From vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk Fri Mar 4 12:35:32 2005 From: vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:35:32 +0000 Subject: Final call and tutorial: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics Message-ID: Colleagues, Below is the final call for the NDCL conference. Submission deadline is March 14th. Please also note that we have added a satellite event. This is a one-day tutorial entitled 'Frame semantics, corpora, and lexicography', to be run by two leading experts: Sue (Beryl) Atkins, an advisor on the FrameNet project, and Adam Kilgarriff. Full details are available on the conference website: www.cogling.org.uk We'd very much appreciate your support in circulating this final call to as wide an audience as possible! Thanks in advance, Vyv ********Apologies for multiple postings************ FINAL CALL for Papers (please circulate): NEW DIRECTIONS IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS First UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 23-25 October 2005 University of Sussex, Brighton, UK www.cogling.org.uk Within the last 25 years or so, Cognitive Linguistics has emerged as a radical and exciting new approach to the study of language and the mind within the interdisciplinary project known as Cognitive Science. In that time, a rich and relatively mature set of theories has developed which have by now been applied to a wide range of linguistic and cognitive phenomena. As Cognitive Linguistics has grown and matured, debates have emerged regarding foundational theoretical positions and data collection practices and methodologies. Moreover, in recent years, both the empirical basis and the interdisciplinary character of Cognitive Linguistics have been significantly strengthened. The purpose of this international conference is to take stock of the major achievements associated with Cognitive Linguistics since its emergence, and to provide a forum for examining new directions. Papers are invited for submission which relate to any aspect of cognitive Linguistics, from theory to description. However, priority will be given to papers which relate to the theme 'new directions'. Papers which relate to some aspect of the following are particularly welcome: - new descriptive or theoretical insights in Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent empirical or methodological aspects of Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent applications of Cognitive Linguistics - a critical evaluation of an aspect of the Cognitive Linguistics enterprise - the interface between Cognitive Linguistics and neighbouring disciplines - new frontiers in Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent theories within Cognitive Linguistics, or new developments in a particular theory The conference will also see the inauguration of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. There will also be a collection of peer-reviewed papers published based on the conference theme. Plenary speakers are: Paul Chilton, University East Anglia, UK 'Dimensions of discourse' Ronald Langacker, University of California, San Diego, USA 'Constructions and constructional meaning' Brigitte Nerlich, University of Nottingham, UK 'Cognitive linguistics: A tale of two cultures' Chris Sinha, University of Portsmouth, UK 'Mind, brain, society: Language as vehicle and language as window' Mark Turner, Case Western Reserve University, USA Talk title tbc Jordan Zlatev, Lund University, Sweden 'Intersubjectivity, bodily mimesis and the grounding of language' Conference Format The conference will run over three days. In addition to six plenary lectures which will each last for one hour, there will be a general session, consisting of 30 minute presentations in parallel, poster presentations and 3 invited theme sessions relating to the conference theme. The invited theme sessions are as follows: - Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics - Conceptual projection - Making sense of embodiment Submission of Abstracts Submissions are solicited for the general session and for poster presentations. Presentations in the general session should last for 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions. All submissions for the general and poster sessions should follow the abstract guidelines below. - Abstracts of no more than 500 words (about a page) should be submitted to abstract at cogling.org.uk - Abstracts must be in 12 point font and submitted as an email attachment - The abstract should clearly indicate the talk/poster title, and may include references, as long as the total word count does not exceed 500 words. - Please do not include your name or any other obvious forms of identifiers, as far as is possible, in the abstract. This is because the abstracts will be subject to anonymous peer-review. - The preferred format for sending abstracts is in Word, RTF or PDF. - The abstract title should be given as the subject line of the email to which the abstract is attached. - In the body of the email message include the following information: name, title, affiliation, email address, telephone no., postal address, talk title. Please also indicate whether your preferred presentation format is general or poster session. - In order to assist with the reviewing process, please also list up to 5 keywords in the email message ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE: MARCH 14th 2005 For full conference information, including details of the satellite event: 'Frame semantics, corpora, and lexicography: A tutorial', please see the conference website: www.cogling.org.uk This conference is being held at the University of Sussex and organised by the Sussex Cognitive Linguistics Research Group, and the Linguistics and English Language Department. We are grateful to the School of Humanities, and to the British Academy for generous financial support. We also acknowledge the support of the University of Sussex Centre for Research in Cognitive Science (COGS). Organising committee chair: Vyv Evans Organising committee members: Rob Clowes, Jason Harrison, Anu Koskela, Shane Lindsay, John Sung, Joerg Zinken (University of Portsmouth) From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Mar 8 00:28:25 2005 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:28:25 -0800 Subject: go X-ing Message-ID: Does anyone know of analyses of "go X-ing" (go shopping, skiing, hunting, berry-picking, etc.) in a functional/cognitive/construction-grammar framework? A quickie web search turned up only one minor discussion. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Mar 8 21:21:07 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:21:07 -0800 Subject: Tolowa reflexives Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): yU-lh-ts'a's TR-L-whip 's/he is whipping it/him/her' dU-d-lh-ts'a's REFL-D-L-whip 's/he is whipping him-/herself' For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: 'U-sh-k'Usr THM-1s/SUBJ-shave 'I am shaving him/it' dU-sh-d-k'Usr REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave 'I am shaving myself' na-sh-tlh-mi~sh ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang 'I am hanging it/him/her' naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang 'I am hanging myself' ghee-s-ii-'i~' THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see 'I saw it/him/her' dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see 'I saw myself' naa-'ii~-tlh-te ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care 'You care for it/him/her' naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care 'You care for yourself' However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. Cheers, TG From matmies at ling.helsinki.fi Wed Mar 9 13:33:36 2005 From: matmies at ling.helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:33:36 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Dear List Members, A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). I'd also be interested in any other cases of grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into a question marker or vice versa. Thanks and best wishes, Matti -- Matti Miestamo From gary.holton at uaf.edu Wed Mar 9 18:54:53 2005 From: gary.holton at uaf.edu (Gary Holton) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:54:53 -0900 Subject: Tolowa reflexives In-Reply-To: <422E1743.7756F7BD@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, Though I am unfamiliar Victor's original comment, the facts of Tolowa agree well with those in Northern Athabascan (and Apachean). For example, Tanacross n-Ek-'e~h THM-1sg/L-see 'I see him/her/it' 'ede-n-Eg-'e~h RFLX-THM-1sg/L,D-see 'I see myself' or Dena'ina tgh-esh-'ih FUT-1sg-see 'I will see him/her/it' hu-tgh-esh-t-'ih (t + 'ih --> [t'ih]) RFLX-FUT-1sg-D-see 'I will see myself' Hupa is the odd one out here in not employing the D classifier change: 'adi-w-cis RFLX-1sg-see 'I see myself' but even here the nominative subject is retained. I'd be interested to hear of Athabascan examples where this is not the case. Gary Holton On Mar 8, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, > that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the > subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my > Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I > conceded > to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my > great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument > with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of > the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another > grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker > /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. > Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic > is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on > the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb > morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave > Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion > cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = > schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement > criterion > is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we > know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), > the > agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common > cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > From MAnstey at csu.edu.au Thu Mar 10 01:43:12 2005 From: MAnstey at csu.edu.au (Anstey, Matthew) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:43:12 +1100 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Hi Matti, Many semitic languages show a probable development from an interrogative particle of place "where is ...?" to an negative existential "there is not ...". Similar to English, "Where's Pete?" that implies "Pete is not here". Unfortunately, the actual grammaticalisation paths are hard to determine. But the examples speak for themselves: Akkadian: ayyaanum "where?" ; yaanu "there is not" Ugaritic: ?iy "where?" ; ?in "there is not" Arabic: ?ayna "where?" ; ?in "not" Biblical Hebrew: ?eey, ?ayyeeh, ?áyin, ?aan "where?" ; ?eeyn "there is not", ?iiy "not" Moabite: ?n "there is not" Punic: ynny "there is not" El-Amarna Canaanite: ayakam, ayami "where?" Aramaic: ?ayin "where? ; ?ayin "there is not" Phoenician: ?y "there is not" There are many other similar ?y(n) words, meaning either "where?" and/or "there is not". Sorry I can't be more specific. A specialist in comparative Semitics would be able to shed much more light on this! Cheers, Matthew Mr Matthew Anstey Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Sessional Lecturer http://www.stmarksntc.org.au/html/staff/anstey.html Vrije Universiteit, PhD candidate St Mark's National Theological Centre 15 Blackall St Barton ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 (0)2 6273 1572 Fax: +61 (0)2 6273 4067 Email: manstey at csu.edu.au > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Matti Miestamo > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:34 AM > To: funknet; lingtyp > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives > > Dear List Members, > > A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use > of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested > to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine > & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World > Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested > cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A > interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > > I'd also be interested in any other cases of > grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into > a question marker or vice versa. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Matti > > > -- > > Matti Miestamo > > From sepkit at utu.fi Thu Mar 10 09:12:50 2005 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?windows-1252?Q?Seppo_Kittil=E4?=) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:12:50 +0200 Subject: Cfp: SKY Journal of Linguistics Message-ID: (Apologies for multiple postings) Call for papers: SKY Journal of Linguistics SKY Journal of Linguistics, the general linguistics journal of the Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY), is again looking for contributors. SKY JoL welcomes unpublished original works from authors of all nationalities and theoretical persuasions. Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two anonymous referees. In addition to papers on any linguistic topic, SKY JoL publishes short ‘squibs’ (3-5 pages) and book reviews. The languages of publication are English, French and German. SKY JoL appears once a year, both in print and as a free-access web journal. If you would like to review a book for SKY JoL, contact one of the editors, who will then request a review copy from the publisher. The deadline for initial submissions is the end of May each year. Provided that a manuscript is accepted for publication without major revisions, it will in the normal course of events appear in January the next year. In case you have difficulty meeting the deadline, please contact the editors. For further information, visit our web pages at http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky or contact one of the editors: Pentti Haddington Dept. of English P.O. Box 1000 FIN-90014 University of Oulu FINLAND pentti.haddington at oulu.fi Jouni Rostila Dept. of German Language and Culture Studies FIN-33014 University of Tampere FINLAND jouni.rostila at uta.fi Ulla Tuomarla Dept. of Romance Languages P.O. Box 24 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki FINLAND tuomarla at mappi.helsinki.fi Please note that all the editors deal with submissions in English besides the language of their special expertise indicated by their affiliations. From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Thu Mar 10 11:47:05 2005 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (Stephane Robert) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:47:05 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives In-Reply-To: <422EFB30.40907@ling.helsinki.fi> Message-ID: Dear Matti, Wolof (Senegal, Niger-Congo, atlantic) provides direct evidences of the links between negative and interrogative markers: this language makes a wide use of a triplet of spatial morphemes (-i as proximal, -a as distal, -u as non located in the space of the speaker) across the verbal and nominal systems, in a very consistent way. Thus both the negation and the interrogative markers (as well as the indefinite relative pronoun) are made with this -u suffix indicating that the referred objet/process is not located in the "space" of the speaker: k-i : the one nearby (k- class marker for human beings) k-a: the one overthere k-u : who ? (interrogative ou indefinite relative marker) f-i : here f-a : there f-u: where ? dem : to go dem naa : I went (go perfect1sg) dem-u-ma : I did not go (go-negative conjugation 1sg) maa dem: I am the one who went (SubjectFocus-1sg go) maa dem-ul : I am the one who did not go (SubjectFocus-1sg go+negative suffix) Best Stéphane Robert A 14:33 09/03/2005, vous avez écrit : >Dear List Members, > >A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use of negative >markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested to hear about any >attested cases of such developments; Heine & Kuteva briefly mention this >possibility in their World Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not >discuss any attested cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the >A-not-A interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > >I'd also be interested in any other cases of grammaticalization where a >negative marker has developed into a question marker or vice versa. > >Thanks and best wishes, >Matti > > >-- > >Matti Miestamo > _______________ Stéphane ROBERT Directrice Fédération "Typologie et Universaux linguistiques" CNRS - FR 2559 44, rue de l’Amiral Mouchez 75014 Paris - FRANCE Tel. : + 33 1 43 13 56 47 fax : + 33 1 43 13 56 59 e-mail : secretariat.tul at ivry.cnrs.fr http://www.typologie.cnrs.fr CNRS - LLACAN "Langage, langues et cultures d'Afrique noire" - UMR 8135 Centre André-Georges Haudricourt, B.P. 8 7, rue Guy Môquet - 94801 Villejuif Cedex FRANCE Tel: 33 1 49 58 38 46 - Fax: 33 1 49 58 38 00 robert at vjf.cnrs.fr http://llacan.cnrs-bellevue.fr From Salinas17 at aol.com Thu Mar 10 15:00:37 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:00:37 EST Subject: grammar of negatives/interrogatives (what nots) Message-ID: In a message dated 3/10/05 6:47:59 AM, robert at vjf.cnrs.fr writes: << Thus both the negation and the interrogative markers (as well as the indefinite relative pronoun) are made with this -u suffix indicating that the referred object/process is not located in the "space" of the speaker: >> It does seem the connection between negative and interrogative markers would have to do with concepts of inclusion or exclusion. There are examples I think in English where the interrogative can stand for a negative sense. I overheard the following: - [I want to tell you why] this project is more important than X." - Hey, am I here? [meaning "You don't need to tell me. Am I NOT here?] In this case, "am I here?" equals the more literal "am I not here?". But the interrogative is enough. Attention is focused on being _included_ among those present. A good example of the reassignment of attention to what might be excluded, in emphasis on the high degree of inclusion, is the curious English compound nominal, "what nots." Note that there is no contrasting symmetry in describing a group of objects as "whats." In both of these examples, we see grammar being motivated by and struggling with a need to define what exactly the language is referring to. This goes back to the Heideggerian base formula for defining any modality to which we can attached words -- "the ultimate definition of any entity x is that it is all that does NOT include y." Reminds me of the old complaint in the form of a question - "What am I, chopped liver?" Regards, Steve Long From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 10 17:40:31 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:40:31 -0800 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: The Semitic data Matthew Anstey brought up are right on. What makes the Semitic data even more interesting, in the apparent etymological connection between the interrogative /'ay-/ and the NEG-existential /'ay-n/ "there isn't", is the possibility that/-n/ in /'ay-n/ is a reflex of an old copula (as in the Hebrew /hin-(neh)/, Arabic /kan-/ or the Amharic /na-w/, /na-bbara/ etc). Both "there is" and "there isn't", much like cleft copular constructions, are notorious graveyards for old morphologies that had disappeared elsewhere (as in the Spanish 'hay', which preserves the old possessive use of 'haber', replaced elsewhere by 'tener'). Finding a reflex of an old copula in "there isn't" thus parallels the finding of a reflexe of the old NEG-marker there. TG ========================== "Anstey, Matthew" wrote: > Hi Matti, > > Many semitic languages show a probable development from an interrogative particle of place "where is ...?" to an negative existential "there is not ...". Similar to English, "Where's Pete?" that implies "Pete is not here". > > Unfortunately, the actual grammaticalisation paths are hard to determine. But the examples speak for themselves: > > Akkadian: ayyaanum "where?" ; yaanu "there is not" > Ugaritic: ?iy "where?" ; ?in "there is not" > Arabic: ?ayna "where?" ; ?in "not" > Biblical Hebrew: ?eey, ?ayyeeh, ?áyin, ?aan "where?" ; ?eeyn "there is not", ?iiy "not" > Moabite: ?n "there is not" > Punic: ynny "there is not" > El-Amarna Canaanite: ayakam, ayami "where?" > Aramaic: ?ayin "where? ; ?ayin "there is not" > Phoenician: ?y "there is not" > > There are many other similar ?y(n) words, meaning either "where?" and/or "there is not". > > Sorry I can't be more specific. A specialist in comparative Semitics would be able to shed much more light on this! > > Cheers, > Matthew > > Mr Matthew Anstey > Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Sessional Lecturer > http://www.stmarksntc.org.au/html/staff/anstey.html > > Vrije Universiteit, PhD candidate > St Mark's National Theological Centre > 15 Blackall St > Barton ACT 2600 > AUSTRALIA > > Ph: +61 (0)2 6273 1572 > Fax: +61 (0)2 6273 4067 > Email: manstey at csu.edu.au > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Matti Miestamo > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:34 AM > > To: funknet; lingtyp > > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives > > > > Dear List Members, > > > > A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use > > of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested > > to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine > > & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World > > Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested > > cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A > > interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > > > > I'd also be interested in any other cases of > > grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into > > a question marker or vice versa. > > > > Thanks and best wishes, > > Matti > > > > > > -- > > > > Matti Miestamo > > > > From vkg1 at humboldt.edu Fri Mar 11 01:49:26 2005 From: vkg1 at humboldt.edu (Victor Golla) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:49:26 -0800 Subject: Tolowa reflexives Message-ID: Tom-- I think that you're misremembering the topic of our earlier discussion. I've got no problem with reflexives in Tolowa, which (as Gary says) are well-behaved from the Athabaskan point of view. What I took issue with was a rather different claim, viz: > In many, perhaps most languages (and language families) known to us, the dative/recipient object/argument (of verbs such as 'give', 'send', 'show', 'tell', 'bring') and the optional benefactive argument are obligatorily coded as the DIR OBJ of the clause, ... > Athabaskan (Tolowa) easily come[s] to mind, ... To which I replied: > Oh? In all Athabaskan languages that I know of, a > dative/benefactive argument is coded only as the object of an > incorporated postposition,*never* as DIR OBJ. Athabaskan is > the exception that proves the rule,as it were, when it comes > to the promotion of IND OBJ. Does Tolowa behave differently > from all other Athabaskan languages? I'll happily concede the point about the subject of reflexives, but I'd be very surprised to find Tolowa promoting indirect objects in benefactive constructions. Normal Athabaskan morphology simply doesn't allow this to happen. --Victor > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > > > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > > From matmies at ling.helsinki.fi Fri Mar 11 11:15:18 2005 From: matmies at ling.helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:15:18 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks for all the on-list replies to my question concerning the grammaticalization of interrogatives/negatives. And thanks again for the off-list replies. I'm including a summary of these below. (I sent the original question to both Lingtyp and Funknet; if you are interested in reading the whole discussion but are not subscribed to both lists, you can check the archives at .) You have all given me lots of useful material for my research. I have a more specific question at this point, however, related to Nicholas Ostler's Quechua examples. To get a larger picture, I phrased the original question in more general terms, but my question was motivated by an interest in the diachronic origins of (declarative) negatives that contain an interrogative marker in addition to the negative marker(s), e.g. Imbabura Quechua where negation is marked by "mana ...-chu", -chu alone marking polar interrogation. I'm pasting the Quechua examples provided by Nicholas here: away-ta yacha-nki-chu? spinning-acc know-you-CHU. Do you know how to spin? ari, away-ta yacha-ni(-*chu) yes, spinning-acc, know-I Yes, I know how to spin. mana away-ta yacha-ni-chu not spinning-acc. know-I-CHU. I don't know how to spin. I have found a similar pattern in Aymara, Jaqaru and Imonda as well, and diachronically also in Awa Pit and Egyptian Arabic (I'd be glad to give examples of all these if there is interest). This is not a very wide-spread pattern since these are the only languages with this type in my sample of 297 languages (there are of course more languages where negatives take a more general irrealis marker). Anyway, I'd appreciate any pointers to studies dealing with the diachronic origins of such cases. Best wishes, Matti The following is a (minimally edited) summary of the off-list responses: -- Nick Enfield: Look at Southeast Asian languages Thai, Lao, Cantonese, Khmer, etc. They use tags which are phonetically close to negative marker, but usually with a different tone (e.g. Thai *maj* high falling for 'no', high rising for '?'). -- Richard Madsen: I believe Vietnamese demonstrates the case you're looking for, in the form of "khong", which can either mark negation (in preverbal position) or yes/no questions (in sentence final position): Anh khong noi tieng Viet. - You don't speak Vietnamese. Anh noi tieng Viet khong? - Do you speak Vietnamese? (Diacritics are missing.) -- Eva Lindström: I work on Kuot, a non-Austronesian language of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. I have something of the vice versa kind: a question word seemingly developing into a negation. However, it is not a polar marker but the word for 'what' (_mani_). The "path" seems to be something like irony: "he is what? big?!?" = 'he isn't big'. There is some clausal and intonational support for parts of this reasoning, showing contrast and similarity to the more general negator. -- According to Jeanette Sakel the Bolivian Spanish use of "no ves" 'don't you see' as a tag question is directly borrowed into Mosetén. -- Hannu Tommola also points out the case of Chinese (bu). -- Bernhard Wälchli: In languages with synthetic negation, questions (especially indirect questions) are sometimes formed by affirmative-negative compounds, that resemble co-compounds. (30) Tuva (Mark 15:36) ...Ilija.nyŋ kel.ir-kel.bez.in köör.dür. ..Elias.gen come.fut-come.neg:fut.acc look.pst ‘...let us see whether Elias will come [to take him down].’ This happens, however, also in Mordvin in spite of its complicated Finno-Ugric (you know...) negation and analytic negation. Do you need Mordvin examples? I do not have the material here and would not like to make any myself. Anyway, I would consider indirect questions as possible early step in grammaticalization along with tags. A wild hypothesis out of the blue: A language with a negation marker in yes/no-questions has also a negation marker in indirect yes/no-questions. -- Gontzal Aldai: If I'm not wrong (and many people in the list could confirm or reject it), (colloquial) Mexican Spanish always uses either a "yes" or a "no" particle in yes/no questions, depending on the expected answer. But then, probably every other language does it. (I'm not sure whether this is related to what you're looking for.) -- Hartmut Haberland: For the case of German nicht, which occurs in tag questions (with alternates in the spoken langage like ne, nö, nich), a development from the tag marker to the negation would be rather implausible given the history of nicht: Originally, nicht is a noun (in this function it has been replaced by its genitive nichts), OHG nêowiht ('NEG ever thing') or niwicht ('NEG thing'). Originally, it was used (like pas in French ne ... pas) as a reinforcer of the negation ni, ne or (verbal prefix) en- (objects of the negated verb were often construed as a genitive attribute to nicht, not as objects to the verb: MHG ich enweiz es nicht 'I.NOM NEG-know it.GEN NICHT'). Later the primary negation disappeared (like in modern spoken French: je crois pas). The tag use has probably developed from an independent nicht? or nicht wahr? ('not true'), that used to precede the taged question. I guess that the development of Danish ikke? has been similar, but I have to check this (if you are interested). You are probably aware of the fact that Japanese the Japanese question marker ka is identical to the postpositional conjunction ka 'or'. -- Matti Miestamo From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Mar 11 19:03:39 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:03:39 -0800 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, I apologize to you & Vic for opening the wrong file last time. However, now that I've opened the right one (I hope...), I still wonder whether Tolowa abides by what Vic says about the rest of Athabaskan. The data below is only about verbs with obligatory DAT arguments. First, for comparison, the objects of simple transitive verbs, to establish the morphological DIR OBJ position (data are again from a file compiled by Dave Watters). First with zero-marked 3rd pers. object: 'U-sh-k'Usr 'I shave him' THM-1s/SUBJ-shave '-i~n-k'Usr 'You shave him' THM-2s/SUBJ-shave yaa-k'Usr 'S/he shave him' (zero subj pro) TR-shave The /yU/yaa/ morpheme, currently marking transitive clauses with third-person subject and object, still occupies the DIR OBJ pronominal slot. So with 1st/2nd objects: sh-ii~-k'Usr 'You shave me' 1s/OBJ-2s/SUBJ-shave nU-sh-k'Usr 'I shave you' 2s/OBJ-1s/SUBJ-shave And likewise in the PERFECT: sh-s-ii~-k'Usr 'You shaved me' 1s/OBJ-PERF-2s/SUBJ-shave nn-s-ii-k'Usr 'I shaved you' 2s/OBJ-PERF-1s/SUBJ-shave With the bitransitive 'give', using the classifier verb (here for sg. small object /-'a~/), it appears that Vic is right, in that the DAT object position is distinct from (and more 'external' to) the old TR/ DIR OBJ position. Thus: wa-y-n-ii~-'a~ 'S/he gave it to him' ADV-TR-PERF-3/SUBJ-V.CL nn-ghaa~-n-ii-'a~ 'I gave it to you' 2s/OBJ-ADV-PERF-1s/SUBJ-V.CL sh-ghaa~-n-ii~-'a~ 'You gave it to me' 1s/OBJ-ADV-PERF-2s/SUBJ-V.CL The verbs 'send' & 'bring' show a similar pattern. However, with a "more dative" verb such as 'tell', the DAT pronoun clearly occupies the DIR OBJ position: yU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) him' TR-L-tell/PERF nU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) you' 2s/OBJ-L-tell/PERF shU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) me' 1s/OBJ-L-tell/PERF And as far as I can see, the same is true for 'teach' and 'show'. So at the very least, the more prototypically-dative verbs seem to obligatorily code the DAT argument to DO. The data is further complicated by evidence that in some verbal constructions, Tolowa has been pushing the DIR OBJ pronominal position further to the left ("more external"), thus away from the old /yU/ ("TR") position. So that even for 'give', the purely morphological criteria for what is DO are now a bit muddled. But this is going to be too much for this discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot yet find the file on optional BENEFACTIVE arguments. But I'll keep looking. Anyway, thanks for y'alls patience, and Vic-- thanks for your vigilance. Best, TG From dryer at buffalo.edu Sat Mar 12 01:03:00 2005 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew Dryer) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:03:00 -0500 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive In-Reply-To: <4231EB8B.D9233172@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I think one needs to be careful about using a verb meaning 'tell' to see how a language treats "dative" arguments, because in many languages the verb meaning 'say' is morphologically and syntactically intransitive and the verb meaning 'tell' is morphologically and syntactically monotransitive, not ditransitive. In Kutenai, for example, there are a variety of tests that show that the verb for 'say' is intransitive, so that the thing said, while semantically an argument of the verb, is grammatically an oblique (e.g. the verb for 'say' takes nonspecific subject marking, something that is only possible with intransitive verbs; and to relativize 'what is said', one uses a relativizing construction that is used for relativizing obliques, not the construction for relativizing subjects and objects). And one forms the verb for 'tell' by adding a transitivizing suffix to the verb for 'say', so that the verb for 'tell' is simply a monotransitive verb, and thus different from the verbs meaning 'give' or 'show'. On the other hand, if Tom is right that the Tolowa verbs for 'show' and 'teach' are like the verb for 'tell' (especially when they take nonclausal complements, as opposed to the meanings 'show that' or 'teach that'), then these verbs would support his claim. Matthew Dryer From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Mar 14 20:47:42 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:47:42 -0800 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive Message-ID: In languages where the verbal meanings 'say' and 'tell' share the same stem (without derivational affixes), one should not call the stem itself 'the verb'. Rather, one must take each sense of that stem and test it for its syntactic properties--in its distinct syntactic frame. This is true in Ute, Tolowa, and many other languages. In such languages, most commonly such a verb- can fit into four distinct syntactic frames: (i) With a non-equi clausal complement: 'She said that Matt had left' (ii) With a non-equi clausal complement and a DAT-human nominal object: 'She told/said (to) Sarah that Matt had left' (iii) With an equi clausal complement and a DAT-human nominal object: 'She told Matt to leave' (iv) With an ACC and a DAT nominal objects: 'She told Matt a story' ('She told the story to Matt') The syntactic question one could investigate then, whether the DAT argument is coded as DO, applies only to classes (ii), (iii) and iv). In general, all these three tend to go by the same rule, but that has to be tested language by language. TG ======================== dryer at buffalo.edu wrote: > I think one needs to be careful about using a verb meaning 'tell' to see > how a language treats "dative" arguments, because in many languages the > verb meaning 'say' is morphologically and syntactically intransitive and > the verb meaning 'tell' is morphologically and syntactically > monotransitive, not ditransitive. In Kutenai, for example, there are a > variety of tests that show that the verb for 'say' is intransitive, so that > the thing said, while semantically an argument of the verb, is > grammatically an oblique (e.g. the verb for 'say' takes nonspecific subject > marking, something that is only possible with intransitive verbs; and to > relativize 'what is said', one uses a relativizing construction that is > used for relativizing obliques, not the construction for relativizing > subjects and objects). And one forms the verb for 'tell' by adding a > transitivizing suffix to the verb for 'say', so that the verb for 'tell' is > simply a monotransitive verb, and thus different from the verbs meaning > 'give' or 'show'. > > On the other hand, if Tom is right that the Tolowa verbs for 'show' and > 'teach' are like the verb for 'tell' (especially when they take nonclausal > complements, as opposed to the meanings 'show that' or 'teach that'), then > these verbs would support his claim. > > Matthew Dryer From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Mar 14 20:49:04 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:49:04 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: [FUNKNET] Tolowa dative/benefactive] Message-ID: From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Wed Mar 16 13:55:38 2005 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia Ulrich) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:38 +0100 Subject: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar (Anstey/Mackenzie) Message-ID: New publication from Mouton de Gruyter CRUCIAL READINGS IN FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR Edited by Matthew P. Anstey and J. Lachlan Mackenzie 2005. xiv, 382 pages. 23 fig. 3 tables. Cloth. EUR 98.00 / sFr 157.00 / approx. US$ 127.00 ISBN 3-11-017640-8 (Functional Grammar Series 26) Language of publication: English Date of publication: 03/2005 http://www.degruyter.de/rs/bookSingle.cfm?id=IS-3110176408-1&l=E Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar will be an invaluable resource to anyone working in Functional Grammar, student and scholar alike. It contains important articles that have led to new avenues of research in the theory beyond Dik's two-volume Functional Grammar (1997), each concluded with a short paragraph with suggestions for further research. The book also contains an introduction to current Functional Grammar theory by the editors. Crucial Readings will be of much assistance both in bringing together in one volume the various ideas that complement Dik's canonical presentation of the theory and in the editorial contributions that provide a comprehensive review of Functional Grammar publications. FROM THE CONTENTS: Introduction Matthew Anstey and Lachlan Mackenzie Layers and operators Kees Hengeveld Toward a unified analysis of terms and predications Jan Rijkhoff Parts of speech Kees Hengeveld Places and things J. Lachlan Mackenzie The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites Simon C. Dik, Kees Hengeveld, Elseline Vester and Co Vet On assigning pragmatic functions in English J.Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer The utterance as unit of description: Implications for Functional Grammar Mike Hannay The multilayered structure of the utterance: about illocution, modality and discourse moves Co Vet On the notion "Functional Explanation" Simon C. Dik Functional Grammar and lexematics Leocadio Martn Mingorance Semantic content and linguistic structure in Functional Grammar: On the semantics of nounhood Peter Harder Functional Procedural Grammar: an overview. Working Papers in Functional Jan Nuyts Charting FG: a researcher's guide to dissertations and monographs Matthew Anstey and Lachlan Mackenzie EDITORS: Matthew Anstey is an academic associate of Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Canberra, Australia, and a PhD candidate at the Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. J. Lachlan Mackenzie works as Consultant in Languages and Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal. OF INTEREST TO: Students and Scholars of Functional Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics, Typology, Discourse Analysis and Linguistics in General; Academic Libraries and Institutes TO ORDER, PLEASE CONTACT SFG Servicecenter-Fachverlage Postfach 4343 72774 Reutlingen, Germany Fax: +49 (0)7071 - 93 53 - 33 E-mail: deGruyter at s-f-g.com For USA, Canada, Mexico: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. PO Box 960 Herndon, VA 20172-0960 Tel.: +1 (703) 661 1589 Tel. Toll-free +1 (800) 208 8144 Fax: +1 (703) 661 1501 e-mail: degruytermail at presswarehouse.com Please visit our website for other publications by Mouton de Gruyter: www.mouton-publishers.com For free demo versions of Mouton de Gruyter's multimedia products, please visit www.mouton-online.com __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Diese E-Mail und ihre Dateianhaenge sind fuer den angegebenen Empfaenger und/oder die Empfaengergruppe bestimmt. Wenn Sie diese E-Mail versehentlich erhalten haben, setzen Sie sich bitte mit dem Absender oder Ihrem Systembetreuer in Verbindung. Diese Fusszeile bestaetigt ausserdem, dass die E-Mail auf bekannte Viren ueberprueft wurde. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender or the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. From langconf at acs.bu.edu Fri Mar 18 01:12:02 2005 From: langconf at acs.bu.edu (BUCLD Applied Linguistics) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:12:02 -0500 Subject: BUCLD 30 - Call for Papers Message-ID: *********************************** CALL FOR PAPERS THE 30th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 4-6, 2005 Keynote Speaker: Janet Werker, University of British Columbia "Speech Perception and Language Acquisition: Comparing Monolingual and Bilingual Infants" Plenary Speaker: Harald Clahsen, University of Essex "Grammatical Processing in First and Second Language Learners" Lunch Symposium: To Be Announced *********************************** All topics in the fields of first and second language acquisition from all theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including: Bilingualism Cognition & Language Creoles & Pidgins Discourse Exceptional Language Input & Interaction Language Disorders Linguistic Theory (Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon) Literacy & Narrative Neurolinguistics Pragmatics Pre-linguistic Development Signed Languages Sociolinguistics Speech Perception & Production Presentations will be 20 minutes long followed by a 10-minute question period. Posters will be on display for a full day with two attended sessions during the day. *********************************** ABSTRACT FORMAT AND CONTENT Abstracts submitted must represent original, unpublished research. Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 450 words in length. They should also fit on one page, with an optional second page for references or figures if required. Abstracts longer than 450 words will be rejected without being evaluated. Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. Note that words counts need not include the abstract title or the list of references. A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/template.html All abstracts must be submitted as PDF documents. Specific instructions for how to create PDF documents are available at the website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/pdfinfo.html If you encounter a problem creating a PDF file, please contact us for further assistance. Please use the first author's last name as the file name (eg. Smith.pdf). No author information should appear anywhere in the contents of the PDF file itself. *********************************** SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Electronic submission: To facilitate the abstract submission process, abstracts will be submitted using the form available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm Specific instructions for abstract submission are available on this website. Abstracts will be accepted between March 15 and May 15. Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform. No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract PDF. At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster, a paper, or both. Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation by each author: (a) a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster, and (b) a maximum of 2 papers/posters in any authorship status. Note that no changes in authorship (including deleting an author or changing author order) will be possible after the review process is completed. DEADLINE: All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2005. Late abstracts will not be considered, whatever the reason for the delay. We regret that we cannot accept abstract submissions by fax or email. Submissions via surface mail will only be accepted in special circumstances, on a case by case basis. *********************************** ABSTRACT SELECTION Each abstract is blind reviewed by 5 reviewers from a panel of approximately 80 international scholars. Further information about the review process is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in early August, by email. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late August 2005. If your abstract is accepted, you will need to submit a 150-word abstract including title, author(s) and affiliation(s) for inclusion in the conference handbook. Guidelines will be provided along with notification of acceptance. Abstracts accepted as papers will be invited for publication in the BUCLD Proceedings. Abstracts accepted as posters will be invited for publication online only, but not in the printed version. All conference papers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted. Although each abstract will be evaluated individually, we will attempt to honor requests to schedule accepted papers together in group sessions. No schedule changes will be possible once the schedule is set. Scheduling requests for religious reasons only must be made before the review process is complete (i.e. at the time of submission). A space is provided on the abstract submission webform to specify such requests. *********************************** FURTHER INFORMATION Information regarding the conference may be accessed at Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 E-mail: *********************************** From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi Wed Mar 23 10:34:50 2005 From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kaius_Sinnem=E4ki?=) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:34:50 +0200 Subject: 2nd call for abstracts: Approaches to complexity in language Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR ABSTRACTS The Linguistic Association of Finland and the Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki, jointly organize the symposium Approaches to Complexity in Language in Helsinki, Finland, on August 24-26, 2005. Language complexity has recently attracted the attention of linguists of various persuasions. Obviously, the concept has different definitions in different approaches to language. Some look at the issue from a more autonomous theoretical point of view, drawing from e.g. information theory, while others see complexity as difficulty of processing, language learning, and language acquisition. These approaches need of course not be contradictory. Complexity has always been an important issue for creolists and contact linguists, as well as for formal theorists and psycholinguists. Of late, typologists have become increasingly interested in the question. Confirmed plenary speakers: - Wouter Kusters (University of Leiden) - Ritva Laury (California State University, Fresno; University of Helsinki) - John McWhorter (Manhattan Institute; University of California Berkeley) Activities: - plenary lectures - presentations by other participants (20 min + 10 min for discussion) - posters - workshops We encourage contributions approaching language complexity from different points of view, e.g. - What is complexity in language and how should it be defined? - Complexity in different linguistic domains (e.g. phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon). - Complexity in spoken vs. written language. - Does complexity in one domain correlate with (lack of) complexity in another? - How do social changes and language contacts influence complexity? - How can complexity be compared across languages? The main topics of the symposium will center around these issues, but papers approaching complexity from other points of view are equally welcome. Submission of abstracts and workshop proposals: The deadline for submission of abstracts (in English; max 500 words) is April 30, 2005. Please submit your abstract by e-mail to the address of the organizing committee . The abstract should be included in the body of the message. Please indicate clearly whether your abstract is intended as a poster or a section paper. Participants will be notified about acceptance by May 31, 2005. The abstracts will be published on the web pages of the symposium at . Proposals for workshops should be submitted no later than April 30, 2005, and notification of acceptance will be given by May 31. These one-day workshops will run in parallel sessions with the main conference programme. Alternatively, the first day of the symposium may be dedicated to workshops. The symposium organizers will provide the lecture rooms and other facilities, but the workshop organizers will be responsible for the organization of their workshops (choice of speakers etc). Registration: The deadline for registration is August 1, 2005. Please register by e-mail to the address of the organizing committee (see below). Registration fees: - general: EUR 50 - members of the association: EUR 25 - undergraduate students free Participants from abroad are requested to pay in cash upon arrival. Participants from Finland may send the registration fee by giro account no 800013-1424850 to The Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY) / Symposium, or pay in cash upon arrival. In case you have further questions please contact the organizing committee (see below). Check for information updates at the symposium website: Organizing committee: Marja Etelämäki Pentti Haddington Soili Hakulinen Arja Hamari Fred Karlsson Seppo Kittilä Matti Miestamo Urpo Nikanne Heli Pitkänen Kaius Sinnemäki E-mail: From jscheibm at odu.edu Sat Mar 26 15:54:28 2005 From: jscheibm at odu.edu (Joanne Scheibman) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:54:28 -0500 Subject: Job notice: Asst. Prof sociolinguistics/English linguistics Message-ID: Assistant Professor of Linguistics, English Department. Tenure-track, 3/3 teaching load. Minimum requirements: Ph.D. in Linguistics by August 15, 2005; qualified to teach courses in sociolinguistics and English linguistics in BA, MA, and proposed PhD programs. Evidence of scholarly potential and good teaching required. Ability to teach discourse analysis, TESOL, language and culture, phonology, or experience with distance learning a plus. Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and the names, addresses, and phone numbers of three references to Joyce Neff, PhD, Acting Chair, Department of English, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va. 23529. Review of applications will begin April 15, 2005 and continue until position is filled. Old Dominion University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and requires compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. From MAnstey at csu.edu.au Mon Mar 28 04:13:13 2005 From: MAnstey at csu.edu.au (Anstey, Matthew) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:13:13 +1000 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding the recent discussions of interrogatives and negation, the following recent article addresses the semantics of their interaction in great detail: Romero, Maribel and Chung-Hye Han, 2004, On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy. 27: 609-658. They do not discuss grammaticalisation, but their explanation very nicely motivates the phenomena. They also point out several data that I can't remember being mentioned in this discussion, such as (a) difference between "Isn't John a drinker?" and "Is John not a drinker?" and (b) the difference between "Isn't John a drinker too?" and "Isn't John a drinker either?", differences found in many languages. The crucial observation is that "Isn't John a drinker?" is ambiguous (unless context clarifies) in its implicatures of 'John is a drinker', which is the unambiguous implicature of "Isn't John a drinker too?" and 'John is not a drinker', which is the unambiguous implicature of "Isn't John a drinker either?" They observe similar differences in terms of implicatures in pairs such as: 1. Never has John lied. VS John has never lied. 2. John has never lied, has he? VS John has lied, hasn't he? To solve these conundrums of scopal ambiguity, they introduce a VERUM operator that interacts with NEG (ie VERUM [ NEG vs NEG [ VERUM ). The upshot of all this for the thread is that the grammaticalisation facts must somehow be related to the (ambiguity of) the *implicatures* that arise with interrogatives, negators, and their co-occurence. It also alerts us to being sensitive to the position (and accordingly in many cases scope) of NEG, nicely illustrated in their German example: Hat (nicht) Hans (nicht) Maria (nicht) gesehen? They also point out that naturally their approach is very reliant on the context, as it all depends on whether the speaker is checking for p or ~p with the negated question, which is confirmed by the many examples people have given. With regards, Matthew Matthew Anstey Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Academic Associate From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Mar 29 05:16:14 2005 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Jo Rubba) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:16:14 -0800 Subject: searching for metonymy in literature Message-ID: Hi, here I am to pick brains again ... I'm teaching a course in cognitive stylistics this term and I am looking for (short) pieces of literature which use metonymy in more than just the occasional example -- pieces in which it is a major vehicle for focus, assigning or shifting credit or blame, etc. Music lyrics, bits of movies, etc. would also do. I can get plenty of examples from nonliterary prose, but it would be nice to have some literary/art ones. Thanks in advance; will share results. *************************************************** Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~ E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba *************************************************** From Nino.Amiridze at let.uu.nl Thu Mar 31 10:47:20 2005 From: Nino.Amiridze at let.uu.nl (Amiridze, Nino) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:47:20 +0200 Subject: postposition on finite verb forms? Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I have a question about postpositions. In Georgian postpositions are exclusively attached to either bare or case-marked (pro)nominal or de-verbal nominal roots. In modern spoken Georgian one of the postpositions started appearing encliticized to a fully inflected verb forms so that the semantics of the postposition is in a sense preserved (1 vs. 2). Moreover, not only the postposition but the case marker ``governed" by the postposition is also cliticized. And what is important, there is no change from verb into a nominal, the resulting form is still a verb form. (1) man mo-i-bodish-a-sa-vit (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST-DAT-like ``(S)he uttered something like an apology" (2) man mo-i-bodish-a (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST ``(S)he apologized" Do you have similar examples from other languages when a nominal affix attaches to a finite verb? I would appreciate it if you could let me know references and/or data related to the topic. Sincerely, Nino Amiridze From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Thu Mar 31 16:03:32 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:03:32 +0400 Subject: postposition on finite verb forms? Message-ID: "She kind of apologized" - is that comparable? And in Turkish "gibi" (like) can be used with a tense marked verb, e.g. "gideceksin gibi gorunuyor" (you-will-go like it-seems = it looks as if you're going to go). Offhand I can't think of any other post positions that could be used like that in Turkish. David :-D >>> "Amiridze, Nino" 03/31/05 2:47 PM >>> Dear colleagues, I have a question about postpositions. In Georgian postpositions are exclusively attached to either bare or case-marked (pro)nominal or de-verbal nominal roots. In modern spoken Georgian one of the postpositions started appearing encliticized to a fully inflected verb forms so that the semantics of the postposition is in a sense preserved (1 vs. 2). Moreover, not only the postposition but the case marker ``governed" by the postposition is also cliticized. And what is important, there is no change from verb into a nominal, the resulting form is still a verb form. (1) man mo-i-bodish-a-sa-vit (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST-DAT-like ``(S)he uttered something like an apology" (2) man mo-i-bodish-a (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST ``(S)he apologized" Do you have similar examples from other languages when a nominal affix attaches to a finite verb? I would appreciate it if you could let me know references and/or data related to the topic. Sincerely, Nino Amiridze From vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk Fri Mar 4 12:35:32 2005 From: vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:35:32 +0000 Subject: Final call and tutorial: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics Message-ID: Colleagues, Below is the final call for the NDCL conference. Submission deadline is March 14th. Please also note that we have added a satellite event. This is a one-day tutorial entitled 'Frame semantics, corpora, and lexicography', to be run by two leading experts: Sue (Beryl) Atkins, an advisor on the FrameNet project, and Adam Kilgarriff. Full details are available on the conference website: www.cogling.org.uk We'd very much appreciate your support in circulating this final call to as wide an audience as possible! Thanks in advance, Vyv ********Apologies for multiple postings************ FINAL CALL for Papers (please circulate): NEW DIRECTIONS IN COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS First UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference 23-25 October 2005 University of Sussex, Brighton, UK www.cogling.org.uk Within the last 25 years or so, Cognitive Linguistics has emerged as a radical and