From hopper at cmu.edu Sun May 1 02:45:38 2005 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:45:38 -0400 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: On reversatives: It would be interesting to know something about the discourse contexts in which Kutenai is used. Does it "reverse" a previous assumption/expectation, for example? Is it like English that has been discussed in the literature (including my paper "Hendiadys and Auxiliation in English" in 'Complex Sentences in Grammar & Discourse' ed. Bybee/Noonan Benjamins 2002), as in "they turned round and fired him"? It might be fruitful to extend the search from "morphemes" to include "constructions". Paul Hopper > A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying references > to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical morphemes that > sometimes translate into English as ?back? and sometimes as ?again? (so > that when combining with ?He went?, the resulting meaning might be either > ?He went back? or ?He went again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, > the reversative has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses > containing a morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the > following (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: > > taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. then-obv revers > without-water-obv.subj-indic ?Then there was no more water.? > > An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they were > without water again?, since that implies that they are returning to a > state without water, when the original sentence appears not to have any > such implication. Another Kutenai example: > > qapi-l la lu?-s-i all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic ?All > of them were gone ? > > Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian that > shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any other > information about reversatives, especially any other instances where they > interact with negative morphemes in this way. > > You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). > > Thanks, > > Matthew Dryer > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 From dryer at buffalo.edu Sun May 1 03:04:19 2005 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew Dryer) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:04:19 -0400 Subject: reversative morphemes (fwd) Message-ID: Paul Hopper has asked me to forward this to the list. > Matthew, > > On reversatives: It doesn't seem enough to rely on English translations > like "back" or "again". It would be interesting - in fact essential - to > know something about the surrounding discourse contexts in which Kutenai > is used. Does it "reverse" a previous assumption/expectation, for > example? This would be like English > > > > that has been discussed in the literature (including my paper "Hendiadys > and Auxiliation in English" in the Thompson festschrift 'Complex > Sentences in Grammar & Discourse' ed. Bybee/Noonan Benjamins 2002), as in > "they turned round and fired him". A suggestion: it might be fruitful to > extend the search from "morphemes" to include "constructions". > > Paul > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying references >> to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical morphemes >> that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and sometimes as ?again? >> (so that when combining with ?He went?, the resulting meaning might be >> either ?He went back? or ?He went again?). In some languages, such as >> Kutenai, the reversative has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in >> clauses containing a morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated >> by the following (using to represent the voiceless lateral >> fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. > then-obv revers >> without-water-obv.subj-indic ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they were >> without water again?, since that implies that they are returning to a >> state without water, when the original sentence appears not to have any >> such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i all-prvb > revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic ?All >> of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian that >> shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any other >> information about reversatives, especially any other instances where >> they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer >> >> >> > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Director of Graduate Studies Paul Mellon Distinguished > Professor of the Humanities Department of English College of Humanities > and Social Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA > Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Director of Graduate Studies Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Department of English College of Humanities and Social Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- From mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk Mon May 2 08:10:08 2005 From: mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk (Miriam Meyerhoff) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:10:08 +0100 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things like (apologies to German speakers): Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ best, Miriam >A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >references to reversative morphemes in various languages, >grammatical morphemes that sometimes translate into English as >?back? and sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He >went?, the resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He >went again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative >has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >(using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: > >taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >?Then there was no more water.? > >An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >were without water again?, since that implies that they are >returning to a state without water, when the original sentence >appears not to have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: > >qapi-l la lu?-s-i >all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >?All of them were gone ? > >Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. > >You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). > >Thanks, > >Matthew Dryer -- Miriam Meyerhoff Reader, Theoretical & Applied Linguistics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9LL SCOTLAND, UK ph.: +44 131 650-3961 or (direct line) 651-1836 fax: +44 131 650-3962 http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~mhoff From hartmut at ruc.dk Mon May 2 09:11:26 2005 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:11:26 +0200 Subject: reversative morphemes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk wrote: > As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German > that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things > like (apologies to German speakers): > > Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet > Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen > > where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in > temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than > it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might > be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ > > best, Miriam I didn't check Arnim's paper yet, but the second sentence (Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen) makes perfect sense to me. The first (Die Tür wurde wieder geöffnet) I find slightly problematic, since the intended second reading (opening the door further) presupposes an atelic reading of öffnen, which I don't get without any further (e.g. adverbial) support. Die Tür wurde wieder etwas geöffnet 'The door was opened a bit again' is clearly ambiguous to me, though. Maybe that's Arnim's original example. Very close til Kutenai la is Danish tilbage 'back', cf. Der var ingen kaffe tilbage DUMMY be.PAST no coffee back 'There was no coffee left' In the '90s, I gave a number of papers on 'Reversal, Repair and Repetition' at some of the EUROTYP conferences, but the material (including a lot of data from languages of the EUROTYP sample) has never been published. What fascinated me at that time, was the fact that adverbs and affixes meaning 'again' and 'back' are either ambiguous (like Italian, French, English (etc.) re-, German wieder, Danish igen) or 'share' the work for expressing these R-meanings. Hartmut Haberland > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >> references to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical >> morphemes that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and >> sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He went?, the >> resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He went >> again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative has a >> use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >> morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >> (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >> then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >> ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >> were without water again?, since that implies that they are returning >> to a state without water, when the original sentence appears not to >> have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i >> all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >> ?All of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >> that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >> other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >> where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer > > > From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Mon May 2 09:32:14 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:32:14 +0400 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: I think "encore" in French, "encara" in Catalan and probably cognates in Italian, Spanish etc can have a related meaning (related to "wieder", anyway), e.g. in French "encore une fois" = "once again", "encore mieux" = still better (I think), and "pas encore" (not yet). :-D >>> Hartmut Haberland 02-May-05 1:11:26 PM >>> mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk wrote: > As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German > that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things > like (apologies to German speakers): > > Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet > Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen > > where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in > temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than > it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might > be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ > > best, Miriam I didn't check Arnim's paper yet, but the second sentence (Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen) makes perfect sense to me. The first (Die Tür wurde wieder geöffnet) I find slightly problematic, since the intended second reading (opening the door further) presupposes an atelic reading of öffnen, which I don't get without any further (e.g. adverbial) support. Die Tür wurde wieder etwas geöffnet 