went outside and I smoked myself a J " > >What is more, I also have an album by some other American songwriter that >has a song with the line: > >"I had me a girl in Minnesota/ She was only fillin' her quota" > >Both albums sold over three million copies, and I am not aware that any >buyer has ever complained about bad English. So one thing I think should be >clear: these what i would call "ethical datives" are a real phenomenon of >at least American English. > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > > > From lamb at rice.edu Tue Oct 5 16:32:18 2004 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:32:18 -0500 Subject: LACUS Forum XXXII, August 2005, Dartmouth College Message-ID: Apologies for multiple postings: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States Association de Linguistique du Canada et des Etats-Unis THE THIRTY-SECOND LACUS FORUM Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire August 2-6 (Tuesday-Saturday), 2005 Conference Theme: NETWORKS This general theme includes: Relational Networks Systemic Networks Semantic Networks Social Networks Artificial Neural Networks Real Neural Networks Augmented Transition Networks Computer modeling of networks Parallel Processing Distributed processing X degrees of separation Network (vs. tree) representation in Historical Linguistics Networks of beliefs Special Sessions are planned on subordinate themes: (1) Computer Simulation of Network Operation (2) Neurolinguistics (3) Linguistics vis-a-vis "hard" science CALL FOR PAPERS LACUS especially invites abstracts relating to the conference theme but also welcomes abstracts on other linguistic topics. As is traditional at LACUS meetings, papers are welcome on any aspect of general and interdisciplinary linguistics, including contributions representing or proposing innovative ideas or unpopular views. SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS, TUTORIALS Papers (and suggestions) are especially invited for the three special sessions being planned: (1) Computer Simulation of Network Operation (2) Neurolinguistics (3) Linguistics vis-a-vis "hard" science Please contact David Bennett or Syd Lamb (lamb at rice.edu) right away with your ideas. 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 2005. Earlier submission is strongly encouraged. 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 will not appear in the meeting handbook.) 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 Word, WordPerfect, or rich text format. 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 your abstract does not fit any of these topics. Where to Submit: David C. Bennett (Or, if no e-mail access: 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 400-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. 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 are also considered. The prizes will be awarded at the annual banquet, to be held at the end of the meeting, Saturday, August 6th. Only single-authored presentations will be considered for prizes. A person who has won the same prize twice is no longer 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 may be available for scholars from countries with weak currencies who submit strong abstracts. 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 XXXII. VENUE Dartmouth College, a distinguished old Ivy League institution, is located in Hanover, New Hampshire. Nearby airports are in Lebanon and Manchester, New Hampshire, and in Burlington, Vermont. The "Dartmouth Bus" takes passengers to Dartmouth from the Boston Airport at regular intervals. Details will appear on the LACUS website, at www.lacus.org. ACCOMMODATIONS Low-cost housing will be available on campus, and accommodations will also be available at the Hanover Inn, across the street from campus, and 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. 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 ADDRESS QUESTIONS about Dartmouth College to the local host: Tim Pulju -- Timothy.J.Pulju at dartmouth.edu CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: David C. Bennett, SOAS, London, Chair Lilly Chen, Rice University Connie Eble, University of North Carolina Sheila Embleton, York University Toby Griffen, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Sydney Lamb, Rice University Tim Pulju, Dartmouth College Bill Spruiell, Central Michigan University Lois Stanford, University of Alberta William J Sullivan, U Wroclawski & U Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Oct 6 19:53:38 2004 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:53:38 -0700 Subject: Job notice: Assistant Prof./general ling. & lit. or comp. Message-ID: In case you didn't see this posting on LINGUIST or in the MLA jobs listings: Assistant Professor, full-time, academic year, tenure-track, to begin Fall Quarter, 2005. Ph.D. in linguistics with a strong generalist background in either literature or composition and rhetorical theory and teaching experience required. The applicant will be expected to teach a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in general, theoretical, and applied linguistics as well as courses in literature or general education composition and composition and rhetorical theory, depending on his or her secondary area. It is expected that the candidate's yearly linguistics responsibility will be at least 60% of his or her teaching load. Cal Poly is primarily a teaching university with a 3-3-3 quarter load and correspondingly reasonable research expectations. Salary is commensurate with qualifications and experience. To apply, complete online faculty application at http://www.calpolyjobs.org and submit to Requisition #100411. Please attach to electronic application a cover letter, vita, and writing sample. Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript mailed to the address below. Review of applications will begin October 24, 2004. Applications received after that date may be considered. Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals. EEO. Application Address: David Kann , Department Chair One Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93407 United States of America Contact Information: David Kann , Department Chair click here to access email Phone: (805)756-5850 Fax: (805)756-6374 Please direct your queries to David Kann, not in a reply to this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596 • E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu • Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From msoto at servidor.unam.mx Wed Oct 6 21:04:25 2004 From: msoto at servidor.unam.mx (Ricardo Maldonado) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:04:25 -0700 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" and the 'ethical dative' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Clancy: The term Ethical Dative has certainly been overused with not enough precision in Hispanic Linguistics. Since in a more classical tradition the term "ethical dative" referred to a very different construction. The "ethical dative" was in fact a transitive completive of the type: Me leí el libro Middle read the book 'I read the whole book' I thus avoided the term all together. As for the examples you gave none of them qualify as a so called "ethical dative". One crucial feature of that dative is their strong dependence on the speaker. Thus ethical datives can be used in 1st person, in some cases second but certainly never in 3rd person. examples can easily be used in 3rd person: Se le murió el gato Middle DAT.3rd died the cat The cat died on him Esta nena no les come nada a sus padres y ya los tiene preocupados this little.girl NEG 3PL-DAT eats nothing to her parents and yet them have worried 'This little girl is not wanting to eat anything for her parents y she has them worried now.' These contrast with strange datives such as: Me le arruinaron la vida a mi hija DAT DAT ruined the life to my daughter 'They ruined my daughter's on me' Which cannot be used in third person. These facts show that there are in fact two very different dative constructions besides core datives and applicatives. From a cognitive grammar perspective I showed that cannot take 3rd person are always in the setting (thus setting datives) while those that can take 1st, second and 3rd among other arguments correspond to "sympathetic datives", i.e. experiencers that are affected as they linked to the affectedness imposed on other participant in the event. For further details on these two separate constructions I apologize for referring you to a paper of mine: Ricardo Maldonado 2002. "Objective and subjective datives" Cognitive Linguistics. 13-1. 1-65. Anyway, I hope this helps. All the best. Ricardo Maldonado At 09:21 p.m. 27/09/2004, clements wrote: >The term 'ethical dative' is often used to name a similar phenomenon in >Spanish, of the type > >Se ME murio' el gato. >EMPH 1sg-dative died the cat >'My cat died on me.' > >Esta nena no me come. >this little.girl NEG 1sg-dative eats >'This little girl is not wanting to eat (for me).' > >In Spanish, it seems more frequently in 1st and 2nd person than in >3rd. I don't know if anyone has studied the distribution of this in >English. It'd be interesting to know whether the distribution is sensitive >to person and number distinctions. > >Clancy Clements > > >On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: > > > I'm interested that you use the term "ethical dative" for this. It's a > term I also used when I suggested this analysis on the other list that > Johanna and I discussed this on. I learned the term from Greek and Latin > studies, but it doesn't show up in English studies much. There is one > footnote on it in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > > > Herb Stahlke > > > > ============ > > > > I'm not a native speaker of English, so maybe I should be reluctant, but I > > do know that I own an album by a contemporary American songwriter on which > > the following line can be heard: > > > > "I went outside and I smoked myself a J " > > > > What is more, I also have an album by some other American songwriter that > > has a song with the line: > > > > "I had me a girl in Minnesota/ She was only fillin' her quota" > > > > Both albums sold over three million copies, and I am not aware that any > > buyer has ever complained about bad English. So one thing I think > should be > > clear: these what i would call "ethical datives" are a real phenomenon of > > at least American English. > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************* > J. Clancy Clements > Director of Undergraduate Studies, HISP > Department of Spanish and Portuguese, BH844, IU-B > 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue > Bloomington, IN 47401 USA > Tel 812-855-8612 > Fax 812-855-4526 > Email clements at indiana.edu > Webpage http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html > ************************************************* Ricardo Maldonado Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM Posgrado en Lingüística, UAQ From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 9 04:07:10 2004 From: language at sprynet.com (language at sprynet.com) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:07:10 -0500 Subject: Recent messages... Message-ID: For those of you who have written me privately or may have made some comments here about my most recent message, let me explain that I am "on the road" right now. was invited to present the keynote address at a conference on translator training in Mexico a week ago, so my wife & I have converted this into an opportunity to get to know Mexico City a bit over two weeks. Despite Internet cafes, have been finding it a bit hard to keep up with correspondence, so any further contributions to this discussion on my part will have to wait a week or two. VERY BEST TO ALL! ALEX From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Oct 12 14:43:33 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:43:33 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: I have a question about Du Bois's Preferred Argument Structure. I have read some of the relevant literature, and I wonder why he states this as FOUR different "constraints", i.e. four different observations about statistical tendencies in discourse: (i) Avoid more than two lexical core arguments ("One Lexical Argument Constraint") (ii) Avoid lexical A-argument ("Non-lexical A constraint") (iii) Avoid more than two new core arguments ("One New Argument Constraint") (iv) Avoid new A-argument ("Given A constraint") It seems to me that the first and third constraints follow straightforwardly from the second and fourth, respectively: If the A-argument is not lexical/new, there cannot be two lexical/new core arguments, because every clause has at most two core arguments by definition. Why do we need (i) and (iii) as independent constraints? Also, it appears that (ii) follows from (iv) and the well-known strong correlation between given status and non-lexical (pronominal, zero) expression. Finally, (iv) would seem to follow from the strong tendency for A-arguments to be human, and the strong tendency for human arguments to be topical. So the Preferred Argument Structure constraints seem to be completely predictable consequences of well-known statistical tendencies in discourse. Or is there an error in my reasoning? Is there perhaps any independent evidence that the constraints are (partially) independent of each other? I don't mean to say that the constraints are uninteresting because they are predictable, I just wonder why the literature doesn't seem to mention this predictability. Thanks a lot, Martin From oesten at ling.su.se Tue Oct 12 14:59:38 2004 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:59:38 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str Message-ID: Martin Haspelmath wonders if the PAS constraints proposed by Du Bois are not predictable from well-known statistical tendencies in discourse. In Dahl (2000), I argue that the "one lexical NP per clause" is indeed redundant: "Du Bois (1987) argues for assuming a “one lexical NP per clause” constraint in spoken language. However, in the G corpus, the number of clauses that contain lexical NPs in both subject and DO position conforms exactly to the prediction obtained by multiplying the frequency of lexical subjects with that of lexical Dos — 75 or 2.4%. In other words, there is no basis here for postulating an independent constraint that would work against combinations of two lexical NPs in one clause, even if it may still be said that the whole system is constructed in such a way that they will not be very frequent. Note in particular that in the five hours of conversation represented in the G corpus, there was not a single instance of the linguist’s favourite sentence type — transitive sentences with two proper names as in John loves Mary." (Dahl 2000, 50) ("the G corpus" refers to the 65000 word corpus of spoken Swedish that I was using) - Östen Dahl Reference: Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in Discourse and Syntax. Functions of Language 7(1): 33-77. From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Wed Oct 13 15:36:53 2004 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:53 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Dear Martin and Funknetters, Goldberg 2004 (in Horn and Ward eds) addresses some of these very questions, and decides that both the quantity and the Given A constraints are needed. The following is similar, but not identical to her replies. 1. "Avoid more than one lexical core argument" (there was a typo in Martin's (i)): Needed independently, because of: (a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. (b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). See also Goldberg 2004. 