exciting new approach to the study of language and the mind within the interdisciplinary project known as Cognitive Science. In that time, a rich and relatively mature set of theories has developed which have by now been applied to a wide range of linguistic and cognitive phenomena. As Cognitive Linguistics has grown and matured, debates have emerged regarding foundational theoretical positions and data collection practices and methodologies. Moreover, in recent years, both the empirical basis and the interdisciplinary character of Cognitive Linguistics have been significantly strengthened. The purpose of this international conference is to take stock of the major achievements associated with Cognitive Linguistics since its emergence, and to provide a forum for examining new directions. Papers are invited for submission which relate to any aspect of cognitive Linguistics, from theory to description. However, priority will be given to papers which relate to the theme 'new directions'. Papers which relate to some aspect of the following are particularly welcome: - new descriptive or theoretical insights in Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent empirical or methodological aspects of Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent applications of Cognitive Linguistics - a critical evaluation of an aspect of the Cognitive Linguistics enterprise - the interface between Cognitive Linguistics and neighbouring disciplines - new frontiers in Cognitive Linguistics - new or recent theories within Cognitive Linguistics, or new developments in a particular theory The conference will also see the inauguration of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association. There will also be a collection of peer-reviewed papers published based on the conference theme. Plenary speakers are: Paul Chilton, University East Anglia, UK 'Dimensions of discourse' Ronald Langacker, University of California, San Diego, USA 'Constructions and constructional meaning' Brigitte Nerlich, University of Nottingham, UK 'Cognitive linguistics: A tale of two cultures' Chris Sinha, University of Portsmouth, UK 'Mind, brain, society: Language as vehicle and language as window' Mark Turner, Case Western Reserve University, USA Talk title tbc Jordan Zlatev, Lund University, Sweden 'Intersubjectivity, bodily mimesis and the grounding of language' Conference Format The conference will run over three days. In addition to six plenary lectures which will each last for one hour, there will be a general session, consisting of 30 minute presentations in parallel, poster presentations and 3 invited theme sessions relating to the conference theme. The invited theme sessions are as follows: - Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics - Conceptual projection - Making sense of embodiment Submission of Abstracts Submissions are solicited for the general session and for poster presentations. Presentations in the general session should last for 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions. All submissions for the general and poster sessions should follow the abstract guidelines below. - Abstracts of no more than 500 words (about a page) should be submitted to abstract at cogling.org.uk - Abstracts must be in 12 point font and submitted as an email attachment - The abstract should clearly indicate the talk/poster title, and may include references, as long as the total word count does not exceed 500 words. - Please do not include your name or any other obvious forms of identifiers, as far as is possible, in the abstract. This is because the abstracts will be subject to anonymous peer-review. - The preferred format for sending abstracts is in Word, RTF or PDF. - The abstract title should be given as the subject line of the email to which the abstract is attached. - In the body of the email message include the following information: name, title, affiliation, email address, telephone no., postal address, talk title. Please also indicate whether your preferred presentation format is general or poster session. - In order to assist with the reviewing process, please also list up to 5 keywords in the email message ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE: MARCH 14th 2005 For full conference information, including details of the satellite event: 'Frame semantics, corpora, and lexicography: A tutorial', please see the conference website: www.cogling.org.uk This conference is being held at the University of Sussex and organised by the Sussex Cognitive Linguistics Research Group, and the Linguistics and English Language Department. We are grateful to the School of Humanities, and to the British Academy for generous financial support. We also acknowledge the support of the University of Sussex Centre for Research in Cognitive Science (COGS). Organising committee chair: Vyv Evans Organising committee members: Rob Clowes, Jason Harrison, Anu Koskela, Shane Lindsay, John Sung, Joerg Zinken (University of Portsmouth) From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Mar 8 00:28:25 2005 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:28:25 -0800 Subject: go X-ing Message-ID: Does anyone know of analyses of "go X-ing" (go shopping, skiing, hunting, berry-picking, etc.) in a functional/cognitive/construction-grammar framework? A quickie web search turned up only one minor discussion. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Mar 8 21:21:07 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:21:07 -0800 Subject: Tolowa reflexives Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): yU-lh-ts'a's TR-L-whip 's/he is whipping it/him/her' dU-d-lh-ts'a's REFL-D-L-whip 's/he is whipping him-/herself' For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: 'U-sh-k'Usr THM-1s/SUBJ-shave 'I am shaving him/it' dU-sh-d-k'Usr REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave 'I am shaving myself' na-sh-tlh-mi~sh ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang 'I am hanging it/him/her' naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang 'I am hanging myself' ghee-s-ii-'i~' THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see 'I saw it/him/her' dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see 'I saw myself' naa-'ii~-tlh-te ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care 'You care for it/him/her' naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care 'You care for yourself' However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. Cheers, TG From matmies at ling.helsinki.fi Wed Mar 9 13:33:36 2005 From: matmies at ling.helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 15:33:36 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Dear List Members, A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). I'd also be interested in any other cases of grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into a question marker or vice versa. Thanks and best wishes, Matti -- Matti Miestamo From gary.holton at uaf.edu Wed Mar 9 18:54:53 2005 From: gary.holton at uaf.edu (Gary Holton) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 09:54:53 -0900 Subject: Tolowa reflexives In-Reply-To: <422E1743.7756F7BD@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, Though I am unfamiliar Victor's original comment, the facts of Tolowa agree well with those in Northern Athabascan (and Apachean). For example, Tanacross n-Ek-'e~h THM-1sg/L-see 'I see him/her/it' 'ede-n-Eg-'e~h RFLX-THM-1sg/L,D-see 'I see myself' or Dena'ina tgh-esh-'ih FUT-1sg-see 'I will see him/her/it' hu-tgh-esh-t-'ih (t + 'ih --> [t'ih]) RFLX-FUT-1sg-D-see 'I will see myself' Hupa is the odd one out here in not employing the D classifier change: 'adi-w-cis RFLX-1sg-see 'I see myself' but even here the nominative subject is retained. I'd be interested to hear of Athabascan examples where this is not the case. Gary Holton On Mar 8, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, > that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the > subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my > Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I > conceded > to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my > great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument > with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of > the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another > grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker > /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. > Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic > is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on > the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb > morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave > Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion > cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = > schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement > criterion > is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we > know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), > the > agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common > cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > From MAnstey at csu.edu.au Thu Mar 10 01:43:12 2005 From: MAnstey at csu.edu.au (Anstey, Matthew) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:43:12 +1100 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Hi Matti, Many semitic languages show a probable development from an interrogative particle of place "where is ...?" to an negative existential "there is not ...". Similar to English, "Where's Pete?" that implies "Pete is not here". Unfortunately, the actual grammaticalisation paths are hard to determine. But the examples speak for themselves: Akkadian: ayyaanum "where?" ; yaanu "there is not" Ugaritic: ?iy "where?" ; ?in "there is not" Arabic: ?ayna "where?" ; ?in "not" Biblical Hebrew: ?eey, ?ayyeeh, ??yin, ?aan "where?" ; ?eeyn "there is not", ?iiy "not" Moabite: ?n "there is not" Punic: ynny "there is not" El-Amarna Canaanite: ayakam, ayami "where?" Aramaic: ?ayin "where? ; ?ayin "there is not" Phoenician: ?y "there is not" There are many other similar ?y(n) words, meaning either "where?" and/or "there is not". Sorry I can't be more specific. A specialist in comparative Semitics would be able to shed much more light on this! Cheers, Matthew Mr Matthew Anstey Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Sessional Lecturer http://www.stmarksntc.org.au/html/staff/anstey.html Vrije Universiteit, PhD candidate St Mark's National Theological Centre 15 Blackall St Barton ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 (0)2 6273 1572 Fax: +61 (0)2 6273 4067 Email: manstey at csu.edu.au > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Matti Miestamo > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:34 AM > To: funknet; lingtyp > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives > > Dear List Members, > > A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use > of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested > to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine > & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World > Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested > cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A > interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > > I'd also be interested in any other cases of > grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into > a question marker or vice versa. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Matti > > > -- > > Matti Miestamo > > From sepkit at utu.fi Thu Mar 10 09:12:50 2005 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?windows-1252?Q?Seppo_Kittil=E4?=) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:12:50 +0200 Subject: Cfp: SKY Journal of Linguistics Message-ID: (Apologies for multiple postings) Call for papers: SKY Journal of Linguistics SKY Journal of Linguistics, the general linguistics journal of the Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY), is again looking for contributors. SKY JoL welcomes unpublished original works from authors of all nationalities and theoretical persuasions. Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two anonymous referees. In addition to papers on any linguistic topic, SKY JoL publishes short ?squibs? (3-5 pages) and book reviews. The languages of publication are English, French and German. SKY JoL appears once a year, both in print and as a free-access web journal. If you would like to review a book for SKY JoL, contact one of the editors, who will then request a review copy from the publisher. The deadline for initial submissions is the end of May each year. Provided that a manuscript is accepted for publication without major revisions, it will in the normal course of events appear in January the next year. In case you have difficulty meeting the deadline, please contact the editors. For further information, visit our web pages at http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky or contact one of the editors: Pentti Haddington Dept. of English P.O. Box 1000 FIN-90014 University of Oulu FINLAND pentti.haddington at oulu.fi Jouni Rostila Dept. of German Language and Culture Studies FIN-33014 University of Tampere FINLAND jouni.rostila at uta.fi Ulla Tuomarla Dept. of Romance Languages P.O. Box 24 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki FINLAND tuomarla at mappi.helsinki.fi Please note that all the editors deal with submissions in English besides the language of their special expertise indicated by their affiliations. From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Thu Mar 10 11:47:05 2005 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (Stephane Robert) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:47:05 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives In-Reply-To: <422EFB30.40907@ling.helsinki.fi> Message-ID: Dear Matti, Wolof (Senegal, Niger-Congo, atlantic) provides direct evidences of the links between negative and interrogative markers: this language makes a wide use of a triplet of spatial morphemes (-i as proximal, -a as distal, -u as non located in the space of the speaker) across the verbal and nominal systems, in a very consistent way. Thus both the negation and the interrogative markers (as well as the indefinite relative pronoun) are made with this -u suffix indicating that the referred objet/process is not located in the "space" of the speaker: k-i : the one nearby (k- class marker for human beings) k-a: the one overthere k-u : who ? (interrogative ou indefinite relative marker) f-i : here f-a : there f-u: where ? dem : to go dem naa : I went (go perfect1sg) dem-u-ma : I did not go (go-negative conjugation 1sg) maa dem: I am the one who went (SubjectFocus-1sg go) maa dem-ul : I am the one who did not go (SubjectFocus-1sg go+negative suffix) Best St?phane Robert A 14:33 09/03/2005, vous avez ?crit : >Dear List Members, > >A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use of negative >markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested to hear about any >attested cases of such developments; Heine & Kuteva briefly mention this >possibility in their World Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not >discuss any attested cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the >A-not-A interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > >I'd also be interested in any other cases of grammaticalization where a >negative marker has developed into a question marker or vice versa. > >Thanks and best wishes, >Matti > > >-- > >Matti Miestamo > _______________ St?phane ROBERT Directrice F?d?ration "Typologie et Universaux linguistiques" CNRS - FR 2559 44, rue de l?Amiral Mouchez 75014 Paris - FRANCE Tel. : + 33 1 43 13 56 47 fax : + 33 1 43 13 56 59 e-mail : secretariat.tul at ivry.cnrs.fr http://www.typologie.cnrs.fr CNRS - LLACAN "Langage, langues et cultures d'Afrique noire" - UMR 8135 Centre Andr?