'The door was opened a bit again' is clearly ambiguous to me, though. Maybe that's Arnim's original example. Very close til Kutenai la is Danish tilbage 'back', cf. Der var ingen kaffe tilbage DUMMY be.PAST no coffee back 'There was no coffee left' In the '90s, I gave a number of papers on 'Reversal, Repair and Repetition' at some of the EUROTYP conferences, but the material (including a lot of data from languages of the EUROTYP sample) has never been published. What fascinated me at that time, was the fact that adverbs and affixes meaning 'again' and 'back' are either ambiguous (like Italian, French, English (etc.) re-, German wieder, Danish igen) or 'share' the work for expressing these R-meanings. Hartmut Haberland > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >> references to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical >> morphemes that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and >> sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He went?, the >> resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He went >> again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative has a >> use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >> morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >> (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >> then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >> ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >> were without water again?, since that implies that they are returning >> to a state without water, when the original sentence appears not to >> have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i >> all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >> ?All of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >> that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >> other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >> where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed May 4 21:57:57 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:57:57 -0700 Subject: A memorial of Ernst Mayr Message-ID: Dear funk-people, I thought it would be of interest to functionally-inclined linguists to take a look at the following "appreciation" of the life and work of a recently-departed eminent evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr. It is a very thoughtful piece, in spite of the few lapses into PC and the occasional Marxist slip. Mayr's grand Darwinian themes resonate well in linguistics: adaptive selection (functionalism), diversity and its crucial role in change (the Labovian theme of variation-and-diachrony), emergence (non-mechanistic change), the interplay between field-work and theory, and between qualitative (field) and quantitative (lab) methodology; and, above all perhaps, the dynamic-historical (diachronic) theoretical understanding of extant forms (synchronic typology). TG ******************************* Ernst Mayr, arguably the preeminent biologist of the twentieth century, died on February 3, succumbing after a short illness at the age of 100. Mayr was the last survivor of a generation of renowned natural scientists that included the likes of Julian Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Theodocious Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, G.L. Stebbins and Hermann Muller, all of whom worked to establish Darwinian evolution as the cornerstone theory of biology. Mayr's contributions to the science of biology, during the course of his remarkable life, are manifold. He will be remembered primarily for his role in the elaboration of what has become known as the Synthetic Theory of Evolution—the syntheses of the Darwinian ideas of evolution through natural selection and the common descent of all living organisms from extinct forms, with the science of genetics—from the groundbreaking work of Gregor Mendel in the nineteenth century to the revealing of the DNA double helix by Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick in the early 1950s. In addition, Mayr is chiefly credited with formulating the "biological species concept," the notion that species are not simply defined by a static compilation of common physical characteristics, but are dynamic populations of interbreeding organisms interacting with other species in an environment while remaining reproductively isolated, that is, they are prevented either geographically or behaviorally from breeding with other closely related groups. The biological species concept both incorporated and enriched Darwin's revolutionary ideas regarding the introduction of species and their geographical distribution. Darwin had sought causal explanations(ability of a species to disperse, e.g.) for the appearance of closely related species in unexpected locations, striking a blow against the creationist notion that species are found where they were originally "created." The subsequent work of Mayr with birds, and that of G.G. Simpson with mammals, has greatly enhanced our understanding of the geographical distribution of species. Mayr was a tireless proponent of "population thinking," a profound idea that plumbs the depths of the contradictions inherent in concepts such as "species" and "population." He emphasized that while the characteristics of populations are shaped and altered by natural selection, each individual member of that population is unique. Early on, Mayr rejected "essentialism," an idealist conception that posited the existence of "typical" individuals within any given population, a viewpoint that, with the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of inheritance at the turn of the last century, made a considerable comeback at the expense of Darwinism. Mayr pointed out that the racialist notions that were widely held during that period were thoroughly essentialist, in that they accepted as given the existence of "average" or typical racial types. Mayr, on the other hand, favored the viewpoint that focused on the fact that no two individuals making up a species (or a "race" for that matter) are alike. For Mayr, as for Darwin, it was the uniqueness of every member of a population that served as the fuel for natural selection, providing the impetus for the evolution of entirely new types of organisms. Once the genetic mechanism for the production of continuous diversity was understood, the profundity of Darwin's original ideas were reestablished and enriched in the form of the new synthesis. Ernst Mayr was born in Germany, in the town of Kempten, Bavaria in 1904. The offspring of a long line of doctors, Mayr chose instead to concentrate his considerable intellectual abilities in the field of zoology, with a special interest in ornithology. At that time, Germany was still a major center of evolutionary biology, a tradition that owed to the work during the latter half of the nineteenth century of such notables as Ernst Haeckel and August Weismann. Haeckel, who had made major contributions in zoology, as well as in originating some of the familiar terms in biology (ecology, e.g.), is chiefly remembered for advancing his famous "Biogenetic Law," which held that the developing embryo of an organism (ontogeny) was a recapitulation of the evolutionary history of that organism (phylogeny). Weismann was a pioneer in the science of genetics, who, among his major accomplishments, established the role of sex in promoting variation within a species, and determined that gametes (sex cells) have the haploid number (half the normal or diploid number) of chromosomes. Mayr's attraction to birds brought him in contact with Erwin Stresemann, who was the curator of birds at the University of Berlin Museum of Natural History. Stresemann became his PhD advisor, and Mayr attained this advanced degree at the age of 21. Due to his astonishing longevity, as well as his European origin, Mayr was in certain essential respects a living link between nineteenth and twentieth century biology, in that while he was certainly comfortable with the quantitative aspects of the biological sciences devoted to genetics and molecular biology, he held qualitative methodologies, the use of observation and comparison to gain new insights, in high regard. It is not surprising, then, that following his studies in Berlin, Mayr, like countless naturalists before him, embarked on an expedition of discovery to the Solomon Islands and New Guinea, to collect specimens for Lord Rothschild's museum at Tring, Hertfordshire, in England, and for the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In 1931, Mayr emigrated to New York, and took a job at the museum as a curator of birds, in particular of the 280,000 bird specimens of the Rothschild collection that were donated to the museum shortly after Mayr's arrival. In an interview that marked his 100th birthday, Mayr declared: "I was very anti-Nazi, so there was no way I could return [to Germany]" (2004). In 1953, Mayr left the museum to take a position as the Alexander Agassiz professor of zoology at Harvard. Mayr remained at Harvard for the rest of his life, and was active until his final illness. Mayr was the author or co-author of more than 20 books—among them Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), Animal Species and Evolution (1963), One Long Argument: Population, Species and Evolution, What Evolution Is (2001), his seminal work, The Growth of Biological Thought (1982) and Toward a New Philosophy of Biology(1988). His final work, titled What Makes Biology Unique, was published shortly after his 100th birthday. He also founded the journal Evolution in 1947, and was a contributor to more than 600 scientific papers. Mayr's spouse of 55 years, Margarete (Gretel) Simon, died in 1990. If one were to characterize the trajectory of Mayr's development as a scientist, it would be that he was primarily a naturalist turned theoretician. He was not a popularizer in the manner of his Harvard ,colleague, the late Stephen Jay Gould, but his theoretical acumen (in this writer's opinion) ran deeper. In fact, Mayr was critical of the late paleontologist's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis as an explanation of the evolutionary process for its overemphasis on the role of saltation (leaps). Mayr didn't completely reject Gould's theory, but explained that it did not contradict Darwinian gradualism, because such sudden bursts of evolutionary development are populational phenomena, that is, they occur at the species level. Thus, a sudden evolutionary spurt is always subsumed within the overall processes of evolution, which are for the most part gradual. Mayr took pains to point out that these accelerated evolutionary events appear saltational only when compared with the vastness of the geological time scale. Various theories of saltation as descriptors of the "sudden" appearance of new types of organisms have come and gone over the centuries, having their roots in the catastrophism (multiple creations) of the renowned comparative anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), who tried to explain the existence of extinct animals (dinosaurs, e.g.), and fit them into some kind of schema compatible with Biblical creation. Even later saltationist theories for the evolution of species or whole groups of organisms could be interpreted as implying a kind of special creation, opening the door to a religious interpretation of the complexities of the natural world. Mayr was certainly cognizant of this