2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, the opposite is also true). The restriction should be phrased pragmatically rather than formally. In other words, one should avoid low accessibility entities (2 of them, and specifically in A position). Indeed, note how the numbers for New As are smaller than for lexical As (Cf. Du Bois 2003 Table 3 with Table 5). In fact, since Du Bois motivates these constraints by reference to processing demands, degree of mental accessibility seems the proper constraint. So I would consider doing away with (i) and (ii) and keeping (iii) and (iv). 3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off from As (in allowing new entities)? See Goldberg 2004. Best, Mira ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Haspelmath" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 16:43 Subject: [FUNKNET] question on Preferred Arg. Str. > I have a question about Du Bois's Preferred Argument Structure. I have > read some of the relevant literature, and I wonder why he states this as > FOUR different "constraints", i.e. four different observations about > statistical tendencies in discourse: > > (i) Avoid more than two lexical core arguments ("One Lexical Argument > Constraint") > (ii) Avoid lexical A-argument ("Non-lexical A constraint") > (iii) Avoid more than two new core arguments ("One New Argument Constraint") > (iv) Avoid new A-argument ("Given A constraint") > > It seems to me that the first and third constraints follow > straightforwardly from the second and fourth, respectively: If the > A-argument is not lexical/new, there cannot be two lexical/new core > arguments, because every clause has at most two core arguments by > definition. Why do we need (i) and (iii) as independent constraints? > > Also, it appears that (ii) follows from (iv) and the well-known strong > correlation between given status and non-lexical (pronominal, zero) > expression. Finally, (iv) would seem to follow from the strong tendency > for A-arguments to be human, and the strong tendency for human arguments > to be topical. > > So the Preferred Argument Structure constraints seem to be completely > predictable consequences of well-known statistical tendencies in > discourse. Or is there an error in my reasoning? Is there perhaps any > independent evidence that the constraints are (partially) independent of > each other? > > I don't mean to say that the constraints are uninteresting because they > are predictable, I just wonder why the literature doesn't seem to > mention this predictability. > > Thanks a lot, > Martin > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Thu Oct 14 16:44:23 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:44:23 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. In-Reply-To: <7ced01c4b13a$773136b0$6500a8c0@MIRA> Message-ID: Dear Mira and Funknetters, >(a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical >there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. > > Yes, but this is not part of the original claims, I believe. Moreover, since the Recipient has an equally strong tendency to be nonlexical, again it is unclear whether an additional constraint is needed. >(b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid >lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two >violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have >one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are >rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there >are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). > Yes, but is there a *statistically significant* number of new As? The figures are as follows in Du Bois's Sakapultek data: new A given A total new O 0 47 47 given O 6 134 140 total 6 181 187 This distribution is not significant. Although there are fewer newA-newO combinations than newA-givenO combinations, this is expected, because given O is more common than new O overall. The same was found by Östen Dahl in his much larger spoken Swedish corpus. >2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two >are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, >the opposite is also true). > So the question is: Do the lexical given NPs show an effect of the constraints that specifically refer to lexical (as opposed to new) status? Has anyone examined this? >3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and >topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of >course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated >the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in >the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that >of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off >from As (in allowing new entities)? > > It seems that in many languages/many data sets Ss are intermediate between As and Os. I don't see that theire behavior provides good evidence for the Given A Constraint ("Avoid new As"). Best, Martin From kemmer at rice.edu Thu Oct 14 20:17:56 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:17:56 -0500 Subject: Workshop on Language in Use, October 23-4, 2004 Message-ID: The Rice University Department of Linguistics is hosting a workshop on LANGUAGE IN USE Sat.-Sunday Oct. 23-24, 2004, in the Humanities Building at Rice. Presenters include faculty and doctoral students from U.T. Austin and Rice University, who will be speaking on a wide range of linguistic topics including corpus linguistic studies and methodology, discourse, sociolinguistics, laboratory phonology, historical linguistics, and computational linguistics, as well as grammatical analyses based on more traditional methodologies. The main focus is on language as used by speakers and hearers, and the empirical data used to model language. Registration of attendees outside Rice and U.T. Austin is possible on a space-available basis. Registration is $5 and includes two box lunches and a Saturday night barbecue. To register/inquire whether space is available for further registrants, please contact Martin Hilpert at hilpert at rice.edu . To reserve a space, payment of the $5 registration fee by October 20 is necessary. The program will be finalized ca. Oct. 17. Please see the departmental website www.linguistics.rice.edu under Activities for the workshop schedule which should be posted by the 20th at the latest. The workshop is co-sponsored by the Department of Linguistics and the Center for the Study of Cultures at Rice University, with participation and cooperation by U.T. Depts. of German and Linguistics. From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Oct 14 20:56:10 2004 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:56:10 -0700 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Dear everybody, I think there are (at least) three words of caution one would want to add before christening these (strong) distributional tendencies "preferred argument structure (in discourse)". First methodological: There's nothing magical about trhe absolute values in Dubois' text counts. Different oral text will yield differen t absolute numbers. Dubois' distributions tends to correspond, in my experience, to long oral narratives, particularly traditional two-actants stories. Different texts types will show considerable variation, tho the relatives tendencies seem to hold, in the main. Second, theoretical: "preferred argument structure" was a theoretical notion about the lexical semantics of verbs (or verb senses) and how it maps onto the syntax of "simple" (main-declarative-affirmative-ACTIVE) clauses. But the mapping onto "simple" clauses (using Keenan's term from 1976) already disguises some discourse-distributional facts about the most common clause type in natural, oral discouse (by a whopping 90%, on the average). The so-called Dubois distributional observations, on the other hand, have to do with a rather different aspect of oral communication: The tendency to chunk information in oral language under very small "intonational clauses", on the average 2-3 words per "clause" of 1-2 seconds duration. You can see some discussion of this temporal dynamics, albeit from a different perspective, in my 2002 book "Bio-Linguistics", ch. 5. (Both Walley Chafe and myself have written on this previously). Typically, this "chunking" strategy relies on extensive anaphora (zero or PRO) of both areguments AND verbs. And the cognitive foundations of this apparent temporal-chunking restriction seems very different from the traditional "preferred argument structure". So perhaps using the same term doesn't gain us all that much. Third, also theoretical: Calling these regularity "principles", be they one or more (here I agree with Martin) seems to simply defer the need to EXPLAIN them in the way at least functionalists are honor-bound to explain: By some reference to communicative, cognitive or--God forbid--even neuro-biological properties of human information preocessing (including adaptively-driven evolution, if necessary...). Calling these distribution al facts "principles" is, at best, a heuristic convenience preliminary to searching for more satisfying explanations. Cheers, TG =================================== Martin Haspelmath wrote: > Dear Mira and Funknetters, > > >(a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical > >there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. > > > > > Yes, but this is not part of the original claims, I believe. Moreover, > since the Recipient has an equally strong tendency to be nonlexical, > again it is unclear whether an additional constraint is needed. > > >(b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid > >lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two > >violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have > >one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are > >rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there > >are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). > > > Yes, but is there a *statistically significant* number of new As? The > figures are as follows in Du Bois's Sakapultek data: > > new A given A total > new O 0 47 47 > given O 6 134 140 > total 6 181 187 > > This distribution is not significant. Although there are fewer newA-newO > combinations than newA-givenO combinations, this is expected, because > given O is more common than new O overall. The same was found by Östen > Dahl in his much larger spoken Swedish corpus. > > >2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two > >are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, > >the opposite is also true). > > > So the question is: Do the lexical given NPs show an effect of the > constraints that specifically refer to lexical (as opposed to new) > status? Has anyone examined this? > > >3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and > >topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of > >course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated > >the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in > >the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that > >of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off > >from As (in allowing new entities)? > > > > > It seems that in many languages/many data sets Ss are intermediate > between As and Os. I don't see that theire behavior provides good > evidence for the Given A Constraint ("Avoid new As"). > > Best, > Martin From dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun Oct 17 06:28:56 2004 From: dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu (John Dubois) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:28:56 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. In-Reply-To: <416EACE7.50703@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: In evaluating the 4 constraints of Preferred Argument Structure, it’s probably best to consult the most recent literature, which has long since been extended to numerous geographically and typologically diverse languages. The most extensive source is Du Bois, Kumpf, and Ashby (2003), which presents in-depth studies of Preferred Argument Structure in more than a dozen languages (including Acehnese, English, Finnish, French, Inuktitut, Itzaj, Korean, Mam, Mapudungun, Mocho, Nepali, Roviana, Spanish, Teco). Several genres, including narrative, conversation, and others, are treated. The bibliography lists more than 100 publications on Preferred Argument Structure research. Regarding the specific issue of reducing the number of Preferred Argument Structure constraints (e.g. from 4 to 2), this has long been an obvious and tempting target for linguists, given our interest in economy. But there’s evidence that the constraints cannot be collapsed. Probably the most extensive statistical argumentation has been offered by Arnold (2003) for Mapudungun (see reference below). She shows that the One Lexical Argument Constraint is not reducible to the Avoid Lexical A Constraint, nor is it reducible to accessibility effects. (Related arguments have been given by Goldberg 2004.) As for ditransitives, Schuetze-Coburn showed already in 1987 that the discourse profile for German ditransitives provides independent support for the existence of 4 distinct Preferred Argument Structure constraints. My own recent work on ditransitives confirms this for English. -- Jack Du Bois References: Arnold, Jennifer E. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In Preferred Argument Structure: grammar as architecture for function, eds. John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby, 225-245. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In The handbook of pragmatics, Quoting Martin Haspelmath : Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. 1987. Topic management and the lexicon: A discourse profile of three-argument verbs in German. Linguistics Department, UCLA: Unpublished M.A. thesis. From oesten at ling.su.se Mon Oct 18 12:11:35 2004 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:11:35 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Jack Du Bois says: "Regarding the specific issue of reducing the number of Preferred Argument Structure constraints (e.g. from 4 to 2), this has long been an obvious and tempting target for linguists, given our interest in economy. But there’s evidence that the constraints cannot be collapsed. Probably the most extensive statistical argumentation has been offered by Arnold (2003) for Mapudungun (see reference below). She shows that the One Lexical Argument Constraint is not reducible to the Avoid Lexical A Constraint, nor is it reducible to accessibility effects. (Related arguments have been given by Goldberg 2004.)" The question that Arnold discusses seems to be whether differences in salience between intransitive subjects (S's) and transitive subjects (A's) can explain why lexical arguments are used more for S than for A. However, she does not, as far as I can see, address the question if the propensity for lexical expression of A's differs depending on whether the direct object is expressed lexically or not, as would be predicted if there is a One Lexical Argument Constraint which is independent of other factors. The data that I quoted in my previous posting indicate that there may be no such difference between transitive clauses with lexical objects and non-lexical objects. But maybe there is contradictory evidence somewhere else? - Östen Dahl From promotion at benjamins.com Mon Oct 18 19:36:06 2004 From: promotion at benjamins.com (Christopher Bell) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:06 -0400 Subject: New Book: RENKEMA Message-ID: John Benjamins Publishing Company is pleased to announce the publication of the following book in the field of Discourse Studies: Introduction to Discourse Studies Jan Renkema University of Tilburg 2004. x, 363 pp. U.S. and Canada: Cloth: 1 58811 529 1 / USD 138.00 Everywhere else: Cloth: 90 272 2610 5 / EUR 115.00 U.S. and Canada: Paper: 1 58811 530 5 / USD 42.95 Everywhere else: Paper: 90 272 3221 0 / EUR 36.00 Introduction to Discourse Studies follows on Jan Renkema's successful Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook (1993), published in four languages. This new book deals with even more key concepts in discourse studies and approaches major issues in this field from the Anglo-American and European as well as the Australian traditions. It provides a 'scientific toolkit' for