-Georges Haudricourt, B.P. 8 7, rue Guy M?quet - 94801 Villejuif Cedex FRANCE Tel: 33 1 49 58 38 46 - Fax: 33 1 49 58 38 00 robert at vjf.cnrs.fr http://llacan.cnrs-bellevue.fr From Salinas17 at aol.com Thu Mar 10 15:00:37 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:00:37 EST Subject: grammar of negatives/interrogatives (what nots) Message-ID: In a message dated 3/10/05 6:47:59 AM, robert at vjf.cnrs.fr writes: << Thus both the negation and the interrogative markers (as well as the indefinite relative pronoun) are made with this -u suffix indicating that the referred object/process is not located in the "space" of the speaker: >> It does seem the connection between negative and interrogative markers would have to do with concepts of inclusion or exclusion. There are examples I think in English where the interrogative can stand for a negative sense. I overheard the following: - [I want to tell you why] this project is more important than X." - Hey, am I here? [meaning "You don't need to tell me. Am I NOT here?] In this case, "am I here?" equals the more literal "am I not here?". But the interrogative is enough. Attention is focused on being _included_ among those present. A good example of the reassignment of attention to what might be excluded, in emphasis on the high degree of inclusion, is the curious English compound nominal, "what nots." Note that there is no contrasting symmetry in describing a group of objects as "whats." In both of these examples, we see grammar being motivated by and struggling with a need to define what exactly the language is referring to. This goes back to the Heideggerian base formula for defining any modality to which we can attached words -- "the ultimate definition of any entity x is that it is all that does NOT include y." Reminds me of the old complaint in the form of a question - "What am I, chopped liver?" Regards, Steve Long From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 10 17:40:31 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:40:31 -0800 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: The Semitic data Matthew Anstey brought up are right on. What makes the Semitic data even more interesting, in the apparent etymological connection between the interrogative /'ay-/ and the NEG-existential /'ay-n/ "there isn't", is the possibility that/-n/ in /'ay-n/ is a reflex of an old copula (as in the Hebrew /hin-(neh)/, Arabic /kan-/ or the Amharic /na-w/, /na-bbara/ etc). Both "there is" and "there isn't", much like cleft copular constructions, are notorious graveyards for old morphologies that had disappeared elsewhere (as in the Spanish 'hay', which preserves the old possessive use of 'haber', replaced elsewhere by 'tener'). Finding a reflex of an old copula in "there isn't" thus parallels the finding of a reflexe of the old NEG-marker there. TG ========================== "Anstey, Matthew" wrote: > Hi Matti, > > Many semitic languages show a probable development from an interrogative particle of place "where is ...?" to an negative existential "there is not ...". Similar to English, "Where's Pete?" that implies "Pete is not here". > > Unfortunately, the actual grammaticalisation paths are hard to determine. But the examples speak for themselves: > > Akkadian: ayyaanum "where?" ; yaanu "there is not" > Ugaritic: ?iy "where?" ; ?in "there is not" > Arabic: ?ayna "where?" ; ?in "not" > Biblical Hebrew: ?eey, ?ayyeeh, ??yin, ?aan "where?" ; ?eeyn "there is not", ?iiy "not" > Moabite: ?n "there is not" > Punic: ynny "there is not" > El-Amarna Canaanite: ayakam, ayami "where?" > Aramaic: ?ayin "where? ; ?ayin "there is not" > Phoenician: ?y "there is not" > > There are many other similar ?y(n) words, meaning either "where?" and/or "there is not". > > Sorry I can't be more specific. A specialist in comparative Semitics would be able to shed much more light on this! > > Cheers, > Matthew > > Mr Matthew Anstey > Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Sessional Lecturer > http://www.stmarksntc.org.au/html/staff/anstey.html > > Vrije Universiteit, PhD candidate > St Mark's National Theological Centre > 15 Blackall St > Barton ACT 2600 > AUSTRALIA > > Ph: +61 (0)2 6273 1572 > Fax: +61 (0)2 6273 4067 > Email: manstey at csu.edu.au > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Matti Miestamo > > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 12:34 AM > > To: funknet; lingtyp > > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives > > > > Dear List Members, > > > > A possible source for polar interrogative markers is the use > > of negative markers as tag questions, and I'd be interested > > to hear about any attested cases of such developments; Heine > > & Kuteva briefly mention this possibility in their World > > Lexicon of Grammaticalization but do not discuss any attested > > cases (they do discuss the role of negation in the A-not-A > > interrogative construction, but this is not what I'm after). > > > > I'd also be interested in any other cases of > > grammaticalization where a negative marker has developed into > > a question marker or vice versa. > > > > Thanks and best wishes, > > Matti > > > > > > -- > > > > Matti Miestamo > > > > From vkg1 at humboldt.edu Fri Mar 11 01:49:26 2005 From: vkg1 at humboldt.edu (Victor Golla) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:49:26 -0800 Subject: Tolowa reflexives Message-ID: Tom-- I think that you're misremembering the topic of our earlier discussion. I've got no problem with reflexives in Tolowa, which (as Gary says) are well-behaved from the Athabaskan point of view. What I took issue with was a rather different claim, viz: > In many, perhaps most languages (and language families) known to us, the dative/recipient object/argument (of verbs such as 'give', 'send', 'show', 'tell', 'bring') and the optional benefactive argument are obligatorily coded as the DIR OBJ of the clause, ... > Athabaskan (Tolowa) easily come[s] to mind, ... To which I replied: > Oh? In all Athabaskan languages that I know of, a > dative/benefactive argument is coded only as the object of an > incorporated postposition,*never* as DIR OBJ. Athabaskan is > the exception that proves the rule,as it were, when it comes > to the promotion of IND OBJ. Does Tolowa behave differently > from all other Athabaskan languages? I'll happily concede the point about the subject of reflexives, but I'd be very surprised to find Tolowa promoting indirect objects in benefactive constructions. Normal Athabaskan morphology simply doesn't allow this to happen. --Victor > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > > > > Dear FUNK people, > > > A while back Vic Golla commented on my suggestion, in a previous note, that in Tolowa Athabascan reflexive clause, the agent retains the subject/nominative grammatical role. At the time I was away from my Tolowa files, so I could not respond properly, tho in private I conceded to Vic that I may have been in error. > > I have now had a chance to review my files on the subject, and to my great surprise I was right (it very seldom happens to me in an argument with Vic). Here are some examples that suggest the nominative status of the agent in the reflexive clause. This may, of course, be another grammatical innovation in Tolowa grammar, where the reflexive marker /dU/ is used in addition to the old de-transitive ('classifier') /D/. Tolowa may thus not reflect the pan-Athabaskan situation (of which Vic is infinitrely more knowledgeable than I am). My analysis is based on the one (most) reliable subjecthood criterion in Athabaskan verb morphology -- subject pronominal agreement. The data is taken from Dave Watters' paper on reflexives & reciprocals. > > For third persons, there is no real subject agreement, so the criterion cannot be used. The old yU-/bU- Athabaskan contrast has been > re-analyzed, whereby yU- is just a transitivity marker. Thus (U = schwa; lh = voiceless l; i~ = nasalized i): > > yU-lh-ts'a's > TR-L-whip > 's/he is whipping it/him/her' > > dU-d-lh-ts'a's > REFL-D-L-whip > 's/he is whipping him-/herself' > > For 1st or 2nd person subjects, however, the subject-agreement criterion is available: > > 'U-sh-k'Usr > THM-1s/SUBJ-shave > 'I am shaving him/it' > > dU-sh-d-k'Usr > REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-shave > 'I am shaving myself' > > na-sh-tlh-mi~sh > ADV-1s/SUBJ-L-hang > 'I am hanging it/him/her' > > naa-dU-sh-d-lh-mi~sh > ADV-REFL-1s/SUBJ-D-L-hang > 'I am hanging myself' > > ghee-s-ii-'i~' > THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-see > 'I saw it/him/her' > > dU-ghee-sU-s-d-'i~' > REFL-THM-PFV-1s/SUBJ-D-see > 'I saw myself' > > naa-'ii~-tlh-te > ADV-2s/SUBJ-L-care > 'You care for it/him/her' > > naa-d-ii~-d-lh-te > ADV-REFL-2s/SUBJ-D-L-care > 'You care for yourself' > > However uncharacteristic Tolowa may be of the rest of Athabascan (we know it has done much re-structuring in other areas of the grammar), the agent in its reflexive clause certainly abides by the much more common cross-linguistic pattern, whereby it remains the nominative/subject. > > Cheers, TG > > > From matmies at ling.helsinki.fi Fri Mar 11 11:15:18 2005 From: matmies at ling.helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:15:18 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks for all the on-list replies to my question concerning the grammaticalization of interrogatives/negatives. And thanks again for the off-list replies. I'm including a summary of these below. (I sent the original question to both Lingtyp and Funknet; if you are interested in reading the whole discussion but are not subscribed to both lists, you can check the archives at .) You have all given me lots of useful material for my research. I have a more specific question at this point, however, related to Nicholas Ostler's Quechua examples. To get a larger picture, I phrased the original question in more general terms, but my question was motivated by an interest in the diachronic origins of (declarative) negatives that contain an interrogative marker in addition to the negative marker(s), e.g. Imbabura Quechua where negation is marked by "mana ...-chu", -chu alone marking polar interrogation. I'm pasting the Quechua examples provided by Nicholas here: away-ta yacha-nki-chu? spinning-acc know-you-CHU. Do you know how to spin? ari, away-ta yacha-ni(-*chu) yes, spinning-acc, know-I Yes, I know how to spin. mana away-ta yacha-ni-chu not spinning-acc. know-I-CHU. I don't know how to spin. I have found a similar pattern in Aymara, Jaqaru and Imonda as well, and diachronically also in Awa Pit and Egyptian Arabic (I'd be glad to give examples of all these if there is interest). This is not a very wide-spread pattern since these are the only languages with this type in my sample of 297 languages (there are of course more languages where negatives take a more general irrealis marker). Anyway, I'd appreciate any pointers to studies dealing with the diachronic origins of such cases. Best wishes, Matti The following is a (minimally edited) summary of the off-list responses: -- Nick Enfield: Look at Southeast Asian languages Thai, Lao, Cantonese, Khmer, etc. They use tags which are phonetically close to negative marker, but usually with a different tone (e.g. Thai *maj* high falling for 'no', high rising for '?'). -- Richard Madsen: I believe Vietnamese demonstrates the case you're looking for, in the form of "khong", which can either mark negation (in preverbal position) or yes/no questions (in sentence final position): Anh khong noi tieng Viet. - You don't speak Vietnamese. Anh noi tieng Viet khong? - Do you speak Vietnamese? (Diacritics are missing.) -- Eva Lindstr?m: I work on Kuot, a non-Austronesian language of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. I have something of the vice versa kind: a question word seemingly developing into a negation. However, it is not a polar marker but the word for 'what' (_mani_). The "path" seems to be something like irony: "he is what? big?!?" = 'he isn't big'. There is some clausal and intonational support for parts of this reasoning, showing contrast and similarity to the more general negator. -- According to Jeanette Sakel the Bolivian Spanish use of "no ves" 'don't you see' as a tag question is directly borrowed into Moset?n. -- Hannu Tommola also points out the case of Chinese (bu). -- Bernhard W?lchli: In languages with synthetic negation, questions (especially indirect questions) are sometimes formed by affirmative-negative compounds, that resemble co-compounds. (30) Tuva (Mark 15:36) ...Ilija.ny? kel.ir-kel.bez.in k??r.d?r. ..Elias.gen come.fut-come.neg:fut.acc look.pst ?...let us see whether Elias will come [to take him down].? This happens, however, also in Mordvin in spite of its complicated Finno-Ugric (you know...) negation and analytic negation. Do you need Mordvin examples? I do not have the material here and would not like to make any myself. Anyway, I would consider indirect questions as possible early step in grammaticalization along with tags. A wild hypothesis out of the blue: A language with a negation marker in yes/no-questions has also a negation marker in indirect yes/no-questions. -- Gontzal