danger as his well-known discourse on the nature of chance and>>selection, what he termed the "adaptationist dilemma," attests. In his book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988), Mayr is critical of Gould and Richard Lewontin for their attack on the notion that the development of adaptations as a result of natural selection is anything but the result of stochastic (chance) processes, therefore rendering the term adaptation obsolete, and casting a pall over natural selection, the foundation concept of Darwinism. Gould went so far as to call the notion of a process of adaptation a "Panglossian paradigm" (after Voltaire's character in Candide), a futile search for perfection in the evolutionary process. Mayr's reply is a clinic on the dialectical approach to a complex and seemingly contradictory process. He wrote: "When asked whether or not the adaptationist program is a legitimate scientific approach, one must realize that the method of evolutionary biology is in some ways quite different from that of the physical sciences. Although evolutionary phenomena are subject to universal laws, as are most phenomena in the physical sciences, the explanation of a particular evolutionary phenomenon can be given only as a `historical narrative.' Consequently, when one attempts to explain the features of something that is the product of evolution, one must attempt to reconstruct the evolutionary history of this feature." He continued by explaining that when one rejects all manner of teleological explanations for the adaptation of species to their changing environments one is left with two unified, but seemingly contradictory propositions—chance and selection forces. "The identification of these two factors as the principal causes of evolutionary change by no means completed the task for the evolutionist. As is the case with most scientific problems, this initial solution represented only the first orientation. For completion it requires a second stage, a fine-grained analysis of these two factors: What are the respective roles of chance >>>and or natural selection, and how can this be analyzed?" (1988) Mayr's life-long interest in the fundamental questions that continue to animate the biological sciences, combined with his exceptional longevity as a working and thinking scientist, engendered in him a profound appreciation of its history. In particular, he stressed the importance of a study of the history of scientific concepts (natural selection, e.g.). He wrote: "Preoccupation with this sort of conceptual history of science is sometimes belittled as a hobby of retired scientists. Such an attitude ignores the manifold contributions which this branch of scholarship makes" (1982). He stated further: "One can take almost any advance, either in evolutionary biology or in systematics, and show that it did not depend as much on discoveries as on the introduction of new concepts.... Those are not far wrong who insist that the progress of science consists principally in the progress of scientific concepts" (1982). Mayr frequently commented on what he perceived to be the sharp dichotomy between experimental and theoretical science, and the growing inclination toward reductionism in biology. He would bristle against the accusation, often made by physicists and philosophers, that biology was not "hard" science. An interesting byproduct of this common misconception, one that Mayr noted in a recent interview, was that there continues to be no Nobel Prize awarded in biology. Mayr championed the notion that the governing concepts of the science of biology were not simply reducible to mathematical formulae and the timeless laws of physics. By this he did not mean that biological processes existed outside the realm of the laws of chemistry and physics, or that many aspects of the living world did not lend themselves to quantification, but that living processes could not be entirely explained or even understood from those standpoints. Mayr explained that in previous centuries natural scientists, under pressure to be able to draw conclusions from their working hypotheses that were reducible to mathematical formulae and the laws of physics, either succumbed to that pressure and presented purely mechanical explanations for living processes, or sought vitalist (those who claim that the property of being alive is sparked by an outside force) and even religious explanations for the processes being studied. In referring to the higher levels of complexity of living systems, Mayr stressed their duality, that is, each organism is at once an expression of its genotype, the historically developed genetic code for the synthesis of proteins, and its phenotype, the unique physical appearance of each individual of a species; the product of the complex interplay of physiological, embryological and ecological processes. He placed particular emphasis on two properties unique to living systems, teleonomy (goal-directed processes) and "emergentism," the tendency for the evolution of "emergent properties," a notion that reaches beyond the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Regarding the latter, he wrote in The Growth of Biological Thought: "Systems almost always have the peculiarity that the characteristics of the whole cannot (not even in theory) be deduced from the most complete knowledge of the components, taken separately or in other partial combinations. This appearance of new characteristics in wholes has been designated as emergence" (1982). As a prime example, he cited the work to uncover the importance of DNA for the science of genetics. "The discovery of the double helix of DNA and of its code was a breakthrough of the first order.... There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years! At the same time, this purely materialistic explanation elucidates many of the phenomena which the vitalists had claimed could not be explained chemically or physically. To be sure, it is still a physicalist explanation, but one infinitely more sophisticated than the gross mechanistic explanations of earlier centuries" (1982). An emergent property, then, is something unanticipated—the evolution of new behaviors, or new adaptations (lungs, language, abstract thought, e.g.), that has unforeseen implications that propel a species or a group of organisms in an entirely new direction. It should be noted that Mayr considered the concept of emergentism to be philosophically "entirely materialistic." Not surprisingly, Mayr was a lifelong atheist and a staunch opponent of the ongoing attack on evolution by the motley assemblage of religious zealots, creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. In 1991, he commented in an interview in the Harvard Gazette: "I'm an old-time fighter for Darwinism. I say, `Please tell me what's wrong with Darwinism. I can't see anything wrong with Darwinism." For Mayr, Darwin's contribution to mankind's knowledge of the natural world was revolutionary. During an interview on his 93rd birthday, Mayr commented that one of "Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, `Where is God in your theory?' And Laplace answered, `I don't need that hypothesis.' "Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created asecular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal" (2005). In the introduction to his The Growth of Biological Thought, Mayr wrote: "A well-known Soviet theoretician of Marxism once referred to my writings as `pure dialectical materialism.' I am not a Marxist and I do not know the latest definition of dialectical materialism, but I do admit that I share some of Engel's anti-reductionist views, as stated in his Anti-Duhring, and that I am greatly attracted to Hegel's scheme of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis." For the most part, Mayr can be classified as a consistent materialist. However, his outlook stops short of embracing historical materialism, falling victim to the widely promulgated viewpoint that history consists of a series of narratives, rather than the workings of historical laws. Mayr was one of the outstanding figures of twentieth century science— brilliant and passionate, with an encyclopedic knowledge of science, history and philosophy. His contributions to an understanding of the big questions in biology, not to mention those animating science in general, have been enormous. One can only anticipate that others, in the face of the continuing assault on the scientific world outlook, will take up the defense and further illumination of the fundamental theoretical conquests of biology with equal vigor and erudition. Steven A. Peterson Director, School of Public Affairs Penn State Capital College 777 West Harrisburg Pike Middletown, PA 17057 From langconf at acs.bu.edu Thu May 5 23:25:09 2005 From: langconf at acs.bu.edu (BUCLD) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:25:09 -0400 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: Jeff Elman (University of California at San Diego), LouAnn Gerken (University of Arizona) and Mark Johnson (Brown University) "Statistical Learning in Language Development: What is it, What is its Potential, and What are its Limitations?" *********************************** 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 http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 E-mail: *********************************** From Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu Mon May 9 17:30:34 2005 From: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu (Zygmunt Frajzyngier) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:30:34 -0600 Subject: Book notice Message-ID: The following has been recently published by Koeppe (Cologne) Grammatical and Semantic Relations in Hausa The Categories ‘Point of View’, ‘Goal’ and ‘Affected Object’ Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Mohammed Munkaila Series: Grammatische Analysen afrikanischer Sprachen volume 24 2004 10 pp. Roman, 92 pp., 1 table, 2 diagrams € 19.80 The present study examines a distinct language structure built around categories that have been ignored until recently by linguistic theories. One of these is the category ‘point of view’ of the subject. The other category is ‘goal’, coding the presence of the goal of the predicate. This study demonstrates that the two categories play a fundamental role in the grammar of Hausa, a West Chadic language. They determine the way arguments are coded, the form of the predicate, the semantic interpretation of the clause, and the interpretation of the semantic roles of the noun phrases occurring in the clause. The presence of the first categories has created the motivation of yet another catogory, the coding of the presence of the affected object. This study demonstrates that, in some languages the coding of the point of view takes precedence of the coding of grammatical or semantic relations. The implication of this study is that structures of various languages may be organized around different functional domains having different hierarchical structures. Zygmunt Frajzyngier Dept. of Linguistics Box 295 University of Colorado Boulder CO 80309 USA Phone: 303-492-6959 Fax: 303-492-4416 From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 13:49:20 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:49:20 +0200 Subject: four PhD positions in 'Metaphor in discourse' Message-ID: Dear all, please find enclosed an advertisement