future courses on discourse studies and serves as a stepping stone to the independent study of professional literature. Introduction to Discourse Studies is the result of more than twenty-five years of experience gained in doing research and teaching students, professionals and academics at various universities. The book is organized in fifteen comprehensive chapters, each subdivided in modular sections that can be studied separately. It includes 400 references, from the most-cited contemporary publications to influential classic works; 500 index entries covering frequently used concepts in the field; more than 100 thought-provoking questions, all elaborately answered, which are ideal for teacher-supported self-education; nearly 100 assignments that provide ample material for teachers to focus on specific topics of their own preference in their lectures. Jan Renkema is a member of the Discourse Studies Group at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, where he also holds the Chair in Effective Language Use. He is general editor of IDJ + DD (Information Design Journal + Document Design). Table of contents Acknowledgments ix 1. Introduction 1 Part I. General orientation 2. Communication as action 11 3. Discourse in communication 35 Part II. Backpacking for a scientific journey 4. Discourse types 59 5. Structured content 87 6. Discourse connections 103 7. Contextual phenomena 121 8. Style 145 Part III. Special modes of communication 9. Conversation analysis 161 10. Informative discourse 175 11. Narratives 191 12. Argumentation and persuasion 203 Part IV. Special interests 13. Discourse and cognition 221 14. Discourse and institution 253 15. Discourse and culture 279 Key to the questions 299 References 339 Index 357 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 Call toll free to order: 1-800-562-5666 From mtaboada at sfu.ca Mon Oct 18 23:10:04 2004 From: mtaboada at sfu.ca (Maite Taboada) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:10:04 -0700 Subject: Assistant Prof. position in Cognitive Science, Simon Fraser University Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings. On-line job ad also available: http://www.sfu.ca/cognitive-science/job.html ) Job Opportunity: Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Cognitive Science The Cognitive Science Program at Simon Fraser University in Greater Vancouver invites applications for a tenure-track position at the Assistant Professor level. A Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, or in Computing Science, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology or related area is required, with a strong commitment to excellence in research and teaching. Area of specialization must be such that Linguistics, Philosophy or Psychology fit as the home department. Preference will be given to candidates in interdisciplinary areas. However, the overall innovation and promise of the candidate's work will be considered as important as any specific area. Simon Fraser University ( http://www.sfu.ca ) is consistently one of the top- ranked universities in Canada, and is in an exciting phase of rapid growth and expansion. The Cognitive Science Program ( http://www.sfu.ca/cognitive-science/ ) currently has over 50 undergraduate majors, and is poised for growth with the recent hiring of a Canada Research Chair. The Cognitive Science Program is administered jointly by an interdisciplinary Steering Committee, with its home in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Simon Fraser University is situated on Burnaby Mountain in Greater Vancouver. Vancouver thrives as a scenic waterfront city located just minutes away from the mountains and a wide range of outdoor activities. Vancouver's cultural and intellectual pursuits, leisure opportunities, favorable climate, and clean and safe environment are consistently cited as quality of life factors that make it one of the most desirable places in the world to live and work. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Simon Fraser University is committed to employment equity and encourages applications from all qualified women and men, including visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. Applications will be accepted until November 30, 2004. All positions are subject to budgetary approval. To apply, send a curriculum vitae, evidence of research productivity, and arrange for three letters of reference to be sent to: Faculty Search Cognitive Science Program, c/o Philosophy Dept. Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada info-cogsci at sfu.ca From kemmer at rice.edu Wed Oct 20 05:24:55 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:24:55 -0500 Subject: Rice-U.T. Workshop on Language in Use - schedule Message-ID: The first Rice University and UT Austin WORKSHOP ON LANGUAGE IN USE CULTURE, SOCIETY, CHANGE sponsored by the Center for the Study of Cultures at Rice Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 23-24, 2004 Rice Humanities Building Talks in Humanities 117 Refreshments in foyer, lunch in Humanities Courtyard Schedule – as of 10-18-2004 Saturday, Oct. 23, 2004 13.00-13.45 WELCOME RECEPTION / LUNCH Humanities Building Lobby 13.45-14.00 Opening Remarks Masayoshi Shibatani 14.00-14.30 The Middle Voice in Romanian: A Cognitive Approach. Anne-Marie Hartenstein 14.30-15.00 The Silent Majority - The Importance of H Speakers' Language Attitudes in Diglossic Speech Communities Heiko Wiggers 15.00-15.30 What can a WAN Morphological Causative tell us about Causative Constructions? Gu-Jing Lin 15.30-16.00 COFFEE BREAK 16.00-16.30 Emergent Subordination: The Grammaticalization of to where Chris Taylor 16.30-17.00 Posture Verb Auxiliation: A Cross-Linguistic, Corpus-Based Approach Chris Koops & Martin Hilpert 17.00-17.30 Semantic Frames for Multilingual Lexical Databases Hans C. Boas 17.30-18.30 Asking the Big Question: How? Sydney Lamb 18.30-whenever : BBQ Graduate Student Lounge, Herring Hall Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004 9.30-10.00 Usage and Frequency: Corpus Evidence and Grammatical Knowledge Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer 10.00-10.30 The Suffix -ei in German Plural Formation Guido Halder 10.30-11.00 title tba Monica Sanaphre Villanueva 11.00-11.15 COFFEE BREAK 11.15-11.45 Lyrics that Kill - Metaphors and the Frame of Killing in Hip Hop Texts Jana Thompson 11.45-12.15 Use of Fine-Grained Phonetic Detail in the Processing of Onset-Embedded Words Katherine Crosswhite 12.15-13.30 LUNCH 13.30-14.00 Discontinuous Nominal Phrases in Iquito Mark Brown 14.00-14.30 A Cherokee ”Focus Marker” Reconsidered Dave Katten 14.30-15.00 Cosubordinate Converbs in Japanese Christopher K. Schmidt 15.00-15.15 COFFEE BREAK 15.15-15.45 Contesting andEstablishing Authority through Entextualization and Dialogicality: An Analysis of the Use of Prior Text in Popular Spirituality Literature Pumsup Shim 15.45-16.15 Documenting Endangered Dialects: The Texas German Dialect Project Hans C. Boas 16.15-17.00 Problems with the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis Claire Bowern 17.00 CLOSING RECEPTION (for further information on the workshop contact Martin Hilpert, hilpert at rice.edu) From kemmer at rice.edu Fri Oct 22 23:04:18 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:04:18 -0500 Subject: New: Language, Culture and Mind volume Message-ID: Announcing LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND MIND ed. by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004. 600pp. Distributed by University of Chicago Press. This volume contains thirty-five original essays bringing together work at the crossroads of linguistics, psychology, philosophy, cognitive science, and related fields. An edited selection from the seventy papers originally presented at CSDL 6 at Rice University in 2002, these contributions apply a broad range of methodologies and perspectives to the problem of the relation of language to human culture and cognition, with an emphasis on how language is produced and understood in context. Topics include human categorization, cognitive and cultural models, embodiment, the experiential basis of categories and conceptual structures, lexical and constructional semantics, and the distribution and formal properties of linguistic elements and constructions in a wide variety of languages. Perspectives and methodologies represented among the papers are corpus-based methods, discourse analysis, language acquisition, contrastive analysis, psycholinguistic experimentation, and language change and grammaticalization. Theoretical frameworks deployed include Cognitive Grammar, Construction Grammar, Metaphor theory, and Mental Space and Blending Theory. Includes two substantial new papers by John Lucy and Ronald Langacker. Table of Contents will be distributed separately. From kemmer at rice.edu Sat Oct 23 00:02:35 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:02:35 -0500 Subject: Language, Culture & Mind (CSDL 6) - TOC Message-ID: Language, Culture and Mind edited by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004 Introduction xv Suzanne Kemmer and Michel Achard 1 Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective 1 John A. Lucy 2 To Awaken a Sleeping Giant: Cognition and Culture in 23 September 11 Political Cartoons Benjamin Bergen 3 Affect in Language Interpretation 37 Melinda Chen 4 Development of Community in Computer Mediated Communication: A Social Network Analysis 55 Barbara F. Kelly and Christine A. Halverson 5 The Status of Clause and VP in Spoken Indonesian; 67 Evidence from Repair Fay Wouk 6 The Cognitive Linguistics of Scalar Humor 79 Benjamin Bergen and Kim Binsted 7 Is Cognitive Linguistics Our Best Phenomenology 93 of Language? A Philosophical Challenge Tim Adamson 8 Icebox Moms and Hockey Dads: Context and 109 the Mapping of N-N Metaphorical Expressions Carol Lynn Moder 9 On Simile 123 Michael Israel, Jennifer Riddle Harding, and Vera Tobin 10 Happiness in English and German: 137 A Metaphorical-pattern Analysis Anatol Stefanowitsch 11 Ego-based and Field-based Frames of Reference 151 in Space to Time Metaphors Kevin Ezra Moore 12 Factors Underlying Spatial Particle Distributions in 167 Japanese and Korean Kaori Kabata and Jeong-Hwa Lee 13 Going Getting Tired: ‘Associated Motion’ Through Space 181 And Time in Lowland Chontal Loretta O’Connor 14 A Study of Motion Events in Saisiyat and Cebuano 199 Michael Tanangkingsing 15 Comparing Elicited Data and Corpora 211 Dawn Nordquist 16 Covarying Collexemes in the Into-causative 225 Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch 17 Linking Perceptual Properties to Linguistic Expressions 237 of Causation Grace Song and Phillip Wolff 18 Contrastive Analyses, Translation, and Speaker Involvement: 251 the Case of Puisque and Aangezien Liesbeth Degand 19 ‘I Can See the Church to my House’: 271 Directionality in Expressions of Visual Perception in Finnish Tuomas Huumo 20 The Grounding of Embedded WH-clauses in Scenes 281 of Visual Perception Christopher Johnson 21 Aspect as a Cue for Represented Perception 297 Todd McDaniels 22 Aspect in the Making: A Corpus Analysis of English 313 Aspect-Marking Prepositions Sally Rice and John Newman 23 Present and Imperfect for Past Description in Spanish 329 Narratives: Syntactic, Semantic, and Functional Factors Margaret Lubbers-Quesada 24 Clause Structure, Focus, and Topic Types 345 in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Verónica Vázquez Soto 25 Identity and Perspective: The Jekyll-and-Hyde Effect in 363 Narrative Discourse Barbara Dancygier 26 Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English 377 First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation Joanne Scheibman 27 Ideophones in Karo 397 Nilson Gabas Jr. with Johan van der Auwera 28 Isn’t that Fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates 415 Intentional Morphological Blends in English Stefan Th. Gries 29 A Semantic Study of the Classifier Dao 429 Song Jiang 30 Subjectification and Synchronic Variation: 445 Two Negation Forms in Kansai Dialect of Japanese Kaoru Horie and Emi Kondo 31 Basic Voice Patterns in Tarascan (P’orhepecha) 461 Fernando Nava and Ricardo Maldonado 32 You Wanna Consider a Constructional Approach 479 towards Wanna-contraction? Hans C. Boas 33 Towards a Symbolic Typology of –ing Nominalizations 493 Liesbet Heyvaert 34 The Interaction of Quantification and Identification 507 In English Determiners Kristin Davidse 35 Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses 535 Ronald W. Langacker Author Index 579 Index 587 From kemmer at rice.edu Sat Oct 23 00:33:53 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:33:53 -0500 Subject: Language, Culture & Mind vol. Message-ID: The page numbers were wandering a bit on the last version of this I sent--so I will try again with (hopefully) better formatting. --S.K. Language, Culture and Mind edited by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004 Introduction xv Suzanne Kemmer and Michel Achard 1 Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective 1 John A. Lucy 2 To Awaken a Sleeping Giant: Cognition and Culture in 23 September 11 Political Cartoons Benjamin Bergen 3 Affect in Language Interpretation 37 Melinda Chen 4 Development of Community in Computer Mediated Communication: A Social Network Analysis 55 Barbara F. Kelly and Christine A. Halverson 5 The Status of Clause and VP in Spoken Indonesian; 67 Evidence from Repair Fay Wouk 6 The Cognitive Linguistics of Scalar Humor 79 Benjamin Bergen and Kim Binsted 7 Is Cognitive Linguistics Our Best Phenomenology 93 of Language? A Philosophical Challenge Tim Adamson 8 Icebox Moms and Hockey Dads: Context and 109 the Mapping of N-N Metaphorical Expressions Carol Lynn Moder 9 On Simile 123 Michael Israel, Jennifer Riddle Harding, and Vera Tobin 10 Happiness in English and German: 137 A Metaphorical-pattern Analysis Anatol Stefanowitsch 11 Ego-based and Field-based Frames of Reference 151 in Space to Time Metaphors Kevin Ezra Moore 12 Factors Underlying Spatial Particle Distributions in 167 Japanese and Korean Kaori Kabata and Jeong-Hwa Lee 13 Going Getting Tired: ‘Associated Motion’ Through Space 181 And Time in Lowland Chontal Loretta O’Connor 14 A Study of Motion Events in Saisiyat and Cebuano 199 Michael Tanangkingsing 15 Comparing Elicited Data and Corpora 211 Dawn Nordquist 16 Covarying Collexemes in the Into-causative 225 Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch 17 Linking Perceptual Properties to Linguistic Expressions 237 of Causation Grace Song and Phillip Wolff 18 Contrastive Analyses, Translation, and Speaker Involvement: 251 the Case of Puisque and Aangezien Liesbeth Degand 19 ‘I Can See the Church to my House’: 271 Directionality in Expressions of Visual Perception in Finnish Tuomas Huumo 20 The Grounding of Embedded WH-clauses in Scenes 281 of Visual Perception Christopher Johnson 21 Aspect as a Cue for Represented Perception 297 Todd McDaniels 22 Aspect in the Making: A Corpus Analysis of English 313 Aspect-Marking Prepositions Sally Rice and John Newman 23 Present and Imperfect for Past Description in Spanish 329 Narratives: Syntactic, Semantic, and Functional Factors Margaret Lubbers-Quesada 24 Clause Structure, Focus, and Topic Types 345 in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Verónica Vázquez Soto 25 Identity and Perspective: The Jekyll-and-Hyde Effect in 363 Narrative Discourse Barbara Dancygier 26 Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English 377 First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation Joanne Scheibman 27 Ideophones in Karo 397 Nilson Gabas Jr. with Johan van der Auwera 28 Isn’t that Fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates 415 Intentional Morphological Blends in English Stefan Th. Gries 29 A Semantic Study of the Classifier Dao 429 Song Jiang 30 Subjectification and Synchronic Variation: 445 Two Negation Forms in Kansai Dialect of Japanese Kaoru Horie and Emi Kondo 31 Basic Voice Patterns in Tarascan (P’orhepecha) 461 Fernando Nava and Ricardo Maldonado 32 You Wanna Consider a Constructional Approach 479 towards Wanna-contraction? Hans C. Boas 33 Towards a Symbolic Typology of –ing Nominalizations 493 Liesbet Heyvaert 34 The Interaction of Quantification and Identification 507 In English Determiners Kristin Davidse 35 Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses 535 Ronald W. Langacker Author Index 579 Index 587 From cjany at umail.ucsb.edu Mon Oct 25 07:23:46 2004 From: cjany at umail.ucsb.edu (Carmen Jany) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:23:46 -0700 Subject: WAIL 2005 Call for papers Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 21-23, 2005 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its eighth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive studies of the indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. Please indicate your source(s) of data in the abstract. For co-authored papers, please indicate who plans to present the paper as well as who will be in attendance. For email submissions, include the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Include the following information in the body of the email message: (1) your name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract, along with a 3x5 card with the information from the body of the email. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 15, 2005 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2005. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Yñez Mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles, which is approximately 90 miles southeast of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776, or check out our website under 'events' at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu -- Carmen Jany cjany at umail.ucsb.edu From sepvai at utu.fi Tue Oct 26 16:12:57 2004 From: sepvai at utu.fi (Seppo Vainio) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:12:57 +0300 Subject: Publications in General Linguistics, University of Turku, Finland Message-ID: We would like to bring to your attention the series Publications in General Linguistics, University of Turku, Finland 1)Anneli Pajunen (1999): On verb rection in Finnish. Selecting the members of the argument structure (in Finnish). (203 p.) ISBN 951-29-1384-4. 17 € (22 USD) 2)Esa Itkonen (1999): The other side of linguistics. Essays from 1963-1999 (in Finnish). (293 p.) ISBN 951-29-1470-0. 17 € (22 USD) 3)Anneli Pajunen (ed.) (2002): Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language(with contributions by E. Engberg-Pedersen, T. Haukioja, E. Itkonen, C. Sinha, J. Zlatev). (125 p.) ISBN 951-29-2195-2. 17 € (22 USD) 4) Esa Itkonen (2001): The diversity and the unity of the world's languages (in Finnish). (436 p.) ISBN 951-29-2219-3. 25 € (32 USD) 5) Seppo Kittila (2002): Transitivity. Towards a comprehensive typology. (311 p.) ISBN 951-29-2193-6. 22 € (28 USD) 6) Esa Itkonen (2003): Methods of formalization beside and inside both autonomous and non-autonomous linguistics. (227 p.) ISBN 951-29-2485-4. 25 € (32 USD) 7)Timo Haukioja (forthcoming): The case against the language organ 8)Esa Itkonen (2003): What is language? A study in the philosophy of linguistics. (226 p.) ISBN 951-29-2617-2. 20 € (26 USD). Postage and packing will be charged additionally. Books can be ordered online, further information, contact tykk at utu.fi. General Linguistics Tel/Fax (358)-(0)2-3336689 Hämeenkatu 2 a 7 20014 University of Turku http://www.utu.fi Publications in General Linguistics 8 At the metatheoretical level, linguistics is often portrayed as one natural science among others; speakers are claimed to be governed by a blind language instinct; and it is assumed, accordingly, that their behavior can be exhaustively described in physico-biological terms (as shown inter alia by the current tendency to reinterpret the term cognitiveas neurological). In this book Esa Itkonen argues that the general view outlined above is fundamentally false. His argument, based on the normativity of language, consists in pursuing the many ramifications of this difficult concept. Norms are inherently social entities; they may be broken by acts of free will; they are accessible to conscious intuition; intuition is a type of knowing-that, on the one hand, and a type of agents knowledge, on the other; empathy, as a related type of agents knowledge, opens up the possibility to understand alien languages and cultures; empathy, when fully spelled out, culminates in so-called rational explanation. The level of normativity constitutes the ineluctable presupposition for doing any kind of linguistic research. This fact can be ignored only at the cost of giving a distorted picture of what linguistics is about. It goes without saying that the social level of language as well as the psychological one are underlain by a neurological substratum. But this has never been denied. The general argument is complemented by case studies on the philosophy of typological linguistics and on the philosophy of phonology. From wilcox at unm.edu Tue Oct 26 17:46:09 2004 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:46:09 -0600 Subject: FW: [Fwd: Job Announcement] In-Reply-To: <417E83F1.9000706@unm.edu> Message-ID: JR 5745. The University of New Mexico's Department of Linguistics will be hiring for a tenure-track position, open rank. Minimum qualifications include Ph.D. in Linguistics by the time of application and evidence of usage-based functionalist research and teaching interest in at least two of the following three areas: phonology, language change, morphosyntax. For complete information regarding salary and position qualifications, you may access Faculty Postings at: or the department¹s website: . The University of New Mexico is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and educator. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 505-277-6353 v/tty 505-277-6355 fax http://www.unm.edu/~wilcox From jeonglee12 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 27 02:28:12 2004 From: jeonglee12 at hotmail.com (Jeong-Hwa Lee) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:28:12 +0000 Subject: final call for papers: ICLC9 Message-ID: Final Call for Papers ************************ 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference Yonsei University Seoul KOREA 17-22 July 2005 (Sunday-Friday) http://www.iclc2005.org Theme: Language, Mind and Brain INVITED SPEAKERS - Eve Sweetser (University of California at Berkeley) - George Lakoff (University of California at Berkeley) - Gilles Fauconnier (University of California at San Diego) - Guenter Radden (Hamburg University) - John Taylor (University of Otago) - Keedong Lee (Yonsei University) - Leonard Talmy (State University of New York at Buffalo) - Melissa Bowerman (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) - Ronald W. Langacker (University of California at San Diego) - Seana Coulson (University of California at San Diego) - Suzanne Kemmer (Rice University) SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS A. For General and Poster Sessions: We solicit abstracts (for 25-minute presentations including discussion) which address various aspects of cognitive approaches to human language. Papers on cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, discourse studies, corpus linguistics, or language processing will be of particular interest. However, papers concerning any issues relating cognition and language will be welcome. B. Theme Sessions: Organizers of theme sessions are asked submit the followings: (a) A short description of the topic of the session (300-500 words) (b) A detailed description of the structure of the session: presentations, discussions, breaks, etc. (with specific time allotment) (c) The abstracts of all speakers following the abstract specifications below (d) The names of discussants with contact information We ask that neither the presentation nor the discussion by a discussant exceeds 20 minutes. All submissions should follow the abstract specifications below: Abstract specifications An abstract should be maximum 500 words (about one page), including examples and references. It should specify research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. All abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by three members of a large international panel. Notification of Theme Session will be made on or before January 15, 2005. And notification of General and Poster Sessions will be made on or before February 15, 2005. Electronic submissions as attachment (in MS word or PDF format) are strongly encouraged. We ask each author to restrict their submission to one single-authored abstract and one co-authored abstract maximum to give opportunity to more authors within limited time. The body of e-mail message should include - author name(s) - affiliation(s) - telephone number - e-mail address - fax number - title of paper - specific area (e.g., subfields of cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, discourse studies, etc.) - three to five keywords - presenter's name - preferred session: (a) General Session (b) Poster Session (c) preference General Session but willing to do a poster The abstract should be anonymous. All abstracts should be sent to park at iclc2005.org (Prof. Jeong-Woon Park, Program Committee Chair) Should you be unable to submit your abstract electronically, send three high-quality copies of your abstract and a separate page containing the required information to Prof. Jeong-Woon Park English Department, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 270 Imun-Dong Dongdaemun-Gu Seoul 130-791 KOREA IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline for Theme Sessions: September 15, 2004 Submission deadline for General and Poster Sessions: November 15, 2004 Acceptance notification of Theme Session: January 15, 2005 Acceptance notification of General and Poster Sessions: February 15, 2005 For further information, visit http://www.iclc2005.org (after 1 May 2004). Hyon-Sook Shin Ph.D. Conference Chair 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference chair at iclc2005.org _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/ From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 30 07:30:01 2004 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:30:01 +0200 Subject: Colloquium - Haiim B. =?iso-8859-1?q?Rosen=92s?= Contributions to Israeli Hebrew Message-ID: Colloquium - Haiim B. Rosen’s Contributions to Israeli Hebrew 12 December 2004: 11:00-17:30 Eshkol Tower, Observation Gallery (Mitzpor), 30th floor. University of Haifa Since its emergence, Israeli Hebrew had been considered a revived language, whose structure is still unstable, thus defying research of its regularities. Professor Haiim B. Rosen (1922-1999) was the first linguist to declare in the early 1950s that Israeli Hebrew is a normal language, with a regular grammatical system, worthy of its own research. Along with this principled declaration, Rosen published books and articles on the structure of Israeli Hebrew, which are still a great source of inspiration for current research. In this colloquium we are going to take a critical view at Rosen’s contributions to the study of Israeli Hebrew in five domains: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and the question of continuity and innovation (the problem of “revival”) of Hebrew. The colloquium is in Hebrew. Printed invitations in Hebrew will be sent out in a few days, primarily to linguistics and Hebrew language departments in Israeli Universities and colleges. If you are not in these categories and you wish to receive a printed invitation, please drop me a note at kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il . Program: 10:30 - Coffee 11:00 - Opening notes 11:15 - Shmuel Bolozky: Rosen's contribution to the understanding of the role of sonority in Israeli Hebrew phonology 12:15 - Ora Schwarzwald : Morphemes, stems and alternants in Rosen's theory: Source and outcome 13:15 - Lunch 14:30 - Edit Doron: Rosen on the semantics of the Hebrew tense system 15:30 - Ron Kuzar: Rosen’s sentence patterns of Israeli Hebrew 16:30 - Ghil`ad Zuckermann: The Israeli language as an object of independent study: The importance of Rosen's approach to the demystification of the "Hebrew revival" ================================================== 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: +972-2-641-4780, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar ================================================== From matt at rice.edu Sat Oct 2 00:30:43 2004 From: matt at rice.edu (Matt Shibatani) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:30:43 -0500 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" Message-ID: Dear all, Please consult Masayoshi Shibatani "An integrational approach to possessor raising, ethical datives, and adversative passives" in BLS 20 (1994) and "Applicatives and benefactives: cognitive account" in Grammatical Constructions: Their form and meaning (eds.) M. Shibatani & S. Thompson OUP (1996). All the best, Matt Shibatani ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suzette Haden Elgin" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:40 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Re: "I'm gonna get me a dog" > > Clancy Clements wrote: > The term 'ethical dative' is often used to name a similar phenomenon in > Spanish, of the type > > Se ME murio' el gato. > EMPH 1sg-dative died the cat > 'My cat died on me.' > > Esta nena no me come. > this little.girl NEG 1sg-dative eats > 'This little girl is not wanting to eat (for me).' > > In Spanish, it seems more frequently in 1st and 2nd person than in > 3rd. I don't know if anyone has studied the distribution of this in > English. It'd be interesting to know whether the distribution is sensitive > to person and number distinctions. > ====== > > Ozark English also has the "on me" construction, as in "My cat died on me" > and "My barn burned down on me" and "This little girl is going all weird on > me and not wanting to eat" and so on. But I see no connection between that > construction and the "me" in "I'm gonna get me a dog." Nor do I see > anything "ethical" about the "me" in "I'm gonna get me a dog." Perhaps > "ethical" is like "competence," and has a technical meaning I'm unaware > of.... > > Dr. Clements ask whether the construction is sensitive to person and number > distinctions; here's a range of examples. > > "I got me a new pickup truck yesterday." > "We got us a new pickup truck yesterday." > > "You better get you a new pickup truck pretty soon." > "You got you a new pickup truck, sure, but you didn't pay your mortgage." > "Go get you some supper before it gets cold." > > "He got him a new pickup truck yesterday." > "She got her a new pickkup truck yesterday." > > [Note: I'm hesitant about "They got them a new pickup truck yesterday," but > have no idea why; something tells me that one has to go to the reflexive, > which of course means I'd have to choose between "themselves" and > "theirselves." Maybe it's just example fatigue, from running through the > set? > > Well. I've got me this example that's gone funny-sounding on me. > > Suzette > > > > > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Mon Oct 4 10:54:54 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:54:54 +0200 Subject: Ph.D. fellowship creole linguistics Message-ID: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Doctoral fellowship in linguistics: creole languages The Department of Linguistics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany) seeks candidates for a doctoral fellowship in linguistics. The followship is for two years. Candidates should be interested in working in the interdisciplinary context of the Max Planck Institute. The dissertation research should be in the area of creole language structure, with particular emphasis on the role of the substrate language(s). The fellow should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification, and be either registered or qualified to register in a recognized doctoral program at a university or equivalent degree-awarding institution. Applicants should have previous experience in creole linguistics, in a substrate language, or in field linguistics. Good knowledge of English is required. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Leipzig. The fellowship is available from 1 February 2005. Applicants should send a CV, a statement of research interests (a concrete proposal for a dissertation topic would be welcome), two letters of recommendation, and a sample of written work to: Julia Cissewski Department of Linguistics Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany Contact person: Dr. Susanne Michaelis, michaelis at eva.mpg.de Deadline for receipt of application: 15 November 2004 The Institute's URL is: http://www.eva.mpg.de/ From rberman at post.tau.ac.il Tue Oct 5 15:15:07 2004 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (Ruth Berman) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:15:07 -0700 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" In-Reply-To: <08E7F6310CCC7642A44FCD859F7740790EC6AE@email03.bsu.edu> Message-ID: the term "ethical dative" is familiar to me from a paper from way back in the 1970s on French, and I adopted it in discussing various kinds of datives in Hebrew, too, in the following paper, where you can find the full reference to the French study Ruth Berman. Dative marking of the affectee role. Hebrew Annual Review, 6, 35-59. Revised from: Dative marking of the benefactee/malefactee in Modern Hebrew., 1982 M.I.T. Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 150-179, 1981] Ruth Berman Tel Aviv University Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: >I'm interested that you use the term "ethical dative" for this. It's a term I also used when I suggested this analysis on the other list that Johanna and I discussed this on. I learned the term from Greek and Latin studies, but it doesn't show up in English studies much. There is one footnote on it in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > >Herb Stahlke > >============ > >I'm not a native speaker of English, so maybe I should be reluctant, but I >do know that I own an album by a contemporary American songwriter on which >the following line can be heard: > >"I went outside and I smoked myself a J " > >What is more, I also have an album by some other American songwriter that >has a song with the line: > >"I had me a girl in Minnesota/ She was only fillin' her quota" > >Both albums sold over three million copies, and I am not aware that any >buyer has ever complained about bad English. So one thing I think should be >clear: these what i would call "ethical datives" are a real phenomenon of >at least American English. > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > > > From lamb at rice.edu Tue Oct 5 16:32:18 2004 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:32:18 -0500 Subject: LACUS Forum XXXII, August 2005, Dartmouth College Message-ID: Apologies for multiple postings: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States Association de Linguistique du Canada et des Etats-Unis THE THIRTY-SECOND LACUS FORUM Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire August 2-6 (Tuesday-Saturday), 2005 Conference Theme: NETWORKS This general theme includes: Relational Networks Systemic Networks Semantic Networks Social Networks Artificial Neural Networks Real Neural Networks Augmented Transition Networks Computer modeling of networks Parallel Processing Distributed processing X degrees of separation Network (vs. tree) representation in Historical Linguistics Networks of beliefs Special Sessions are planned on subordinate themes: (1) Computer Simulation of Network Operation (2) Neurolinguistics (3) Linguistics vis-a-vis "hard" science CALL FOR PAPERS LACUS especially invites abstracts relating to the conference theme but also welcomes abstracts on other linguistic topics. As is traditional at LACUS meetings, papers are welcome on any aspect of general and interdisciplinary linguistics, including contributions representing or proposing innovative ideas or unpopular views. SYMPOSIA, WORKSHOPS, TUTORIALS Papers (and suggestions) are especially invited for the three special sessions being planned: (1) Computer Simulation of Network Operation (2) Neurolinguistics (3) Linguistics vis-a-vis "hard" science Please contact David Bennett or Syd Lamb (lamb at rice.edu) right away with your ideas. 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 2005. Earlier submission is strongly encouraged. 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 will not appear in the meeting handbook.) 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 Word, WordPerfect, or rich text format. 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 your abstract does not fit any of these topics. Where to Submit: David C. Bennett (Or, if no e-mail access: 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 400-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. 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 are also considered. The prizes will be awarded at the annual banquet, to be held at the end of the meeting, Saturday, August 6th. Only single-authored presentations will be considered for prizes. A person who has won the same prize twice is no longer 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 may be available for scholars from countries with weak currencies who submit strong abstracts. 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 XXXII. VENUE Dartmouth College, a distinguished old Ivy League institution, is located in Hanover, New Hampshire. Nearby airports are in Lebanon and Manchester, New Hampshire, and in Burlington, Vermont. The "Dartmouth Bus" takes passengers to Dartmouth from the Boston Airport at regular intervals. Details will appear on the LACUS website, at www.lacus.org. ACCOMMODATIONS Low-cost housing will be available on campus, and accommodations will also be available at the Hanover Inn, across the street from campus, and 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. 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 ADDRESS QUESTIONS about Dartmouth College to the local host: Tim Pulju -- Timothy.J.Pulju at dartmouth.edu CONFERENCE COMMITTEE: David C. Bennett, SOAS, London, Chair Lilly Chen, Rice University Connie Eble, University of North Carolina Sheila Embleton, York University Toby Griffen, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville Sydney Lamb, Rice University Tim Pulju, Dartmouth College Bill Spruiell, Central Michigan University Lois Stanford, University of Alberta William J Sullivan, U Wroclawski & U Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Oct 6 19:53:38 2004 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 12:53:38 -0700 Subject: Job notice: Assistant Prof./general ling. & lit. or comp. Message-ID: In case you didn't see this posting on LINGUIST or in the MLA jobs listings: Assistant Professor, full-time, academic year, tenure-track, to begin Fall Quarter, 2005. Ph.D. in linguistics with a strong generalist background in either literature or composition and rhetorical theory and teaching experience required. The applicant will be expected to teach a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses in general, theoretical, and applied linguistics as well as courses in literature or general education composition and composition and rhetorical theory, depending on his or her secondary area. It is expected that the candidate's yearly linguistics responsibility will be at least 60% of his or her teaching load. Cal Poly is primarily a teaching university with a 3-3-3 quarter load and correspondingly reasonable research expectations. Salary is commensurate with qualifications and experience. To apply, complete online faculty application at http://www.calpolyjobs.org and submit to Requisition #100411. Please attach to electronic application a cover letter, vita, and writing sample. Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript mailed to the address below. Review of applications will begin October 24, 2004. Applications received after that date may be considered. Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals. EEO. Application Address: David Kann , Department Chair One Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo CA 93407 United States of America Contact Information: David Kann , Department Chair click here to access email Phone: (805)756-5850 Fax: (805)756-6374 Please direct your queries to David Kann, not in a reply to this message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue ? San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. (805)-756-2184 ? Fax: (805)-756-6374 ? Dept. Phone. 756-2596 ? E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu ? Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From msoto at servidor.unam.mx Wed Oct 6 21:04:25 2004 From: msoto at servidor.unam.mx (Ricardo Maldonado) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 14:04:25 -0700 Subject: "I'm gonna get me a dog" and the 'ethical dative' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Clancy: The term Ethical Dative has certainly been overused with not enough precision in Hispanic Linguistics. Since in a more classical tradition the term "ethical dative" referred to a very different construction. The "ethical dative" was in fact a transitive completive of the type: Me le? el libro Middle read the book 'I read the whole book' I thus avoided the term all together. As for the examples you gave none of them qualify as a so called "ethical dative". One crucial feature of that dative is their strong dependence on the speaker. Thus ethical datives can be used in 1st person, in some cases second but certainly never in 3rd person. examples can easily be used in 3rd person: Se le muri? el gato Middle DAT.3rd died the cat The cat died on him Esta nena no les come nada a sus padres y ya los tiene preocupados this little.girl NEG 3PL-DAT eats nothing to her parents and yet them have worried 'This little girl is not wanting to eat anything for her parents y she has them worried now.' These contrast with strange datives such as: Me le arruinaron la vida a mi hija DAT DAT ruined the life to my daughter 'They ruined my daughter's on me' Which cannot be used in third person. These facts show that there are in fact two very different dative constructions besides core datives and applicatives. From a cognitive grammar perspective I showed that cannot take 3rd person are always in the setting (thus setting datives) while those that can take 1st, second and 3rd among other arguments correspond to "sympathetic datives", i.e. experiencers that are affected as they linked to the affectedness imposed on other participant in the event. For further details on these two separate constructions I apologize for referring you to a paper of mine: Ricardo Maldonado 2002. "Objective and subjective datives" Cognitive Linguistics. 13-1. 1-65. Anyway, I hope this helps. All the best. Ricardo Maldonado At 09:21 p.m. 27/09/2004, clements wrote: >The term 'ethical dative' is often used to name a similar phenomenon in >Spanish, of the type > >Se ME murio' el gato. >EMPH 1sg-dative died the cat >'My cat died on me.' > >Esta nena no me come. >this little.girl NEG 1sg-dative eats >'This little girl is not wanting to eat (for me).' > >In Spanish, it seems more frequently in 1st and 2nd person than in >3rd. I don't know if anyone has studied the distribution of this in >English. It'd be interesting to know whether the distribution is sensitive >to person and number distinctions. > >Clancy Clements > > >On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote: > > > I'm interested that you use the term "ethical dative" for this. It's a > term I also used when I suggested this analysis on the other list that > Johanna and I discussed this on. I learned the term from Greek and Latin > studies, but it doesn't show up in English studies much. There is one > footnote on it in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. > > > > Herb Stahlke > > > > ============ > > > > I'm not a native speaker of English, so maybe I should be reluctant, but I > > do know that I own an album by a contemporary American songwriter on which > > the following line can be heard: > > > > "I went outside and I smoked myself a J " > > > > What is more, I also have an album by some other American songwriter that > > has a song with the line: > > > > "I had me a girl in Minnesota/ She was only fillin' her quota" > > > > Both albums sold over three million copies, and I am not aware that any > > buyer has ever complained about bad English. So one thing I think > should be > > clear: these what i would call "ethical datives" are a real phenomenon of > > at least American English. > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************************* > J. Clancy Clements > Director of Undergraduate Studies, HISP > Department of Spanish and Portuguese, BH844, IU-B > 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue > Bloomington, IN 47401 USA > Tel 812-855-8612 > Fax 812-855-4526 > Email clements at indiana.edu > Webpage http://www.indiana.edu/~spanport/clements.html > ************************************************* Ricardo Maldonado Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas, UNAM Posgrado en Ling??stica, UAQ From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 9 04:07:10 2004 From: language at sprynet.com (language at sprynet.com) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:07:10 -0500 Subject: Recent messages... Message-ID: For those of you who have written me privately or may have made some comments here about my most recent message, let me explain that I am "on the road" right now. was invited to present the keynote address at a conference on translator training in Mexico a week ago, so my wife & I have converted this into an opportunity to get to know Mexico City a bit over two weeks. Despite Internet cafes, have been finding it a bit hard to keep up with correspondence, so any further contributions to this discussion on my part will have to wait a week or two. VERY BEST TO ALL! ALEX From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Oct 12 14:43:33 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:43:33 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: I have a question about Du Bois's Preferred Argument Structure. I have read some of the relevant literature, and I wonder why he states this as FOUR different "constraints", i.e. four different observations about statistical tendencies in discourse: (i) Avoid more than two lexical core arguments ("One Lexical Argument Constraint") (ii) Avoid lexical A-argument ("Non-lexical A constraint") (iii) Avoid more than two new core arguments ("One New Argument Constraint") (iv) Avoid new A-argument ("Given A constraint") It seems to me that the first and third constraints follow straightforwardly from the second and fourth, respectively: If the A-argument is not lexical/new, there cannot be two lexical/new core arguments, because every clause has at most two core arguments by definition. Why do we need (i) and (iii) as independent constraints? Also, it appears that (ii) follows from (iv) and the well-known strong correlation between given status and non-lexical (pronominal, zero) expression. Finally, (iv) would seem to follow from the strong tendency for A-arguments to be human, and the strong tendency for human arguments to be topical. So the Preferred Argument Structure constraints seem to be completely predictable consequences of well-known statistical tendencies in discourse. Or is there an error in my reasoning? Is there perhaps any independent evidence that the constraints are (partially) independent of each other? I don't mean to say that the constraints are uninteresting because they are predictable, I just wonder why the literature doesn't seem to mention this predictability. Thanks a lot, Martin From oesten at ling.su.se Tue Oct 12 14:59:38 2004 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:59:38 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str Message-ID: Martin Haspelmath wonders if the PAS constraints proposed by Du Bois are not predictable from well-known statistical tendencies in discourse. In Dahl (2000), I argue that the "one lexical NP per clause" is indeed redundant: "Du Bois (1987) argues for assuming a ?one lexical NP per clause? constraint in spoken language. However, in the G corpus, the number of clauses that contain lexical NPs in both subject and DO position conforms exactly to the prediction obtained by multiplying the frequency of lexical subjects with that of lexical Dos ? 