Aldai: If I'm not wrong (and many people in the list could confirm or reject it), (colloquial) Mexican Spanish always uses either a "yes" or a "no" particle in yes/no questions, depending on the expected answer. But then, probably every other language does it. (I'm not sure whether this is related to what you're looking for.) -- Hartmut Haberland: For the case of German nicht, which occurs in tag questions (with alternates in the spoken langage like ne, n?, nich), a development from the tag marker to the negation would be rather implausible given the history of nicht: Originally, nicht is a noun (in this function it has been replaced by its genitive nichts), OHG n?owiht ('NEG ever thing') or niwicht ('NEG thing'). Originally, it was used (like pas in French ne ... pas) as a reinforcer of the negation ni, ne or (verbal prefix) en- (objects of the negated verb were often construed as a genitive attribute to nicht, not as objects to the verb: MHG ich enweiz es nicht 'I.NOM NEG-know it.GEN NICHT'). Later the primary negation disappeared (like in modern spoken French: je crois pas). The tag use has probably developed from an independent nicht? or nicht wahr? ('not true'), that used to precede the taged question. I guess that the development of Danish ikke? has been similar, but I have to check this (if you are interested). You are probably aware of the fact that Japanese the Japanese question marker ka is identical to the postpositional conjunction ka 'or'. -- Matti Miestamo From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Mar 11 19:03:39 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:03:39 -0800 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, I apologize to you & Vic for opening the wrong file last time. However, now that I've opened the right one (I hope...), I still wonder whether Tolowa abides by what Vic says about the rest of Athabaskan. The data below is only about verbs with obligatory DAT arguments. First, for comparison, the objects of simple transitive verbs, to establish the morphological DIR OBJ position (data are again from a file compiled by Dave Watters). First with zero-marked 3rd pers. object: 'U-sh-k'Usr 'I shave him' THM-1s/SUBJ-shave '-i~n-k'Usr 'You shave him' THM-2s/SUBJ-shave yaa-k'Usr 'S/he shave him' (zero subj pro) TR-shave The /yU/yaa/ morpheme, currently marking transitive clauses with third-person subject and object, still occupies the DIR OBJ pronominal slot. So with 1st/2nd objects: sh-ii~-k'Usr 'You shave me' 1s/OBJ-2s/SUBJ-shave nU-sh-k'Usr 'I shave you' 2s/OBJ-1s/SUBJ-shave And likewise in the PERFECT: sh-s-ii~-k'Usr 'You shaved me' 1s/OBJ-PERF-2s/SUBJ-shave nn-s-ii-k'Usr 'I shaved you' 2s/OBJ-PERF-1s/SUBJ-shave With the bitransitive 'give', using the classifier verb (here for sg. small object /-'a~/), it appears that Vic is right, in that the DAT object position is distinct from (and more 'external' to) the old TR/ DIR OBJ position. Thus: wa-y-n-ii~-'a~ 'S/he gave it to him' ADV-TR-PERF-3/SUBJ-V.CL nn-ghaa~-n-ii-'a~ 'I gave it to you' 2s/OBJ-ADV-PERF-1s/SUBJ-V.CL sh-ghaa~-n-ii~-'a~ 'You gave it to me' 1s/OBJ-ADV-PERF-2s/SUBJ-V.CL The verbs 'send' & 'bring' show a similar pattern. However, with a "more dative" verb such as 'tell', the DAT pronoun clearly occupies the DIR OBJ position: yU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) him' TR-L-tell/PERF nU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) you' 2s/OBJ-L-tell/PERF shU-lh-nUn 'S/he told (it to) me' 1s/OBJ-L-tell/PERF And as far as I can see, the same is true for 'teach' and 'show'. So at the very least, the more prototypically-dative verbs seem to obligatorily code the DAT argument to DO. The data is further complicated by evidence that in some verbal constructions, Tolowa has been pushing the DIR OBJ pronominal position further to the left ("more external"), thus away from the old /yU/ ("TR") position. So that even for 'give', the purely morphological criteria for what is DO are now a bit muddled. But this is going to be too much for this discussion. Unfortunately, I cannot yet find the file on optional BENEFACTIVE arguments. But I'll keep looking. Anyway, thanks for y'alls patience, and Vic-- thanks for your vigilance. Best, TG From dryer at buffalo.edu Sat Mar 12 01:03:00 2005 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew Dryer) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:03:00 -0500 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive In-Reply-To: <4231EB8B.D9233172@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I think one needs to be careful about using a verb meaning 'tell' to see how a language treats "dative" arguments, because in many languages the verb meaning 'say' is morphologically and syntactically intransitive and the verb meaning 'tell' is morphologically and syntactically monotransitive, not ditransitive. In Kutenai, for example, there are a variety of tests that show that the verb for 'say' is intransitive, so that the thing said, while semantically an argument of the verb, is grammatically an oblique (e.g. the verb for 'say' takes nonspecific subject marking, something that is only possible with intransitive verbs; and to relativize 'what is said', one uses a relativizing construction that is used for relativizing obliques, not the construction for relativizing subjects and objects). And one forms the verb for 'tell' by adding a transitivizing suffix to the verb for 'say', so that the verb for 'tell' is simply a monotransitive verb, and thus different from the verbs meaning 'give' or 'show'. On the other hand, if Tom is right that the Tolowa verbs for 'show' and 'teach' are like the verb for 'tell' (especially when they take nonclausal complements, as opposed to the meanings 'show that' or 'teach that'), then these verbs would support his claim. Matthew Dryer From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Mar 14 20:47:42 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:47:42 -0800 Subject: Tolowa dative/benefactive Message-ID: In languages where the verbal meanings 'say' and 'tell' share the same stem (without derivational affixes), one should not call the stem itself 'the verb'. Rather, one must take each sense of that stem and test it for its syntactic properties--in its distinct syntactic frame. This is true in Ute, Tolowa, and many other languages. In such languages, most commonly such a verb- can fit into four distinct syntactic frames: (i) With a non-equi clausal complement: 'She said that Matt had left' (ii) With a non-equi clausal complement and a DAT-human nominal object: 'She told/said (to) Sarah that Matt had left' (iii) With an equi clausal complement and a DAT-human nominal object: 'She told Matt to leave' (iv) With an ACC and a DAT nominal objects: 'She told Matt a story' ('She told the story to Matt') The syntactic question one could investigate then, whether the DAT argument is coded as DO, applies only to classes (ii), (iii) and iv). In general, all these three tend to go by the same rule, but that has to be tested language by language. TG ======================== dryer at buffalo.edu wrote: > I think one needs to be careful about using a verb meaning 'tell' to see > how a language treats "dative" arguments, because in many languages the > verb meaning 'say' is morphologically and syntactically intransitive and > the verb meaning 'tell' is morphologically and syntactically > monotransitive, not ditransitive. In Kutenai, for example, there are a > variety of tests that show that the verb for 'say' is intransitive, so that > the thing said, while semantically an argument of the verb, is > grammatically an oblique (e.g. the verb for 'say' takes nonspecific subject > marking, something that is only possible with intransitive verbs; and to > relativize 'what is said', one uses a relativizing construction that is > used for relativizing obliques, not the construction for relativizing > subjects and objects). And one forms the verb for 'tell' by adding a > transitivizing suffix to the verb for 'say', so that the verb for 'tell' is > simply a monotransitive verb, and thus different from the verbs meaning > 'give' or 'show'. > > On the other hand, if Tom is right that the Tolowa verbs for 'show' and > 'teach' are like the verb for 'tell' (especially when they take nonclausal > complements, as opposed to the meanings 'show that' or 'teach that'), then > these verbs would support his claim. > > Matthew Dryer From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Mar 14 20:49:04 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 12:49:04 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: [FUNKNET] Tolowa dative/benefactive] Message-ID: From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Wed Mar 16 13:55:38 2005 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia Ulrich) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:38 +0100 Subject: Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar (Anstey/Mackenzie) Message-ID: New publication from Mouton de Gruyter CRUCIAL READINGS IN FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR Edited by Matthew P. Anstey and J. Lachlan Mackenzie 2005. xiv, 382 pages. 23 fig. 3 tables. Cloth. EUR 98.00 / sFr 157.00 / approx. US$ 127.00 ISBN 3-11-017640-8 (Functional Grammar Series 26) Language of publication: English Date of publication: 03/2005 http://www.degruyter.de/rs/bookSingle.cfm?id=IS-3110176408-1&l=E Crucial Readings in Functional Grammar will be an invaluable resource to anyone working in Functional Grammar, student and scholar alike. It contains important articles that have led to new avenues of research in the theory beyond Dik's two-volume Functional Grammar (1997), each concluded with a short paragraph with suggestions for further research. The book also contains an introduction to current Functional Grammar theory by the editors. Crucial Readings will be of much assistance both in bringing together in one volume the various ideas that complement Dik's canonical presentation of the theory and in the editorial contributions that provide a comprehensive review of Functional Grammar publications. FROM THE CONTENTS: Introduction Matthew Anstey and Lachlan Mackenzie Layers and operators Kees Hengeveld Toward a unified analysis of terms and predications Jan Rijkhoff Parts of speech Kees Hengeveld Places and things J. Lachlan Mackenzie The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites Simon C. Dik, Kees Hengeveld, Elseline Vester and Co Vet On assigning pragmatic functions in English J.Lachlan Mackenzie and M. Evelien Keizer The utterance as unit of description: Implications for Functional Grammar Mike Hannay The multilayered structure of the utterance: about illocution, modality and discourse moves Co Vet On the notion "Functional Explanation" Simon C. Dik Functional Grammar and lexematics Leocadio Martn Mingorance Semantic content and linguistic structure in Functional Grammar: On the semantics of nounhood Peter Harder Functional Procedural Grammar: an overview. Working Papers in Functional Jan Nuyts Charting FG: a researcher's guide to dissertations and monographs Matthew Anstey and Lachlan Mackenzie EDITORS: Matthew Anstey is an academic associate of Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Canberra, Australia, and a PhD candidate at the Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. J. Lachlan Mackenzie works as Consultant in Languages and Linguistics, Lisbon, Portugal. OF INTEREST TO: Students and Scholars of Functional Grammar, Cognitive Linguistics, Typology, Discourse Analysis and Linguistics in General; Academic Libraries and Institutes TO ORDER, PLEASE CONTACT SFG Servicecenter-Fachverlage Postfach 4343 72774 Reutlingen, Germany Fax: +49 (0)7071 - 93 53 - 33 E-mail: deGruyter at s-f-g.com For USA, Canada, Mexico: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. PO Box 960 Herndon, VA 20172-0960 Tel.: +1 (703) 661 1589 Tel. Toll-free +1 (800) 208 8144 Fax: +1 (703) 661 1501 e-mail: degruytermail at presswarehouse.com Please visit our website for other publications by Mouton de Gruyter: www.mouton-publishers.com For free demo versions of Mouton de Gruyter's multimedia products, please visit www.mouton-online.com __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Diese E-Mail und ihre Dateianhaenge sind fuer den angegebenen Empfaenger und/oder die Empfaengergruppe bestimmt. Wenn Sie diese E-Mail versehentlich erhalten haben, setzen Sie sich bitte mit dem Absender oder Ihrem Systembetreuer in Verbindung. Diese Fusszeile bestaetigt ausserdem, dass die E-Mail auf bekannte Viren ueberprueft wurde. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender or the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. From langconf at acs.bu.edu Fri Mar 18 01:12:02 2005 From: langconf at acs.bu.edu (BUCLD Applied Linguistics) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:12:02 -0500 Subject: BUCLD 30 - Call for Papers Message-ID: *********************************** CALL FOR PAPERS THE 30th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 4-6, 2005 Keynote Speaker: Janet Werker, University of British Columbia "Speech Perception and Language Acquisition: Comparing Monolingual and Bilingual Infants" Plenary Speaker: Harald Clahsen, University of Essex "Grammatical Processing in First and Second Language Learners" Lunch Symposium: To Be Announced *********************************** All topics in the fields of first and second language acquisition from all theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including: Bilingualism Cognition & Language Creoles & Pidgins Discourse Exceptional Language Input & Interaction Language Disorders Linguistic Theory (Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon) Literacy & Narrative Neurolinguistics Pragmatics Pre-linguistic Development Signed Languages Sociolinguistics Speech Perception & Production Presentations will be 20 minutes long followed by a 10-minute question period. Posters will be on display for a full day with two attended sessions during the day. *********************************** ABSTRACT FORMAT AND CONTENT Abstracts submitted must represent original, unpublished research. Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 450 words in length. They should also fit on one page, with an optional second page for references or figures if required. Abstracts longer than 450 words will be rejected without being evaluated. Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. Note that words counts need not include the abstract title or the list of references. A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/template.html All abstracts must be submitted as PDF documents. Specific instructions for how to create PDF documents are available at the website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/pdfinfo.html If you encounter a problem creating a PDF file, please contact us for further assistance. Please use the first author's last name as the file name (eg. Smith.pdf). No author information should appear anywhere in the contents of the PDF file itself. *********************************** SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Electronic submission: To facilitate the abstract submission process, abstracts will be submitted using the form available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm Specific instructions for abstract submission are available on this website. Abstracts will be accepted between March 15 and May 15. Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform. No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract PDF. At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster, a paper, or both. Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation by each author: (a) a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster, and (b) a maximum of 2 papers/posters in any authorship status. Note that no changes in authorship (including deleting an author or changing author order) will be possible after the review process is completed. DEADLINE: All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2005. Late abstracts will not be considered, whatever the reason for the delay. We regret that we cannot accept abstract submissions by fax or email. Submissions via surface mail will only be accepted in special circumstances, on a case by case basis. *********************************** ABSTRACT SELECTION Each abstract is blind reviewed by 5 reviewers from a panel of approximately 80 international scholars. Further information about the review process is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in early August, by email. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late August 2005. If your abstract is accepted, you will need to submit a 150-word abstract including title, author(s) and affiliation(s) for inclusion in the conference handbook. Guidelines will be provided along with notification of acceptance. Abstracts accepted as papers will be invited for publication in the BUCLD Proceedings. Abstracts accepted as posters will be invited for publication online only, but not in the printed version. All conference papers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted. Although each abstract will be evaluated individually, we will attempt to honor requests to schedule accepted papers together in group sessions. No schedule changes will be possible once the schedule is set. Scheduling requests for religious reasons only must be made before the review process is complete (i.e. at the time of submission). A space is provided on the abstract submission webform to specify such requests. *********************************** FURTHER INFORMATION Information regarding the conference may be accessed at Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 E-mail: *********************************** From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi Wed Mar 23 10:34:50 2005 From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kaius_Sinnem=E4ki?=) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 12:34:50 +0200 Subject: 2nd call for abstracts: Approaches to complexity in language Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR ABSTRACTS The Linguistic Association of Finland and the Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki, jointly organize the symposium Approaches to Complexity in Language in Helsinki, Finland, on August 24-26, 2005. Language complexity has recently attracted the attention of linguists of various persuasions. Obviously, the concept has different definitions in different approaches to language. Some look at the issue from a more autonomous theoretical point of view, drawing from e.g. information theory, while others see complexity as difficulty of processing, language learning, and language acquisition. These approaches need of course not be contradictory. Complexity has always been an important issue for creolists and contact linguists, as well as for formal theorists and psycholinguists. Of late, typologists have become increasingly interested in the question. Confirmed plenary speakers: - Wouter Kusters (University of Leiden) - Ritva Laury (California State University, Fresno; University of Helsinki) - John McWhorter (Manhattan Institute; University of California Berkeley) Activities: - plenary lectures - presentations by other participants (20 min + 10 min for discussion) - posters - workshops We encourage contributions approaching language complexity from different points of view, e.g. - What is complexity in language and how should it be defined? - Complexity in different linguistic domains (e.g. phonology, morphology, syntax, lexicon). - Complexity in spoken vs. written language. - Does complexity in one domain correlate with (lack of) complexity in another? - How do social changes and language contacts influence complexity? - How can complexity be compared across languages? The main topics of the symposium will center around these issues, but papers approaching complexity from other points of view are equally welcome. Submission of abstracts and workshop proposals: The deadline for submission of abstracts (in English; max 500 words) is April 30, 2005. Please submit your abstract by e-mail to the address of the organizing committee . The abstract should be included in the body of the message. Please indicate clearly whether your abstract is intended as a poster or a section paper. Participants will be notified about acceptance by May 31, 2005. The abstracts will be published on the web pages of the symposium at . Proposals for workshops should be submitted no later than April 30, 2005, and notification of acceptance will be given by May 31. These one-day workshops will run in parallel sessions with the main conference programme. Alternatively, the first day of the symposium may be dedicated to workshops. The symposium organizers will provide the lecture rooms and other facilities, but the workshop organizers will be responsible for the organization of their workshops (choice of speakers etc). Registration: The deadline for registration is August 1, 2005. Please register by e-mail to the address of the organizing committee (see below). Registration fees: - general: EUR 50 - members of the association: EUR 25 - undergraduate students free Participants from abroad are requested to pay in cash upon arrival. Participants from Finland may send the registration fee by giro account no 800013-1424850 to The Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY) / Symposium, or pay in cash upon arrival. In case you have further questions please contact the organizing committee (see below). Check for information updates at the symposium website: Organizing committee: Marja Etel?m?ki Pentti Haddington Soili Hakulinen Arja Hamari Fred Karlsson Seppo Kittil? Matti Miestamo Urpo Nikanne Heli Pitk?nen Kaius Sinnem?ki E-mail: From jscheibm at odu.edu Sat Mar 26 15:54:28 2005 From: jscheibm at odu.edu (Joanne Scheibman) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:54:28 -0500 Subject: Job notice: Asst. Prof sociolinguistics/English linguistics Message-ID: Assistant Professor of Linguistics, English Department. Tenure-track, 3/3 teaching load. Minimum requirements: Ph.D. in Linguistics by August 15, 2005; qualified to teach courses in sociolinguistics and English linguistics in BA, MA, and proposed PhD programs. Evidence of scholarly potential and good teaching required. Ability to teach discourse analysis, TESOL, language and culture, phonology, or experience with distance learning a plus. Send letter of application, curriculum vitae, and the names, addresses, and phone numbers of three references to Joyce Neff, PhD, Acting Chair, Department of English, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Va. 23529. Review of applications will begin April 15, 2005 and continue until position is filled. Old Dominion University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and requires compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. From MAnstey at csu.edu.au Mon Mar 28 04:13:13 2005 From: MAnstey at csu.edu.au (Anstey, Matthew) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:13:13 +1000 Subject: grammaticalization of negatives/interrogatives Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding the recent discussions of interrogatives and negation, the following recent article addresses the semantics of their interaction in great detail: Romero, Maribel and Chung-Hye Han, 2004, On negative yes/no questions. Linguistics and Philosophy. 27: 609-658. They do not discuss grammaticalisation, but their explanation very nicely motivates the phenomena. They also point out several data that I can't remember being mentioned in this discussion, such as (a) difference between "Isn't John a drinker?" and "Is John not a drinker?" and (b) the difference between "Isn't John a drinker too?" and "Isn't John a drinker either?", differences found in many languages. The crucial observation is that "Isn't John a drinker?" is ambiguous (unless context clarifies) in its implicatures of 'John is a drinker', which is the unambiguous implicature of "Isn't John a drinker too?" and 'John is not a drinker', which is the unambiguous implicature of "Isn't John a drinker either?" They observe similar differences in terms of implicatures in pairs such as: 1. Never has John lied. VS John has never lied. 2. John has never lied, has he? VS John has lied, hasn't he? To solve these conundrums of scopal ambiguity, they introduce a VERUM operator that interacts with NEG (ie VERUM [ NEG vs NEG [ VERUM ). The upshot of all this for the thread is that the grammaticalisation facts must somehow be related to the (ambiguity of) the *implicatures* that arise with interrogatives, negators, and their co-occurence. It also alerts us to being sensitive to the position (and accordingly in many cases scope) of NEG, nicely illustrated in their German example: Hat (nicht) Hans (nicht) Maria (nicht) gesehen? They also point out that naturally their approach is very reliant on the context, as it all depends on whether the speaker is checking for p or ~p with the negated question, which is confirmed by the many examples people have given. With regards, Matthew Matthew Anstey Charles Sturt University, School of Theology, Academic Associate From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Mar 29 05:16:14 2005 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Jo Rubba) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:16:14 -0800 Subject: searching for metonymy in literature Message-ID: Hi, here I am to pick brains again ... I'm teaching a course in cognitive stylistics this term and I am looking for (short) pieces of literature which use metonymy in more than just the occasional example -- pieces in which it is a major vehicle for focus, assigning or shifting credit or blame, etc. Music lyrics, bits of movies, etc. would also do. I can get plenty of examples from nonliterary prose, but it would be nice to have some literary/art ones. Thanks in advance; will share results. *************************************************** Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. 805-756-2184 ~ Dept. phone 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 ~ E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba *************************************************** From Nino.Amiridze at let.uu.nl Thu Mar 31 10:47:20 2005 From: Nino.Amiridze at let.uu.nl (Amiridze, Nino) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:47:20 +0200 Subject: postposition on finite verb forms? Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I have a question about postpositions. In Georgian postpositions are exclusively attached to either bare or case-marked (pro)nominal or de-verbal nominal roots. In modern spoken Georgian one of the postpositions started appearing encliticized to a fully inflected verb forms so that the semantics of the postposition is in a sense preserved (1 vs. 2). Moreover, not only the postposition but the case marker ``governed" by the postposition is also cliticized. And what is important, there is no change from verb into a nominal, the resulting form is still a verb form. (1) man mo-i-bodish-a-sa-vit (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST-DAT-like ``(S)he uttered something like an apology" (2) man mo-i-bodish-a (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST ``(S)he apologized" Do you have similar examples from other languages when a nominal affix attaches to a finite verb? I would appreciate it if you could let me know references and/or data related to the topic. Sincerely, Nino Amiridze From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Thu Mar 31 16:03:32 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:03:32 +0400 Subject: postposition on finite verb forms? Message-ID: "She kind of apologized" - is that comparable? And in Turkish "gibi" (like) can be used with a tense marked verb, e.g. "gideceksin gibi gorunuyor" (you-will-go like it-seems = it looks as if you're going to go). Offhand I can't think of any other post positions that could be used like that in Turkish. David :-D >>> "Amiridze, Nino" 03/31/05 2:47 PM >>> Dear colleagues, I have a question about postpositions. In Georgian postpositions are exclusively attached to either bare or case-marked (pro)nominal or de-verbal nominal roots. In modern spoken Georgian one of the postpositions started appearing encliticized to a fully inflected verb forms so that the semantics of the postposition is in a sense preserved (1 vs. 2). Moreover, not only the postposition but the case marker ``governed" by the postposition is also cliticized. And what is important, there is no change from verb into a nominal, the resulting form is still a verb form. (1) man mo-i-bodish-a-sa-vit (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST-DAT-like ``(S)he uttered something like an apology" (2) man mo-i-bodish-a (s)he.ERG PREVERB-i-apologize-S3.SG.AORIST ``(S)he apologized" Do you have similar examples from other languages when a nominal affix attaches to a finite verb? I would appreciate it if you could let me know references and/or data related to the topic. Sincerely, Nino Amiridze