for four PhD position at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in the research program 'Metaphor in discourse.' Best wishes, Gerard Steen. From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 13:53:48 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:53:48 +0200 Subject: advertisement in main message Message-ID: 4 PHD POSITIONS IN METAPHOR AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS F/M FOR 32 HOURS A WEEK (NOT NEGOTIABLE) Vacancynumber 1.2005.00089 The Faculty of Arts at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is inviting applications for four PhD positions, beginning 1 September 2005, in the vici-programme "Metaphor in discourse: linguistic forms, conceptual structures, cognitive representations.” The five-year research programme, awarded to Gerard Steen by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), addresses the role of metaphor in discourse by examining its distribution, structure, function, and effect in four varieties of English. The hypothesis is that distinct linguistic forms and conceptual structures of metaphor display distributions and functions of their own, and that these interact with the domains of discourse in which language users employ them. The programme aims at describing and explaining these interactions on the basis of detailed corpus research on four samples from the British National Corpus, and at testing the cognitive effects of some of these interactions in their mental representation by language users. Metaphor in discourse will be modelled by means of a discourse-analytical elaboration of the cognitive-linguistic approach to metaphor as a cross-domain mapping. Research involves corpus analysis of samples from the British National Corpus and psycholinguistic experiments on various aspects of metaphor processing. The four PhD projects constitute the core of the programme. Each of the projects will concentrate on the use of metaphor in one specific language variety: conversation, news texts, academic texts, and fiction. All projects will be organized by the same—five-year—timetable, and the research will be characterized by a great deal of synchronized team work. During the first year, all researchers will identify metaphors in samples from all four language varieties, after which each researcher will concentrate on one language variety for the rest of the programme. Each of the four PhD projects will involve a research training and aims at a dissertation within five years. As part of their training, PhD students will take courses offered by the National Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT). They will present their work at annual expert meetings and participate in international conferences. Candidates will also be requested to make a small contribution to the teaching programme of the Department of English Language and Culture at the Vrije Universiteit. Candidates should have native-speaker or near-native speaker command of (British) English. They should have an excellent MA thesis in English language and linguistics, or be able to show that such a thesis will be completed by August 31. Expertise in metaphor, discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, and/or corpus linguistics will be regarded as an advantage. Employer Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Arts The vici-programme is part of one of the four research programmes of the Institute of Language, Culture, and History of the Faculty of Arts of the Vrije Universiteit, “The architecture of the human language faculty”. This research programme investigates the modular structure of human language and cognition, with participation from formal, functional, and cognitive grammarians, and psycholinguists as well as discourse analysts. The vici-programme is also connected to the recently founded Ster research programme of the Vrije Universiteit on “Discourse, cognition, and communication,” for which two further PhD research positions are advertised independently. This is an interdisciplinary research programme between the faculties of Arts, Psychology, and Social Science, with the Faculty of Arts concentrating on “The conversationalization of public discourse” in the usage of Dutch. Conditions of employment For all projects we offer a part-time (80%) five-year PhD position with gross monthly salary starting at € 1,867,- in the first year to € 2,394,- in the fifth year of appointment (salary based on a full-time-contract). Appointment will initially be for one year, to be extended with a maximum of four more years upon positive evaluation. We also offer a pension scheme, a health insurance allowance and flexible employment conditions. Conditions are based on the Collective Employment Agreement of the Dutch Universities and are supplemented with a holiday allowance of 8% per year. Additional Information A full description of the complete programme and additional information about the vacancy can be obtained from dr. G.J. Steen, phone 31-20-598 6445, e-mail address: Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Application Your letter of application will have to be in by Monday 30 May. Please send your application to Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v. dr. G.J. Steen, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam or by e-mail to Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Applications (by regular mail or by e-mail) should include a curriculum vitae and the names and addresses of two referees. An MA thesis and a list of courses plus results should also be included. E-mail applications should be sent in pdf format and should specify your name and vacancy number in the message as well as in the topic, include a list of attachments in the message, and specify your name in every attachment. Interviews are planned between 15 and 20 June 2005. When applying for this job always mention the vacancy number: 1.200500089. From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 14:14:22 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:14:22 +0200 Subject: two PhD positions in Dutch discourse analysis Message-ID: 2 PROMOVENDI-POSITIES IN TEKST, COGNITIE EN COMMUNICATIE V/M VOOR 32 UUR PER WEEK (NIET ONDERHANDELBAAR) Vacaturenummer 1.2005.00083 De Faculteit der Letteren van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam zoekt 2 promovendi, vanaf 1 september 2005, voor de duur van vijf jaar, voor het Letterendeel van het interdisciplinaire ster-programma ‘Mechanismen van publieksbeïnvloeding.’ In dit ster-programma werken onderzoekers samen uit de Faculteit der Letteren, de Faculteit voor Psychologie en Pedagogiek, en de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen om onderzoek te doen op het snijvlak van tekst, cognitie en communicatie. In totaal bestaat het ster-programma uit zes promovendus en postdoc projecten, waarvan twee in de Letterenfaculteit. In het Letterendeel, ‘Conversationalisatie van publieke communicatie,’ wordt de hypothese onderzocht dat publieke communicatie gebruik maakt van retorische middelen uit natuurlijke conversaties om het publiek sterker te beïnvloeden. Het onderzoeksprogramma bestaat uit twee complementaire projecten die elk het gebruik van een aantal andere talige middelen in conversaties en nieuwsteksten met elkaar vergelijken. Beide projecten omvatten corpusonderzoek en experimenteel psycholinguïstisch onderzoek. Beide projecten worden volgens hetzelfde vijfjarenplan uitgevoerd. Project 1 Metaforiek in publieke communicatie In het eerste project wordt het gebruik van metaforiek in journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties vergeleken. Op basis van deze vergelijking worden karakteristieke verschillen tussen journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties geïnventariseerd. Door manipulatie van het gebruik van metaforiek in journalistieke teksten wordt vervolgens in de laatste fase van het project onderzocht wat de invloed is van conversationalisatie van teksten op begrip van en waardering voor die teksten. In de eerste fase, corpusanalyse (jaar 1-3), wordt in twee deelcorpora (journalistieke teksten, conversaties) metaforiek geanalyseerd. In de tweede fase (jaar 4) vindt receptieonderzoek bij participanten van verschillende leeftijdsgroepen plaats. Het laatste jaar (jaar 5) van het project wordt besteed aan verslaglegging in de vorm van een proefschrift. Project 2 Subjectivering in publieke communicatie In het tweede project worden subjectiveringsverschijnselen in journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties vergeleken. Op basis van deze vergelijking worden karakteristieke verschillen tussen journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties geïnventariseerd. Door manipulatie van journalistieke teksten wordt vervolgens in de laatste fase van het project onderzocht wat de invloed is van de subjectivering van journalistieke teksten op begrip van en waardering voor die teksten. In de eerste fase, corpusanalyse (jaar 1-3), worden in twee deelcorpora (journalistieke teksten, conversaties) subjectiviteitskenmerken geanalyseerd, deels geautomatiseerd. In de tweede fase (jaar 4) vindt receptieonderzoek bij participanten van verschillende leeftijdsgroepen plaats. Het laatste jaar (jaar 5) van het project wordt besteed aan verslaglegging in de vorm van een proefschrift. Taken Beide promovendi-projecten behelzen een onderzoekstraining en monden uit in een dissertatie in vijf jaar. Als deel van hun training volgen de promovendi cursussen in de Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (LOT). Ook presenteren de promovendi hun resultaten in een aantal workshops van het ster-programman en nemen zijn deel aan internationale conferenties. Van de promovendi wordt tevens een kleine bijdrage verwacht aan het onderwijsprogramma van de afdelingen Taal en Communicatie en Moderne Taal en Cultuur van de Faculteit der Letteren. Functie-eisen Van kandidaten wordt een uitstekende MA scriptie in Taal en Communicatie of een gerelateerd gebied gevraagd, of zij moeten kunnen aantonen dat zijn een dergelijke scriptie hebben afgerond per 31 augustus 2005 (beide projecten starten op 1 september). Ervaring met tekstwetenschap, cognitieve linguïstiek, of corpuslinguïstiek strekt tot aanbeveling. Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Het letterendeel van het ster-programma is ingebed in een van de vier onderzoekszwaartepunten van het Instituut voor Taal, Cultuur, en Geschiedenis van de Letterenfaculteit van de Vrije Universiteit, “The architecture of the human language faculty,” waarin taalkundigen, tekstwetenschappers, en psycholinguïsten met elkaar samenwerken om de modulaire structuur van taal en taalgebruik te onderzoeken. Het letterendeel van het ster-programma is tevens nauw verbonden met het vici-programma “Metaphor in discourse: linguistic forms, conceptual structures, cognitive representations,” onder leiding van Gerard Steen, waarvoor elders vier promovendi worden geworven. Bijzonderheden Voor beide projecten is de mogelijkheid voor een totale duur van het tijdelijke dienstverband van 5 jaar op basis van een 0,8 dienstverband. Op de website van de Vrije Universiteit kunt u onze verdere arbeidsvoorwaarden uitgebreid terugvinden (www.vu.nl/vacatures). Salaris Het salaris voor deze functie bedraagt € 1.867,- in het eerste jaar tot € 2.394,- in het vijfde jaar van het dienstverband bij een volledige werktijd Het dienstverband wordt aangegaan voor een periode van 12 maanden. Bij gebleken geschiktheid volgt een verlenging met 4 jaar. Informatie Een beschrijving van het programma en verdere informatie over de projecten kan worden ingewonnen bij: Project 1 Dr. Gerard Steen, afdeling Moderne Talen en Culturen, tel. (020)-5986445, of e-mail: Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Project 2 Prof.dr. Wilbert Spooren, afdeling Taal en Communicatie, tel.