75 or 2.4%. In other words, there is no basis here for postulating an independent constraint that would work against combinations of two lexical NPs in one clause, even if it may still be said that the whole system is constructed in such a way that they will not be very frequent. Note in particular that in the five hours of conversation represented in the G corpus, there was not a single instance of the linguist?s favourite sentence type ? transitive sentences with two proper names as in John loves Mary." (Dahl 2000, 50) ("the G corpus" refers to the 65000 word corpus of spoken Swedish that I was using) - ?sten Dahl Reference: Dahl, ?sten. 2000. Egophoricity in Discourse and Syntax. Functions of Language 7(1): 33-77. From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Wed Oct 13 15:36:53 2004 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 17:36:53 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Dear Martin and Funknetters, Goldberg 2004 (in Horn and Ward eds) addresses some of these very questions, and decides that both the quantity and the Given A constraints are needed. The following is similar, but not identical to her replies. 1. "Avoid more than one lexical core argument" (there was a typo in Martin's (i)): Needed independently, because of: (a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. (b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). See also Goldberg 2004. 2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, the opposite is also true). The restriction should be phrased pragmatically rather than formally. In other words, one should avoid low accessibility entities (2 of them, and specifically in A position). Indeed, note how the numbers for New As are smaller than for lexical As (Cf. Du Bois 2003 Table 3 with Table 5). In fact, since Du Bois motivates these constraints by reference to processing demands, degree of mental accessibility seems the proper constraint. So I would consider doing away with (i) and (ii) and keeping (iii) and (iv). 3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off from As (in allowing new entities)? See Goldberg 2004. Best, Mira ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Haspelmath" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 16:43 Subject: [FUNKNET] question on Preferred Arg. Str. > I have a question about Du Bois's Preferred Argument Structure. I have > read some of the relevant literature, and I wonder why he states this as > FOUR different "constraints", i.e. four different observations about > statistical tendencies in discourse: > > (i) Avoid more than two lexical core arguments ("One Lexical Argument > Constraint") > (ii) Avoid lexical A-argument ("Non-lexical A constraint") > (iii) Avoid more than two new core arguments ("One New Argument Constraint") > (iv) Avoid new A-argument ("Given A constraint") > > It seems to me that the first and third constraints follow > straightforwardly from the second and fourth, respectively: If the > A-argument is not lexical/new, there cannot be two lexical/new core > arguments, because every clause has at most two core arguments by > definition. Why do we need (i) and (iii) as independent constraints? > > Also, it appears that (ii) follows from (iv) and the well-known strong > correlation between given status and non-lexical (pronominal, zero) > expression. Finally, (iv) would seem to follow from the strong tendency > for A-arguments to be human, and the strong tendency for human arguments > to be topical. > > So the Preferred Argument Structure constraints seem to be completely > predictable consequences of well-known statistical tendencies in > discourse. Or is there an error in my reasoning? Is there perhaps any > independent evidence that the constraints are (partially) independent of > each other? > > I don't mean to say that the constraints are uninteresting because they > are predictable, I just wonder why the literature doesn't seem to > mention this predictability. > > Thanks a lot, > Martin > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Thu Oct 14 16:44:23 2004 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:44:23 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. In-Reply-To: <7ced01c4b13a$773136b0$6500a8c0@MIRA> Message-ID: Dear Mira and Funknetters, >(a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical >there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. > > Yes, but this is not part of the original claims, I believe. Moreover, since the Recipient has an equally strong tendency to be nonlexical, again it is unclear whether an additional constraint is needed. >(b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid >lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two >violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have >one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are >rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there >are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). > Yes, but is there a *statistically significant* number of new As? The figures are as follows in Du Bois's Sakapultek data: new A given A total new O 0 47 47 given O 6 134 140 total 6 181 187 This distribution is not significant. Although there are fewer newA-newO combinations than newA-givenO combinations, this is expected, because given O is more common than new O overall. The same was found by ?sten Dahl in his much larger spoken Swedish corpus. >2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two >are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, >the opposite is also true). > So the question is: Do the lexical given NPs show an effect of the constraints that specifically refer to lexical (as opposed to new) status? Has anyone examined this? >3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and >topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of >course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated >the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in >the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that >of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off >from As (in allowing new entities)? > > It seems that in many languages/many data sets Ss are intermediate between As and Os. I don't see that theire behavior provides good evidence for the Given A Constraint ("Avoid new As"). Best, Martin From kemmer at rice.edu Thu Oct 14 20:17:56 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:17:56 -0500 Subject: Workshop on Language in Use, October 23-4, 2004 Message-ID: The Rice University Department of Linguistics is hosting a workshop on LANGUAGE IN USE Sat.-Sunday Oct. 23-24, 2004, in the Humanities Building at Rice. Presenters include faculty and doctoral students from U.T. Austin and Rice University, who will be speaking on a wide range of linguistic topics including corpus linguistic studies and methodology, discourse, sociolinguistics, laboratory phonology, historical linguistics, and computational linguistics, as well as grammatical analyses based on more traditional methodologies. The main focus is on language as used by speakers and hearers, and the empirical data used to model language. Registration of attendees outside Rice and U.T. Austin is possible on a space-available basis. Registration is $5 and includes two box lunches and a Saturday night barbecue. To register/inquire whether space is available for further registrants, please contact Martin Hilpert at hilpert at rice.edu . To reserve a space, payment of the $5 registration fee by October 20 is necessary. The program will be finalized ca. Oct. 17. Please see the departmental website www.linguistics.rice.edu under Activities for the workshop schedule which should be posted by the 20th at the latest. The workshop is co-sponsored by the Department of Linguistics and the Center for the Study of Cultures at Rice University, with participation and cooperation by U.T. Depts. of German and Linguistics. From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Oct 14 20:56:10 2004 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:56:10 -0700 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Dear everybody, I think there are (at least) three words of caution one would want to add before christening these (strong) distributional tendencies "preferred argument structure (in discourse)". First methodological: There's nothing magical about trhe absolute values in Dubois' text counts. Different oral text will yield differen t absolute numbers. Dubois' distributions tends to correspond, in my experience, to long oral narratives, particularly traditional two-actants stories. Different texts types will show considerable variation, tho the relatives tendencies seem to hold, in the main. Second, theoretical: "preferred argument structure" was a theoretical notion about the lexical semantics of verbs (or verb senses) and how it maps onto the syntax of "simple" (main-declarative-affirmative-ACTIVE) clauses. But the mapping onto "simple" clauses (using Keenan's term from 1976) already disguises some discourse-distributional facts about the most common clause type in natural, oral discouse (by a whopping 90%, on the average). The so-called Dubois distributional observations, on the other hand, have to do with a rather different aspect of oral communication: The tendency to chunk information in oral language under very small "intonational clauses", on the average 2-3 words per "clause" of 1-2 seconds duration. You can see some discussion of this temporal dynamics, albeit from a different perspective, in my 2002 book "Bio-Linguistics", ch. 5. (Both Walley Chafe and myself have written on this previously). Typically, this "chunking" strategy relies on extensive anaphora (zero or PRO) of both areguments AND verbs. And the cognitive foundations of this apparent temporal-chunking restriction seems very different from the traditional "preferred argument structure". So perhaps using the same term doesn't gain us all that much. Third, also theoretical: Calling these regularity "principles", be they one or more (here I agree with Martin) seems to simply defer the need to EXPLAIN them in the way at least functionalists are honor-bound to explain: By some reference to communicative, cognitive or--God forbid--even neuro-biological properties of human information preocessing (including adaptively-driven evolution, if necessary...). Calling these distribution al facts "principles" is, at best, a heuristic convenience preliminary to searching for more satisfying explanations. Cheers, TG =================================== Martin Haspelmath wrote: > Dear Mira and Funknetters, > > >(a) Ditransitives. It's not necessarily the case that if A is nonlexical > >there won't be 2 other core lexical arguments. > > > > > Yes, but this is not part of the original claims, I believe. Moreover, > since the Recipient has an equally strong tendency to be nonlexical, > again it is unclear whether an additional constraint is needed. > > >(b) If there's an additional quantity constraint (additional to "avoid > >lexical As"), then when you get lexical A and lexical O you have two > >violations. When you only get lexical A (with a nonlexical O) you only have > >one violation. One can check whether the cases with two violations are > >rarer, for example. In Sakapultek (Du Bois 2003 in Du Bois et al eds) there > >are indeed no 2 new arguments, but there are some new As (6%). > > > Yes, but is there a *statistically significant* number of new As? The > figures are as follows in Du Bois's Sakapultek data: > > new A given A total > new O 0 47 47 > given O 6 134 140 > total 6 181 187 > > This distribution is not significant. Although there are fewer newA-newO > combinations than newA-givenO combinations, this is expected, because > given O is more common than new O overall. The same was found by ?sten > Dahl in his much larger spoken Swedish corpus. > > >2. The identification between "new" and "lexical". I beg to differ. The two > >are NOT interchangeable. Some Given entities may be lexical (and marginally, > >the opposite is also true). > > > So the question is: Do the lexical given NPs show an effect of the > constraints that specifically refer to lexical (as opposed to new) > status? Has anyone examined this? > > >3. Getting rid of "Avoid new As": It's true that agents are human and > >topical in many cases, but not in the percentages that PAS findings show. Of > >course the correlations you point to are relevant. This must have motivated > >the choice of As for Given entities and O for potentially new entities in > >the first place. But then, there's Ss too! Their profile is similar to that > >of As in terms of humanness and topicality. If so, why do they split off > >from As (in allowing new entities)? > > > > > It seems that in many languages/many data sets Ss are intermediate > between As and Os. I don't see that theire behavior provides good > evidence for the Given A Constraint ("Avoid new As"). > > Best, > Martin From dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sun Oct 17 06:28:56 2004 From: dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu (John Dubois) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:28:56 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. In-Reply-To: <416EACE7.50703@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: In evaluating the 4 constraints of Preferred Argument Structure, it?s probably best to consult the most recent literature, which has long since been extended to numerous geographically and typologically diverse languages. The most extensive source is Du Bois, Kumpf, and Ashby (2003), which presents in-depth studies of Preferred Argument Structure in more than a dozen languages (including Acehnese, English, Finnish, French, Inuktitut, Itzaj, Korean, Mam, Mapudungun, Mocho, Nepali, Roviana, Spanish, Teco). Several genres, including narrative, conversation, and others, are treated. The bibliography lists more than 100 publications on Preferred Argument Structure research. Regarding the specific issue of reducing the number of Preferred Argument Structure constraints (e.g. from 4 to 2), this has long been an obvious and tempting target for linguists, given our interest in economy. But there?s evidence that the constraints cannot be collapsed. Probably the most extensive statistical argumentation has been offered by Arnold (2003) for Mapudungun (see reference below). She shows that the One Lexical Argument Constraint is not reducible to the Avoid Lexical A Constraint, nor is it reducible to accessibility effects. (Related arguments have been given by Goldberg 2004.) As for ditransitives, Schuetze-Coburn showed already in 1987 that the discourse profile for German ditransitives provides independent support for the existence of 4 distinct Preferred Argument Structure constraints. My own recent work on ditransitives confirms this for English. -- Jack Du Bois References: Arnold, Jennifer E. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In Preferred Argument Structure: grammar as architecture for function, eds. John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby, 225-245. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Goldberg, Adele E. 2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In The handbook of pragmatics, Quoting Martin Haspelmath : Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. 