(020)-5986572, of e-mail: W.Spooren at let.vu.nl. Sollicitatie Sollicitaties (per reguliere post of per e-mail) kunnen, onder vermelding van het vacaturenummer op brief en envelop of in de e-mail worden ingestuurd tot maandag 30 mei 2005 naar: Project 1 Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v., dr. G.J. Steen, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam of per e-mail aan Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Project 2 Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v., prof. dr. W. Spooren, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam of per e-mail aan W.Spooren at let.vu.nl. Sollicitaties dienen vergezeld te gaan van een curriculum vitae en de namen en adressen van twee referenten. Een MA scriptie en een cijferlijst dienen ook te worden ingesloten. De e-mail sollicitaties moeten in pdf-formaat worden gestuurd. Naam en vacaturenummer moeten in de boodschap en in de onderwerpbalk worden vermeld. Een lijst attachments moet in de boodschap worden bijgesloten, met op elk attachment de naam van de sollicitant. Sollicitatiegesprekken staan gepland voor de week van 15 t/m 20 juni. From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Wed May 11 04:48:52 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:48:52 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of verbs with a similar distinction? :-D From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed May 11 05:53:16 2005 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:53:16 +0300 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to `atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is `stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' (atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and (telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish (saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. `sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' There are many words like this. Best wishes, John Quoting David Palfreyman : > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? > > :-D > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From oesten at ling.su.se Wed May 11 11:22:10 2005 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:22:10 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <1115790796.42819dccae8be@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Telicity is not quite the whole story. Notice that in the example "learn" vs. "study", it is the presence or absence of an endpoint that makes the difference (in somewhat simplified terms...) But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. - Östen Dahl > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > john at research.haifa.ac.il > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 07:53 > To: David Palfreyman > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > David, > The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to > `atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is > `stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as > inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's > book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew > speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' > (atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard > Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and > (telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish > (saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain > sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is > the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. > `sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these > are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that > non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' > There are many words like this. > Best wishes, > John > > > > Quoting David Palfreyman : > > > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running > late. He > > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on > > doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, > > wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but > > how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there > other pairs > > of verbs with a similar distinction? > > > > :-D > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > From Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl Wed May 11 12:11:05 2005 From: Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl (Nick Enfield) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:11:05 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511112213.BF61337E7F@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: One reading is "be in state X"; the other is "do an action which results in being in state X". For a similar distinction, consider verbs of posture: for example, in various languages, 'sit' may mean to undergo a change of state resulting in being in a sitting posture (i.e. 'sit down') or simply to be in sitting posture. See John Newman's 2002 volume "The linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying" (John Benjamins), e.g. chapters 2 and 3. Nick Östen Dahl wrote: > Telicity is not quite the whole story. Notice that in the example "learn" > vs. "study", it is the presence or absence of an endpoint that makes the > difference (in somewhat simplified terms...) But "put on" and "wear" differ > in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state > that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said > to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is > not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. > > - Östen Dahl > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of >>john at research.haifa.ac.il >>Sent: den 11 maj 2005 07:53 >>To: David Palfreyman >>Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" >> >>David, >>The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to >>`atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is >>`stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as >>inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's >>book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew >>speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' >>(atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard >>Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and >>(telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish >>(saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain >>sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is >>the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. >>`sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these >>are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that >>non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' >>There are many words like this. >>Best wishes, >>John >> >> >> >>Quoting David Palfreyman : >> >> >>>My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native >>>English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running >> >>late. He >> >>>indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on >>>doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, >>>wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". >>> >>>Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but >>>how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there >> >>other pairs >> >>>of verbs with a similar distinction? >>> >>>:-D >>> >> >> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------- >>---------- >>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>University >> > > > -- N. J. Enfield Language & Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PB 310, 6500 AH, Nijmegen, The Netherlands From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 14:04:19 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:04:19 EDT Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing are future events. In English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" Steve Long From oesten at ling.su.se Wed May 11 14:15:33 2005 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:15:33 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <6b.450fe44d.2fb36ae3@aol.com> Message-ID: What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a difference. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". - Östen Dahl > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > Salinas17 at aol.com > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 16:04 > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" > denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot > simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". > Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or > ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not > quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> > > In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be > synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's > command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage > described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the > dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing > are future events. In > English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey > the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, > 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" > > Steve Long > From sidi at ufpa.br Wed May 11 15:13:37 2005 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidi Facundes) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:13:37 -0300 Subject: International Symposium on Historical Linguistics in South America Message-ID: Sorry for crosspostings. International Symposium on Historical Linguistics in South America Belém, Pará, Brazil, August 27 - September 02, 2005 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi and Universidade Federal do Pará History and goals What is the current state of knowledge of the historical development of indigenous languages of South America? What can this knowledge teach us about the (pre)history of the indigenous people? What do we know about the relationships involving the genetic groups and their internal classification? What are the typological properties that can be associated with the indigenous languages of South America and how did their evolution or acquisition take place? Which properties are due to influence by contact among languages (genetically related or not) and not to transmission from a mother tongue? Which inferences can be made about culture, proto-culture and population migration on the basis of linguistic data? Looking for answers to these questions, a number of linguists have met at an international workshop called "Exploring the Linguistic Past: Historical Linguistics in South America", in 2003 e 2004, in Leiden (Netherlands) and Eugene (USA), respectively. This series of workshops is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), with local support from the host Institutions. Some of the issues discussed include: the Tu-Ka-Jê hypothesis (possible genetic relationship among the Tupí, Karíb and Jê groups); nasal evolution and spreading; possible areal phenomena in Northwest Amazon; the results from the Tupí-Comparative project, with new information on the internal classification of this group. This year the workshop will take the form of the INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS OF SOUTH AMERICA. The goals are: (1) Exchange information among researchers working on linguistic history and pre history in South America, (2) stimulate the dialogue among historical linguistics, anthropology, archeology and genetics so that specialists from these fields can gain the perspective from other sciences, (3) publicize the results reached through the previous workshops, and (4) stimulate interest in research on the historical development of indigenous languages of South America. The symposium will bring together specialists in diachronic linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and human biology, as well as specialists (including graduate students) working on descriptions of indigenous languages of South America, especially those whose work has comparative-historical significance. In this way, the symposium will serve as medium for sharing and further development of the results from the previous workshops, as well as sharing the results produced by other groups working on historical-comparative research on South America from the point of view of linguistics and related disciplines. Organizing committee Dra. Ana Vilacy Galúcio (MPEG) Dra. Carmen Lúcia Reis Rodrigues (UFPA) Dr. Denny Moore (MPEG) Dra. Marília de Nazaré de Oliveira Ferreira (UFPA) Dr. Sidney da Silva Facundes (UFPA) Paper Submission Papers dealing with or relevant to diachronic linguistics (genetic relationships between languages, reconstruction using the comparative method, internal reconstruction, diachronic syntax, inferences about prehistory, evolution of typological characteristics, areal linguistics, effects of language contact, and other relevant themes) are preferred. Abstract Submission Instructions Electronic submission: Abstracts will be submitted through email to: silhas at ufpa.br or silhas at museu-goeldi.br Abstracts will be accepted between May 13 and June 30, 2005. Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform using the form available at the conference website: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract. At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster or a paper. Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation a maximum of 01 paper per participant as single author plus 01 as co-author. Auditors will also be accepted. Abstract Selection Each abstract is blind reviewed by reviewers from a panel of international scholars. Abstracts will accepted in Portuguese, English, Spanish or French. Further information about the review process is available at: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas or http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas. Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt from reviewers. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in July 30, by e-mail. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late July 2005. Publication of papers Full versions of the papers given at the symposium can be submitted for publication (at a date to be announced) to be reviewed by ad hoc referees and, if selected, will appear in an international publication. Poster presentations will be published in electronic version only. Financial support The symposium is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), with local support from the hosting Institutions. The organization committee is searching for means to reduce the costs of the stay in Belém, indicating cheaper lodging or crash space for some of the participants. For more information, contact the organizers in the e-mails below. Further information Information regarding the symposium, including lodging and crash space, may be accessed at http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Área de Lingüística - CCH CxP: 399, Belém, PA, Brasil 66040-170 Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Confirmed Speakers Dra. Ana Vilacy Galucio, Museu Emílio Goeldi (Tupi) Dra. Ândrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos, UFPA (South American Genetic Groups) Dr. Carlos Fausto, Museu Nacional (Social Anthropology, Ethnology, Tupí) Dr. Denny Moore, Museu Emílio Goeldi (Tupí) Dr. Eduardo Neves, Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, USP (Amazonian Archeology) MSc. Eduardo R. Ribeiro, University of Chicago e Museu Antropológico de Goiás (Macro-Jê) Dra. Filomena Sandalo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Guaikurú and Mataco) Dr. Hein van der Voort, WOTRO/University of Nijmegen (Genetic relationship between languages; language isolates of Rondônia) Dra Kristine Stenzel, Instituto Socioambiental, Museu Nacional (Tukano) Dr. Michael Heckenberger, University of Florida (Archeology, linguistic groups in prehistory, Arawak and Karib, Xingu) Dr. Mily Crevels, NWO/University of Nijmegen (Areal phenomena and typological characteristics; languages of Bolivia) Dr. Pieter Muysken, University of Nijmegen (Languages in contact; relationship between the Andes and Amazonia; Quechua, languages of Bolivia) Dr. Sérgio Meira, KNAW/University of Leiden (Karib and Tupí) Dr. Sidney Facundes, Universidade Federal do Pará (diachronic linguistics, Arawak) Dr. Sidney Santos, Universidade Federal do Pará (South American Genetic Groups) Dr. Spike Gildea, University of Oregon (Diachronic syntax, internal reconstruction; Karíb) PROGRAM (Preliminary) Part I: August 27 - 30 Aug 27 Registration, opening conference - (times do be determined) Aug 28 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Genetics Aug 29 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Arqueology Aug 30 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Antropology Part II: August 31 - September 02 Aug 31 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 18:00 - Thematic sessions Sept 01 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 18:00 - Thematic sessions Sept 02 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 Plenary session for presentation of conclusions of each thematic group and indications of actions for the future. Afternoon - Closing session Simpósio Internacional sobre Lingüística Histórica na América do Sul Belém, PA, 27 de agosto a 02 de setembro de 2005 Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi e Universidade Federal do Pará Histórico do evento e objetivos Qual o estado atual do conhecimento sobre o desenvolvimento histórico das línguas indígenas sul americanas? O que esse conhecimento pode nos ensinar sobre a (pré-)história dos povos indígenas? O que se sabe sobre as relações entre famílias e troncos lingüísticos e sobre suas classificações internas? Quais as propriedades tipológicas características das línguas indígenas sul-americanas e como foi a sua evolução ou aquisição? Quais características devem-se a contatos entre línguas geneticamente relacionadas (ou não) e não à simples transmissão a partir da língua mãe? Quais as inferências possíveis sobre a cultura, proto-cultura e deslocamentos populacionais que podem ser feitas a partir dos dados lingüísticos? Objetivando encontrar respostas para essas perguntas, vários lingüistas do Brasil e do exterior se reuniram durante as edições anteriores do workshop internacional denominado Exploring the Linguistic Past: Historical Linguistics in South America, realizadas, respectivamente, em 2003 e 2004, nas cidades de Leiden (Holanda) e Eugene (EUA). Esta série de workshops é patrocinada pela Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, com o apoio local das Instituições organizadoras. Temas discutidos nos eventos anteriores incluem: a viabilidade da hipótese Tu-Ka-Jê (possível relação genética entre os grupos Tupí, Karíb e Jê); evolução e espalhamento da nasalidade; possíveis fenômenos areais do Noroeste Amazônico; os resultados de pesquisas do projeto Tupí-Comparativo, com novas informações sobre a classificação interna desse grupo. Neste ano o workshop se transformará no SIMPÓSIO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE LINGÜÍSTICA HISTÓRICA NA AMÉRICA DO SUL e será realizado tendo em vista os seguintes objetivos: (1) possibilitar o intercâmbio entre pesquisadores que desenvolvem investigações sobre a história e pré-história lingüística da América do Sul, (2) permitir o diálogo entre a lingüística histórica, a antropologia, a arquelogia e a genética de modo que especialistas dessas áreas possam avaliar interdisciplinarmente os resultados de suas pesquisas, (3) divulgar os resultados atingidos a partir dos trabalhos realizados ou inspirados nos dois primeiros workshops sobre o passado lingüístico da América do Sul, e (4) estimular o interesse na pesquisa sobre o desenvolvimento histórico das línguas indígenas da América do Sul. O Simpósio reunirá especialistas em lingüística diacrônica, antropologia, arqueologia e biologia humana, bem como especialistas (incluindo estudantes de pós-graduação) que estejam trabalhando com descrições de línguas indígenas da América do Sul, especialmente aqueles cujos trabalhos têm perspectivas histórico-comparativas. Com isso, o simpósio deve servir de meio para compartilhar e desenvolver os resultados dos workshops anteriores, assim como compartilhar os resultados produzidos por outros grupos trabalhando em pesquisas histórico-comparativas na América do Sul, tanto do ponto de vista da lingüística quanto das outras disciplinas afins (antropologia, arqueologia, biologia humana). Comissão organizadora Dra. Ana Vilacy Galúcio (MPEG) Dra. Carmen Lúcia Reis Rodrigues (UFPA) Dr. Denny Moore (MPEG) Dra. Marília de Nazaré de Oliveira Ferreira (UFPA) Dr. Sidney da Silva Facundes (UFPA) Submissões de trabalhos Será dada preferência para comunicações relevantes para lingüística diacrônica (relações genéticas entre línguas, reconstrução com o método comparativo, reconstrução interna, sintaxe diacrônica, inferências sobre a pré-história, evolução de características tipológicas, lingüística areal, efeitos de línguas em contato, e outros temas relacionados) Instruções para envio de resumos Resumos serão recebidos, via e-mail silhas at ufpa.br ou silhas at museu-goeldi.br, entre 13 de maio a 30 de junho de 2005. Informação para contato com cada autor deve ser submetida via formulário disponível em http://www.ufpa.br/silhas, http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Ao submeter seu trabalho, o autor deverá indicar a categoria: apresentação oral ou painel. Além da participação com apresentação de trabalhos nessas duas categorias, haverá também a possibilidade de participação como ouvintes. Embora cada autor possa submeter tantos resumos quantos desejar, serão aceitos o máximo de 01 trabalho individual por participante mais 01 como co-autor. Seleção de resumos Cada resumo será lido em forma anônima pelos pareceristas. Informações mais detalhadas estão disponíveis nos sites acima. Resumos serão aceitos em português, inglês, espanhol ou francês Confirmação de recebimento de resumos será feita logo após o recebimento destes. Resultados da seleção de resumos serão enviados por e-mail até o dia 30 de julho de 2005. O programa final estará disponível no site acima no início de agosto. Publicação dos trabalhos Versões completas dos trabalhos poderão ser submetidas