1987. Topic management and the lexicon: A discourse profile of three-argument verbs in German. Linguistics Department, UCLA: Unpublished M.A. thesis. From oesten at ling.su.se Mon Oct 18 12:11:35 2004 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:11:35 +0200 Subject: question on Preferred Arg. Str. Message-ID: Jack Du Bois says: "Regarding the specific issue of reducing the number of Preferred Argument Structure constraints (e.g. from 4 to 2), this has long been an obvious and tempting target for linguists, given our interest in economy. But there?s evidence that the constraints cannot be collapsed. Probably the most extensive statistical argumentation has been offered by Arnold (2003) for Mapudungun (see reference below). She shows that the One Lexical Argument Constraint is not reducible to the Avoid Lexical A Constraint, nor is it reducible to accessibility effects. (Related arguments have been given by Goldberg 2004.)" The question that Arnold discusses seems to be whether differences in salience between intransitive subjects (S's) and transitive subjects (A's) can explain why lexical arguments are used more for S than for A. However, she does not, as far as I can see, address the question if the propensity for lexical expression of A's differs depending on whether the direct object is expressed lexically or not, as would be predicted if there is a One Lexical Argument Constraint which is independent of other factors. The data that I quoted in my previous posting indicate that there may be no such difference between transitive clauses with lexical objects and non-lexical objects. But maybe there is contradictory evidence somewhere else? - ?sten Dahl From promotion at benjamins.com Mon Oct 18 19:36:06 2004 From: promotion at benjamins.com (Christopher Bell) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:36:06 -0400 Subject: New Book: RENKEMA Message-ID: John Benjamins Publishing Company is pleased to announce the publication of the following book in the field of Discourse Studies: Introduction to Discourse Studies Jan Renkema University of Tilburg 2004. x, 363 pp. U.S. and Canada: Cloth: 1 58811 529 1 / USD 138.00 Everywhere else: Cloth: 90 272 2610 5 / EUR 115.00 U.S. and Canada: Paper: 1 58811 530 5 / USD 42.95 Everywhere else: Paper: 90 272 3221 0 / EUR 36.00 Introduction to Discourse Studies follows on Jan Renkema's successful Discourse Studies: An Introductory Textbook (1993), published in four languages. This new book deals with even more key concepts in discourse studies and approaches major issues in this field from the Anglo-American and European as well as the Australian traditions. It provides a 'scientific toolkit' for future courses on discourse studies and serves as a stepping stone to the independent study of professional literature. Introduction to Discourse Studies is the result of more than twenty-five years of experience gained in doing research and teaching students, professionals and academics at various universities. The book is organized in fifteen comprehensive chapters, each subdivided in modular sections that can be studied separately. It includes 400 references, from the most-cited contemporary publications to influential classic works; 500 index entries covering frequently used concepts in the field; more than 100 thought-provoking questions, all elaborately answered, which are ideal for teacher-supported self-education; nearly 100 assignments that provide ample material for teachers to focus on specific topics of their own preference in their lectures. Jan Renkema is a member of the Discourse Studies Group at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, where he also holds the Chair in Effective Language Use. He is general editor of IDJ + DD (Information Design Journal + Document Design). Table of contents Acknowledgments ix 1. Introduction 1 Part I. General orientation 2. Communication as action 11 3. Discourse in communication 35 Part II. Backpacking for a scientific journey 4. Discourse types 59 5. Structured content 87 6. Discourse connections 103 7. Contextual phenomena 121 8. Style 145 Part III. Special modes of communication 9. Conversation analysis 161 10. Informative discourse 175 11. Narratives 191 12. Argumentation and persuasion 203 Part IV. Special interests 13. Discourse and cognition 221 14. Discourse and institution 253 15. Discourse and culture 279 Key to the questions 299 References 339 Index 357 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 Call toll free to order: 1-800-562-5666 From mtaboada at sfu.ca Mon Oct 18 23:10:04 2004 From: mtaboada at sfu.ca (Maite Taboada) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:10:04 -0700 Subject: Assistant Prof. position in Cognitive Science, Simon Fraser University Message-ID: (Apologies for cross-postings. On-line job ad also available: http://www.sfu.ca/cognitive-science/job.html ) Job Opportunity: Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Cognitive Science The Cognitive Science Program at Simon Fraser University in Greater Vancouver invites applications for a tenure-track position at the Assistant Professor level. A Ph.D. in Cognitive Science, or in Computing Science, Linguistics, Philosophy, Psychology or related area is required, with a strong commitment to excellence in research and teaching. Area of specialization must be such that Linguistics, Philosophy or Psychology fit as the home department. Preference will be given to candidates in interdisciplinary areas. However, the overall innovation and promise of the candidate's work will be considered as important as any specific area. Simon Fraser University ( http://www.sfu.ca ) is consistently one of the top- ranked universities in Canada, and is in an exciting phase of rapid growth and expansion. The Cognitive Science Program ( http://www.sfu.ca/cognitive-science/ ) currently has over 50 undergraduate majors, and is poised for growth with the recent hiring of a Canada Research Chair. The Cognitive Science Program is administered jointly by an interdisciplinary Steering Committee, with its home in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Simon Fraser University is situated on Burnaby Mountain in Greater Vancouver. Vancouver thrives as a scenic waterfront city located just minutes away from the mountains and a wide range of outdoor activities. Vancouver's cultural and intellectual pursuits, leisure opportunities, favorable climate, and clean and safe environment are consistently cited as quality of life factors that make it one of the most desirable places in the world to live and work. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority. Simon Fraser University is committed to employment equity and encourages applications from all qualified women and men, including visible minorities, aboriginal people and persons with disabilities. Applications will be accepted until November 30, 2004. All positions are subject to budgetary approval. To apply, send a curriculum vitae, evidence of research productivity, and arrange for three letters of reference to be sent to: Faculty Search Cognitive Science Program, c/o Philosophy Dept. Simon Fraser University 8888 University Drive Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada info-cogsci at sfu.ca From kemmer at rice.edu Wed Oct 20 05:24:55 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:24:55 -0500 Subject: Rice-U.T. Workshop on Language in Use - schedule Message-ID: The first Rice University and UT Austin WORKSHOP ON LANGUAGE IN USE CULTURE, SOCIETY, CHANGE sponsored by the Center for the Study of Cultures at Rice Saturday and Sunday, Oct. 23-24, 2004 Rice Humanities Building Talks in Humanities 117 Refreshments in foyer, lunch in Humanities Courtyard Schedule ? as of 10-18-2004 Saturday, Oct. 23, 2004 13.00-13.45 WELCOME RECEPTION / LUNCH Humanities Building Lobby 13.45-14.00 Opening Remarks Masayoshi Shibatani 14.00-14.30 The Middle Voice in Romanian: A Cognitive Approach. Anne-Marie Hartenstein 14.30-15.00 The Silent Majority - The Importance of H Speakers' Language Attitudes in Diglossic Speech Communities Heiko Wiggers 15.00-15.30 What can a WAN Morphological Causative tell us about Causative Constructions? Gu-Jing Lin 15.30-16.00 COFFEE BREAK 16.00-16.30 Emergent Subordination: The Grammaticalization of to where Chris Taylor 16.30-17.00 Posture Verb Auxiliation: A Cross-Linguistic, Corpus-Based Approach Chris Koops & Martin Hilpert 17.00-17.30 Semantic Frames for Multilingual Lexical Databases Hans C. Boas 17.30-18.30 Asking the Big Question: How? Sydney Lamb 18.30-whenever : BBQ Graduate Student Lounge, Herring Hall Sunday, Oct. 24, 2004 9.30-10.00 Usage and Frequency: Corpus Evidence and Grammatical Knowledge Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer 10.00-10.30 The Suffix -ei in German Plural Formation Guido Halder 10.30-11.00 title tba Monica Sanaphre Villanueva 11.00-11.15 COFFEE BREAK 11.15-11.45 Lyrics that Kill - Metaphors and the Frame of Killing in Hip Hop Texts Jana Thompson 11.45-12.15 Use of Fine-Grained Phonetic Detail in the Processing of Onset-Embedded Words Katherine Crosswhite 12.15-13.30 LUNCH 13.30-14.00 Discontinuous Nominal Phrases in Iquito Mark Brown 14.00-14.30 A Cherokee ?Focus Marker? Reconsidered Dave Katten 14.30-15.00 Cosubordinate Converbs in Japanese Christopher K. Schmidt 15.00-15.15 COFFEE BREAK 15.15-15.45 Contesting andEstablishing Authority through Entextualization and Dialogicality: An Analysis of the Use of Prior Text in Popular Spirituality Literature Pumsup Shim 15.45-16.15 Documenting Endangered Dialects: The Texas German Dialect Project Hans C. Boas 16.15-17.00 Problems with the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis Claire Bowern 17.00 CLOSING RECEPTION (for further information on the workshop contact Martin Hilpert, hilpert at rice.edu) From kemmer at rice.edu Fri Oct 22 23:04:18 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:04:18 -0500 Subject: New: Language, Culture and Mind volume Message-ID: Announcing LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND MIND ed. by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004. 600pp. Distributed by University of Chicago Press. This volume contains thirty-five original essays bringing together work at the crossroads of linguistics, psychology, philosophy, cognitive science, and related fields. An edited selection from the seventy papers originally presented at CSDL 6 at Rice University in 2002, these contributions apply a broad range of methodologies and perspectives to the problem of the relation of language to human culture and cognition, with an emphasis on how language is produced and understood in context. Topics include human categorization, cognitive and cultural models, embodiment, the experiential basis of categories and conceptual structures, lexical and constructional semantics, and the distribution and formal properties of linguistic elements and constructions in a wide variety of languages. Perspectives and methodologies represented among the papers are corpus-based methods, discourse analysis, language acquisition, contrastive analysis, psycholinguistic experimentation, and language change and grammaticalization. Theoretical frameworks deployed include Cognitive Grammar, Construction Grammar, Metaphor theory, and Mental Space and Blending Theory. Includes two substantial new papers by John Lucy and Ronald Langacker. Table of Contents will be distributed separately. From kemmer at rice.edu Sat Oct 23 00:02:35 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:02:35 -0500 Subject: Language, Culture & Mind (CSDL 6) - TOC Message-ID: Language, Culture and Mind edited by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004 Introduction xv Suzanne Kemmer and Michel Achard 1 Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective 1 John A. Lucy 2 To Awaken a Sleeping Giant: Cognition and Culture in 23 September 11 Political Cartoons Benjamin Bergen 3 Affect in Language Interpretation 37 Melinda Chen 4 Development of Community in Computer Mediated Communication: A Social Network Analysis 55 Barbara F. Kelly and Christine A. Halverson 5 The Status of Clause and VP in Spoken Indonesian; 67 Evidence from Repair Fay Wouk 6 The Cognitive Linguistics of Scalar Humor 79 Benjamin Bergen and Kim Binsted 7 Is Cognitive Linguistics Our Best Phenomenology 93 of Language? A Philosophical Challenge Tim Adamson 8 Icebox Moms and Hockey Dads: Context and 109 the Mapping of N-N Metaphorical Expressions Carol Lynn Moder 9 On Simile 123 Michael Israel, Jennifer Riddle Harding, and Vera Tobin 10 Happiness in English and German: 137 A Metaphorical-pattern Analysis Anatol Stefanowitsch 11 Ego-based and Field-based Frames of Reference 151 in Space to Time Metaphors Kevin Ezra Moore 12 Factors Underlying Spatial Particle Distributions in 167 Japanese and Korean Kaori Kabata and Jeong-Hwa Lee 13 Going Getting Tired: ?Associated Motion? Through Space 181 And Time in Lowland Chontal Loretta O?Connor 14 A Study of Motion Events in Saisiyat and Cebuano 199 Michael Tanangkingsing 15 Comparing Elicited Data and Corpora 211 Dawn Nordquist 16 Covarying Collexemes in the Into-causative 225 Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch 17 Linking Perceptual Properties to Linguistic Expressions 237 of Causation Grace Song and Phillip Wolff 18 Contrastive Analyses, Translation, and Speaker Involvement: 251 the Case of Puisque and Aangezien Liesbeth Degand 19 ?I Can See the Church to my House?: 271 Directionality in Expressions of Visual Perception in Finnish Tuomas Huumo 20 The Grounding of Embedded WH-clauses in Scenes 281 of Visual Perception Christopher Johnson 21 Aspect as a Cue for Represented Perception 297 Todd McDaniels 22 Aspect in the Making: A Corpus Analysis of English 313 Aspect-Marking Prepositions Sally Rice and John Newman 23 Present and Imperfect for Past Description in Spanish 329 Narratives: Syntactic, Semantic, and Functional Factors Margaret Lubbers-Quesada 24 Clause Structure, Focus, and Topic Types 345 in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Ver?nica V?zquez Soto 25 Identity and Perspective: The Jekyll-and-Hyde Effect in 363 Narrative Discourse Barbara Dancygier 26 Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English 377 First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation Joanne Scheibman 27 Ideophones in Karo 397 Nilson Gabas Jr. with Johan van der Auwera 28 Isn?t that Fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates 415 Intentional Morphological Blends in English Stefan Th. Gries 29 A Semantic Study of the Classifier Dao 429 Song Jiang 30 Subjectification and Synchronic Variation: 445 Two Negation Forms in Kansai Dialect of Japanese Kaoru Horie and Emi Kondo 31 Basic Voice Patterns in Tarascan (P?orhepecha) 461 Fernando Nava and Ricardo Maldonado 32 You Wanna Consider a Constructional Approach 479 towards Wanna-contraction? Hans C. Boas 33 Towards a Symbolic Typology of ?ing Nominalizations 493 Liesbet Heyvaert 34 The Interaction of Quantification and Identification 507 In English Determiners Kristin Davidse 35 Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses 535 Ronald W. Langacker Author Index 579 Index 587 From kemmer at rice.edu Sat Oct 23 00:33:53 2004 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:33:53 -0500 Subject: Language, Culture & Mind vol. Message-ID: The page numbers were wandering a bit on the last version of this I sent--so I will try again with (hopefully) better formatting. --S.K. Language, Culture and Mind edited by Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2004 Introduction xv Suzanne Kemmer and Michel Achard 1 Language, Culture, and Mind in Comparative Perspective 1 John A. Lucy 2 To Awaken a Sleeping Giant: Cognition and Culture in 23 September 11 Political Cartoons Benjamin Bergen 3 Affect in Language Interpretation 37 Melinda Chen 4 Development of Community in Computer Mediated Communication: A Social Network Analysis 55 Barbara F. Kelly and Christine A. Halverson 5 The Status of Clause and VP in Spoken Indonesian; 67 Evidence from Repair Fay Wouk 6 The Cognitive Linguistics of Scalar Humor 79 Benjamin Bergen and Kim Binsted 7 Is Cognitive Linguistics Our Best Phenomenology 93 of Language? A Philosophical Challenge Tim Adamson 8 Icebox Moms and Hockey Dads: Context and 109 the Mapping of N-N Metaphorical Expressions Carol Lynn Moder 9 On Simile 123 Michael Israel, Jennifer Riddle Harding, and Vera Tobin 10 Happiness in English and German: 137 A Metaphorical-pattern Analysis Anatol Stefanowitsch 11 Ego-based and Field-based Frames of Reference 151 in Space to Time Metaphors Kevin Ezra Moore 12 Factors Underlying Spatial Particle Distributions in 167 Japanese and Korean Kaori Kabata and Jeong-Hwa Lee 13 Going Getting Tired: ?Associated Motion? Through Space 181 And Time in Lowland Chontal Loretta O?Connor 14 A Study of Motion Events in Saisiyat and Cebuano 199 Michael Tanangkingsing 15 Comparing Elicited Data and Corpora 211 Dawn Nordquist 16 Covarying Collexemes in the Into-causative 225 Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch 17 Linking Perceptual Properties to Linguistic Expressions 237 of Causation Grace Song and Phillip Wolff 18 Contrastive Analyses, Translation, and Speaker Involvement: 251 the Case of Puisque and Aangezien Liesbeth Degand 19 ?I Can See the Church to my House?: 271 Directionality in Expressions of Visual Perception in Finnish Tuomas Huumo 20 The Grounding of Embedded WH-clauses in Scenes 281 of Visual Perception Christopher Johnson 21 Aspect as a Cue for Represented Perception 297 Todd McDaniels 22 Aspect in the Making: A Corpus Analysis of English 313 Aspect-Marking Prepositions Sally Rice and John Newman 23 Present and Imperfect for Past Description in Spanish 329 Narratives: Syntactic, Semantic, and Functional Factors Margaret Lubbers-Quesada 24 Clause Structure, Focus, and Topic Types 345 in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Ver?nica V?zquez Soto 25 Identity and Perspective: The Jekyll-and-Hyde Effect in 363 Narrative Discourse Barbara Dancygier 26 Inclusive and Exclusive Patterning of the English 377 First Person Plural: Evidence from Conversation Joanne Scheibman 27 Ideophones in Karo 397 Nilson Gabas Jr. with Johan van der Auwera 28 Isn?t that Fantabulous? How Similarity Motivates 415 Intentional Morphological Blends in English Stefan Th. Gries 29 A Semantic Study of the Classifier Dao 429 Song Jiang 30 Subjectification and Synchronic Variation: 445 Two Negation Forms in Kansai Dialect of Japanese Kaoru Horie and Emi Kondo 31 Basic Voice Patterns in Tarascan (P?orhepecha) 461 Fernando Nava and Ricardo Maldonado 32 You Wanna Consider a Constructional Approach 479 towards Wanna-contraction? Hans C. Boas 33 Towards a Symbolic Typology of ?ing Nominalizations 493 Liesbet Heyvaert 34 The Interaction of Quantification and Identification 507 In English Determiners Kristin Davidse 35 Aspects of the Grammar of Finite Clauses 535 Ronald W. Langacker Author Index 579 Index 587 From cjany at umail.ucsb.edu Mon Oct 25 07:23:46 2004 From: cjany at umail.ucsb.edu (Carmen Jany) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:23:46 -0700 Subject: WAIL 2005 Call for papers Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Santa Barbara, CA April 21-23, 2005 The Linguistics department at the University of California, Santa Barbara announces its eighth annual Workshop on American Indigenous Languages (WAIL), which provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical and descriptive studies of the indigenous languages of the Americas. Anonymous abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in linguistics. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Individuals may submit abstracts for one single and one co-authored paper. Abstracts should be 500 words or less and can be submitted by hard copy or email. Please indicate your source(s) of data in the abstract. For co-authored papers, please indicate who plans to present the paper as well as who will be in attendance. For email submissions, include the abstract as an attachment. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF, RTF, or Microsoft Word document. Include the following information in the body of the email message: (1) your name; (2) affiliation; (3) mailing address; (4) phone number; (5) email address; (6) title of your paper. Send email submissions to: wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu For hard copy submissions, please send five copies of your abstract, along with a 3x5 card with the information from the body of the email. Send hard copy submissions to: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages Department of Linguistics University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 15, 2005 Notification of acceptance will be by email by February 15, 2005. General Information: Santa Barbara is situated on the Pacific Ocean near the Santa Y?ez Mountains. The UCSB campus is located near the Santa Barbara airport. Participants may also fly into LAX airport in Los Angeles, which is approximately 90 miles southeast of the campus. Shuttle buses run between LAX and Santa Barbara. Information about hotel accommodations will be posted on the web. For further information contact the conference coordinator at wail at linguistics.ucsb.edu or (805) 893-3776, or check out our website under 'events' at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu -- Carmen Jany cjany at umail.ucsb.edu From sepvai at utu.fi Tue Oct 26 16:12:57 2004 From: sepvai at utu.fi (Seppo Vainio) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:12:57 +0300 Subject: Publications in General Linguistics, University of Turku, Finland Message-ID: We would like to bring to your attention the series Publications in General Linguistics, University of Turku, Finland 1)Anneli Pajunen (1999): On verb rection in Finnish. Selecting the members of the argument structure (in Finnish). (203 p.) ISBN 951-29-1384-4. 17 ? (22 USD) 2)Esa Itkonen (1999): The other side of linguistics. Essays from 1963-1999 (in Finnish). (293 p.) ISBN 951-29-1470-0. 17 ? (22 USD) 3)Anneli Pajunen (ed.) (2002): Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language(with contributions by E. Engberg-Pedersen, T. Haukioja, E. Itkonen, C. Sinha, J. Zlatev). (125 p.) ISBN 951-29-2195-2. 17 ? (22 USD) 4) Esa Itkonen (2001): The diversity and the unity of the world's languages (in Finnish). (436 p.) ISBN 951-29-2219-3. 25 ? (32 USD) 5) Seppo Kittila (2002): Transitivity. Towards a comprehensive typology. (311 p.) ISBN 951-29-2193-6. 22 ? (28 USD) 6) Esa Itkonen (2003): Methods of formalization beside and inside both autonomous and non-autonomous linguistics. (227 p.) ISBN 951-29-2485-4. 25 ? (32 USD) 7)Timo Haukioja (forthcoming): The case against the language organ 8)Esa Itkonen (2003): What is language? A study in the philosophy of linguistics. (226 p.) ISBN 951-29-2617-2. 20 ? (26 USD). Postage and packing will be charged additionally. Books can be ordered online, further information, contact tykk at utu.fi. General Linguistics Tel/Fax (358)-(0)2-3336689 H?meenkatu 2 a 7 20014 University of Turku http://www.utu.fi Publications in General Linguistics 8 At the metatheoretical level, linguistics is often portrayed as one natural science among others; speakers are claimed to be governed by a blind language instinct; and it is assumed, accordingly, that their behavior can be exhaustively described in physico-biological terms (as shown inter alia by the current tendency to reinterpret the term cognitiveas neurological). In this book Esa Itkonen argues that the general view outlined above is fundamentally false. His argument, based on the normativity of language, consists in pursuing the many ramifications of this difficult concept. Norms are inherently social entities; they may be broken by acts of free will; they are accessible to conscious intuition; intuition is a type of knowing-that, on the one hand, and a type of agents knowledge, on the other; empathy, as a related type of agents knowledge, opens up the possibility to understand alien languages and cultures; empathy, when fully spelled out, culminates in so-called rational explanation. The level of normativity constitutes the ineluctable presupposition for doing any kind of linguistic research. This fact can be ignored only at the cost of giving a distorted picture of what linguistics is about. It goes without saying that the social level of language as well as the psychological one are underlain by a neurological substratum. But this has never been denied. The general argument is complemented by case studies on the philosophy of typological linguistics and on the philosophy of phonology. From wilcox at unm.edu Tue Oct 26 17:46:09 2004 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:46:09 -0600 Subject: FW: [Fwd: Job Announcement] In-Reply-To: <417E83F1.9000706@unm.edu> Message-ID: JR 5745. The University of New Mexico's Department of Linguistics will be hiring for a tenure-track position, open rank. Minimum qualifications include Ph.D. in Linguistics by the time of application and evidence of usage-based functionalist research and teaching interest in at least two of the following three areas: phonology, language change, morphosyntax. For complete information regarding salary and position qualifications, you may access Faculty Postings at: or the department?s website: . The University of New Mexico is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer and educator. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Chair Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 505-277-6353 v/tty 505-277-6355 fax http://www.unm.edu/~wilcox From jeonglee12 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 27 02:28:12 2004 From: jeonglee12 at hotmail.com (Jeong-Hwa Lee) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 02:28:12 +0000 Subject: final call for papers: ICLC9 Message-ID: Final Call for Papers ************************ 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference Yonsei University Seoul KOREA 17-22 July 2005 (Sunday-Friday) http://www.iclc2005.org Theme: Language, Mind and Brain INVITED SPEAKERS - Eve Sweetser (University of California at Berkeley) - George Lakoff (University of California at Berkeley) - Gilles Fauconnier (University of California at San Diego) - Guenter Radden (Hamburg University) - John Taylor (University of Otago) - Keedong Lee (Yonsei University) - Leonard Talmy (State University of New York at Buffalo) - Melissa Bowerman (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) - Ronald W. Langacker (University of California at San Diego) - Seana Coulson (University of California at San Diego) - Suzanne Kemmer (Rice University) SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS A. For General and Poster Sessions: We solicit abstracts (for 25-minute presentations including discussion) which address various aspects of cognitive approaches to human language. Papers on cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, discourse studies, corpus linguistics, or language processing will be of particular interest. However, papers concerning any issues relating cognition and language will be welcome. B. Theme Sessions: Organizers of theme sessions are asked submit the followings: (a) A short description of the topic of the session (300-500 words) (b) A detailed description of the structure of the session: presentations, discussions, breaks, etc. (with specific time allotment) (c) The abstracts of all speakers following the abstract specifications below (d) The names of discussants with contact information We ask that neither the presentation nor the discussion by a discussant exceeds 20 minutes. All submissions should follow the abstract specifications below: Abstract specifications An abstract should be maximum 500 words (about one page), including examples and references. It should specify research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. All abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by three members of a large international panel. Notification of Theme Session will be made on or before January 15, 2005. And notification of General and Poster Sessions will be made on or before February 15, 2005. Electronic submissions as attachment (in MS word or PDF format) are strongly encouraged. We ask each author to restrict their submission to one single-authored abstract and one co-authored abstract maximum to give opportunity to more authors within limited time. The body of e-mail message should include - author name(s) - affiliation(s) - telephone number - e-mail address - fax number - title of paper - specific area (e.g., subfields of cognitive linguistics, functional linguistics, discourse studies, etc.) - three to five keywords - presenter's name - preferred session: (a) General Session (b) Poster Session (c) preference General Session but willing to do a poster The abstract should be anonymous. All abstracts should be sent to park at iclc2005.org (Prof. Jeong-Woon Park, Program Committee Chair) Should you be unable to submit your abstract electronically, send three high-quality copies of your abstract and a separate page containing the required information to Prof. Jeong-Woon Park English Department, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies 270 Imun-Dong Dongdaemun-Gu Seoul 130-791 KOREA IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline for Theme Sessions: September 15, 2004 Submission deadline for General and Poster Sessions: November 15, 2004 Acceptance notification of Theme Session: January 15, 2005 Acceptance notification of General and Poster Sessions: February 15, 2005 For further information, visit http://www.iclc2005.org (after 1 May 2004). Hyon-Sook Shin Ph.D. Conference Chair 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference chair at iclc2005.org _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/ From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 30 07:30:01 2004 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:30:01 +0200 Subject: Colloquium - Haiim B. =?iso-8859-1?q?Rosen=92s?= Contributions to Israeli Hebrew Message-ID: Colloquium - Haiim B. Rosen?s Contributions to Israeli Hebrew 12 December 2004: 11:00-17:30 Eshkol Tower, Observation Gallery (Mitzpor), 30th floor. University of Haifa Since its emergence, Israeli Hebrew had been considered a revived language, whose structure is still unstable, thus defying research of its regularities. Professor Haiim B. Rosen (1922-1999) was the first linguist to declare in the early 1950s that Israeli Hebrew is a normal language, with a regular grammatical system, worthy of its own research. Along with this principled declaration, Rosen published books and articles on the structure of Israeli Hebrew, which are still a great source of inspiration for current research. In this colloquium we are going to take a critical view at Rosen?s contributions to the study of Israeli Hebrew in five domains: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and the question of continuity and innovation (the problem of ?revival?) of Hebrew. The colloquium is in Hebrew. Printed invitations in Hebrew will be sent out in a few days, primarily to linguistics and Hebrew language departments in Israeli Universities and colleges. If you are not in these categories and you wish to receive a printed invitation, please drop me a note at kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il . Program: 10:30 - Coffee 11:00 - Opening notes 11:15 - Shmuel Bolozky: Rosen's contribution to the understanding of the role of sonority in Israeli Hebrew phonology 12:15 - Ora Schwarzwald : Morphemes, stems and alternants in Rosen's theory: Source and outcome 13:15 - Lunch 14:30 - Edit Doron: Rosen on the semantics of the Hebrew tense system 15:30 - Ron Kuzar: Rosen?s sentence patterns of Israeli Hebrew 16:30 - Ghil`ad Zuckermann: The Israeli language as an object of independent study: The importance of Rosen's approach to the demystification of the "Hebrew revival" ================================================== 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: +972-2-641-4780, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar ==================================================