para publicação (em data a ser anunciada) e serão analisadas por pareceristas ad hoc. Aqueles selecionados serão incluídos em uma publicação internacional. Painéis somente serão publicados em forma eletrônica. Apoio Financeiro O Simpósio conta com patrocínio da Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) e apoio local das duas instituições organizadoras. A comissão organizadora está procurando alternativas para diminuir os custos para os participantes em Belém. Para mais informações, contacte a comissão através dos e-mails indicados abaixo. Contatos e informações Informações sobre o simpósio, incluindo hotéis e possíveis alojamentos gratuitos para alunos, podem ser obtidas nos endereços: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Área de Lingüística - CCH CxP: 399, Belém, PA, Brasil 66040-170 Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Palestrantes confirmados Dra. Ana Vilacy Galucio, Museu Emílio Goeldi (Tronco Tupí) Dra. Ândrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos, UFPA (Genética de grupos indígenas sul americanos) Dr. Carlos Fausto, Museu Nacional (Antropologia Social, Etnologia Indígena, Tronco Tupí) Dr. Denny Moore, Museu Emílio Goeldi (Tronco Tupí) Dr. Eduardo Neves, Museu de Etnologia e Arqueologia, USP (Arqueologia da Amazônia) Msc. Eduardo R. Ribeiro, University of Chicago e Museu Antropológico de Goiás (Tronco Macro-jê) Dra. Filomena Sandalo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Famílias Guaikurú e Mataco) Dr. Hein van der Voort, WOTRO/University of Nijmegen (Línguas isoladas de Rondônia; relações genéticas entre línguas) Dra Kristine Stenzel, Instituto Socioambiental, Museu Nacional (Família Tukano) Dr. Michael Heckenberger, University of Florida (Arqueologia, pré-história de grupos lingüísticos, Famílias Aruák e Karib, Xingu) Dr. Mily Crevels, NWO/University of Nijmegen (Fenomênos areais e características tipológicas; línguas indígenas da Bolívia) Dr. Pieter Muysken, University of Nijmegen (Línguas em contato, relações entre os Andes e Amazônia; Família Quechua, línguas indígenas da Bolívia) Dr. Sérgio Meira, KNAW/University of Leiden (Família Karib e Tronco Tupí) Dr. Sidney Facundes, Universidade Federal do Pará (Lingüística diacrônica, Família Aruák) Dr. Sidney Santos, Universidade Federal do Pará (Genética de grupos indígenas sul americanos) Dr. Spike Gildea, University of Oregon (Sintaxe diacrônica, reconstrução interna; Família Karíb) Dra. Stella Telles, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (Família Nambikwára) PROGRAMA (Provisório) Primeira Parte: 27 - 30 de Agosto: 27 Agosto Inscrição, entrega material, cerimônia e conferência de abertura - (horários a definir) 28 Agosto Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Conferência de Arqueologia 29 Agosto Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Conferência de Genética 30 Agosto Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresentação de trabalhos, agrupados por áreas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Conferência de Antropologia Segunda Parte: 31 Agosto a 02 de Setembro 31 Agosto Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 - Debates de temas específicos em grupos temáticos de estudo, segundo a área de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 18:00 - Debates de temas específicos em grupos temáticos de estudo, segundo a área de especialidade dos participantes 01 Setembro Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 - Debates de temas específicos em grupos temáticos de estudo, segundo a área de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 18:00 - Debates de temas específicos em grupos temáticos de estudo, segundo a área de especialidade dos participantes 02 Setembro Manhã 08:30 - 12:00 Plenária com apresentação das conclusões de cada grupo temático e levantamento das conclusões e indicações de ações para o futuro na área da lingüística histórica dos povos indígenas sul americanos, além do encerramento do evento. Tarde - Encerramento From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed May 11 15:15:47 2005 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:47 +0300 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: I was not claiming that e.g. put on and wear are identical other than aspect, I just meant to say that in many languages in many usages the same verb would be used in different aspectual forms. John Myhill Quoting ?sten Dahl : > What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a difference. > "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is > different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an > intentional (agentive) component in "put on". > - ?sten Dahl > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > > Salinas17 at aol.com > > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 16:04 > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > > > In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > > << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" > > denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot > > simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". > > Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or > > ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not > > quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> > > > > In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be > > synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's > > command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage > > described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the > > dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing > > are future events. In > > English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey > > the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, > > 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" > > > > Steve Long > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 15:50:32 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:50:32 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Palfreyman said: > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? It's just the usual distinction between state and change of state, isn't it? PUT ON X means to change from a state of NOT WEAR X to WEAR X. The brother-in-law was expecting WEAR to carry a change-of-state meaning and for his wife to comply, but it doesn't and she didn't. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From lyosovs at cityline.ru Wed May 11 16:47:00 2005 From: lyosovs at cityline.ru (sergey) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:47:00 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: I have long been wondering whether sentences like 'the food stock is diminishing' are telic. The sentence 'I am running out of money' seems to be clearly telic because it has a natural endpoint 'I am out of money' or (with the same verb) 'I have run out of money'. But is there an inherent endpoint of diminishing for mass nouns? Or of increasing? Aristotle (Metaphysics 9,6) says: Since of the actions which have a limit none is an end but all are relative to the end, e.g. the removing of fat, or fat-removal, and the bodily parts themselves when one is making them thin are in movement in this way (i.e. without being already that at which the movement aims), this is not an action or at least not a complete one (for it is not an end); but that movement in which the end is present is an action. E.g. at the same time we are seeing and have seen, are understanding and have understood, are thinking and have thought (while it is not true that at the same time we are learning and have learnt, or are being cured and have been cured). At the same time we are living well and have lived well, and are happy and have been happy. If not, the process would have had sometime to cease, as the process of making thin ceases: but, as things are, it does not cease; we are living and have lived. Of these processes, then, we must call the one set movements, and the other actualities. For every movement is incomplete-making thin, learning, walking, building; these are movements, and incomplete at that. So Aristotle probably considers diminishing a telic process(~ 'the process of making thin ceases'). But his 'walking' confounds me, it is clearly atelic. My problem is whether telicity is a facts-of-life thing or an artefact of language? Is 'We are running out of food' telic unlike 'Our food store is diminishing' > 'It (has) diminished'? Do the qualitative distinctions posited by our thinking create telicity effect (~does a heap cease to be a heap if a grain is removed)? Sergey From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 17:28:48 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:28:48 EDT Subject: misunderstanding"wear" vs. "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 11:51:09 AM, mark at polymathix.com writes: << The brother-in-law was expecting WEAR to carry a change-of-state meaning and for his wife to comply, but it doesn't and she didn't. >> No, I don't think so. The story says, 'He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up.' The nature of the misunderstanding was about time. The brother-in-law apparently meant put the dress on now. The wife thought he meant wear it when the time comes. I suspect English speakers do not feel comfortable saying "wear that dress, right now." They seem to feel more comfortable saying "put that dress on, right now." There seems to be a constraint on what the word "wear" as a command can refer to. We want to refer to the process and not the end result when the sense is immediate. Of course, in common English usage, "wear" can be used without a nod to the inceptive. "Wait. It's cold outside. Wear a coat." But it feels more comfortable to acknowledge the immediacy and say, "Wait. It's cold outside. Put on a coat." This is evident in the misunderstanding. "Wear that" does command a change of state. But so does "put that on." In English, we only jump the inchoative step -- put on that dress --when we are talking about some more distant future state and not immediacy -- at least with these specific words. The listener reasonably assumed that the speaker was not referring to any kind of immediacy. But the word "wear" had a broader meaning for the speaker, which included the implied "right now." Steve Long From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 17:50:29 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:50:29 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <6b.450fe44d.2fb36ae3@aol.com> Message-ID: Salinas17 at aol.com said: > > In English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey the same > intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, 'cause we're going out > tonight", "wear that tonight" Yep. In English, future statives can be used to entail a change of state: "I'm going to be nice at the LSA meeting this year." (To get that entailment, the requisite state must not already hold, of course: "Wear that tonight" might mean "keep that on tonight", and thus entail a non-change of state if the addressee is already wearing it.) Either way, WEAR is still a stative and PUT ON is related to it lexically through a change-of-state entailment. The change of state sometimes entailed by a future stative is just a situated inference. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 18:01:31 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:01:31 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: Östen Dahl said: > What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a > difference. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy > bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and > "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that > there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". Actually, I think it's stickier than that. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas." is expressed as non-continuous, so it actually does have an agentive ("what did the teddy bear do?") entailment -- although it's easily suppressed by competing entailments relating to the presumptive non-agent nature of teddy bears. This agentive entailment is probably an implicature: if you say the teddy bear wore something in particular, then you must believe that the teddy bear had a choice of attire at the time. Putting this in a continuous form removes the agentive entailment and puts the sentence back into purely stative space: "The teddy bear was wearing pink pyjamas." -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 18:04:07 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:04:07 EDT Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". >> But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." Regards, Steve Long From amnfn at well.com Thu May 12 03:31:42 2005 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:31:42 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Thu May 12 07:15:47 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:47 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means "get dressed". :-D >>> "A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From rberman at post.tau.ac.il Thu May 12 19:00:44 2005 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (Ruth Berman) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:00:44 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The same holds for Hebrew -- li-lbosh means both 'wear' and 'put', cf. causative le-halbish 'dress someone (in something, put something on someone), reflexive/middle le-hitlabesh -- from the root l-b-sh. The non-native error mentioned at the outset of this interchange is typical of Hebrew speakers, too Ruth Berman David Palfreyman wrote: >FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" >covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means >"get dressed". > >:-D > > >>>>"A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> >>>> >>>> > > >On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > > > >>In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: >><< "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear >> >> >put on > > >>pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is >> >> >different > > >>from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an >> >> >intentional > > >>(agentive) component in "put on". >> >> >>But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in >> >> >English? > > >> Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink >> >> >pyjamas > > >>on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how >> >> >the > > >>focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different >> >> >senses of > > >>time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to >> >> >differences > > >>in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this >> >> >dress on > > >>you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." >> >>Regards, >>Steve Long >> >> >> >> > >To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, >English >speakers can use "to be dressed in". > >(1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. > >(2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. > > >Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be >dressed. >The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the >woman >dressed herself is purely pragmatic. > >In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. > > >"Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) > >"Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is >on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) > > Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" > > But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is >what >you wear." > > In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are >the >patient. > > >However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the >construction >used. > > >"ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." >agent: woman patient: pajama > > >"ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a >pajama." > >Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is >neither >an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: >"Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." > >"hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) >in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the >sentence >still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent >is specified. > > >English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of >the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. >You can't say: > > > "Put on!" > > or > "Wear" > >without sounding very strange. > >"Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive >version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly >"wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about >how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can >use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: >"to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." > > >It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of >"to >dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works >a >lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. > > > --Aya Katz > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 >http://www.well.com/user/amnfn > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > > > From Debra.P.Ziegeler at manchester.ac.uk Thu May 12 14:56:59 2005 From: Debra.P.Ziegeler at manchester.ac.uk (Debra.Ziegeler) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:56:59 +0000 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear David, It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. Best, Debra Ziegeler Date sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:47 +0400 From: "David Palfreyman" To: , Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" Copies to: funknet at mailman.rice.edu [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means "get dressed". :-D >>> "A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Debra Ziegeler School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK Tel.: (0161) 275 3142 Fax: (0161) 275 3031 From Salinas17 at aol.com Thu May 12 13:58:56 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:58:56 EDT Subject: "wear"/"put on"/time again Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 11:32:12 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: <> If we take the story precisely at face value, this does NOT clarify the nature of the misunderstanding. 'He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up.' There was no problem here with agency. If the husband says, "Get dressed," he is saying something different in English than "put that [dress] on now." The husband was specifying a particular dress. "Get dressed in that dress" also usually means something different than "put that [dress] on now." It loses its immediacy. The essence of the misunderstanding (it would be non-analytical to call it an "error") was once again about time, not about change-of-state or agency. If the husband had said "wear that dress right now," the misunderstanding would have been less likely, though the form is unexpected. The key here is that "put [something] on" carries a message about time that was lost when the husband said "wear that." That's why the wife said "ok" but kept doing something else. Looking for the source of the misunderstanding in Turkish (or Hebrew) makes sense, but only when the nature of the miscommunication is properly understood from actual context. The English forms "put this on" or "get dressed" seems to carry a connotation of immediacy by focusing on the inceptive rather than the final state. I notice that the closest parallel in terms of time reference, in all the Hebrew examples given by Aya, appears to rely on emphasis rather than the inceptive: <> This shows a different strategy for communicating immediacy than the one we see used in English in the original story. Regards, Steve Long From amnfn at well.com Thu May 12 14:01:22 2005 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 07:01:22 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry about getting the language wrong, for the non-native speaker brother-in-law. I should have read the message more carefully. As Ruth mentioned, the same error is often made by Hebrew speakers in English. The more general point of my post, though, was that this kind of error is not necessarily caused by failing to note the stative versus change-of-state nature of the distinction between "to wear" and "put on". It may be caused by a misunderstanding concerning agent versus patient focus in the basic semantics of the verb. Does "giymek" have to take an object in the same way that "wear" and "put on" must? Where the agent is the focus of the sentence, then the action of dressing is emphasized. Where the patient is the focus, then the garment will be emphasized, rather than the urgency of putting it on. A confounding factor in English is the use of the demonstrative pronoun. Even with a verb like "wear" or "put on" the emphasis on the patient can be reduced by changing from "that" to "it." "Wear that!" Means that garment, rather than this one. "Wear it!" Means put it on right now or in the immediate future. "Put THAT on!" means choose that rather than this. "Put it on." means "Come on, get dressed." Best, --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, INVERTED-A, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005, David Palfreyman wrote: > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? > > :-D > > From funkadmn at ruf.rice.edu Fri May 20 19:33:06 2005 From: funkadmn at ruf.rice.edu (Funknet List Admin) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:33:06 -0500 Subject: New Book: THE UNFOLDING OF LANGUAGE by Guy Deutscher (fwd) Message-ID: I have been asked to forward the following book announcement, which will undoubtedly be of interest to many Funknet list members. Please address any further queries or replies to the original sender, not to the Funknet Admin address. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:15:53 -0400 From: Richard Rhorer Subject: New Book: THE UNFOLDING OF LANGUAGE by Guy Deutscher Book Notice: Metropolitan Books is pleased to announce the publication of The Unfolding of Language : an evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention, by Guy Deutscher. Publication date: June 1, 2005 (US); May 5, 2005 (UK) Publisher: Metropolitan (Henry Holt, US), Heinemann (Random House, UK) Book URL: www.unfoldingoflanguage.com Publisher URL: http://www.henryholt.com/metropolitanbooks.htm Author: Guy Deutscher, University of Leiden Hardback (US): ISBN: 0805079076, Pages: 360 pp, Price: $ 26.00 Hardback (UK): ISBN: 043401155X, Pages: 360 pp, Price: ₤ 20.00 Abstract: “Language is mankind’s greatest invention – except of course, that it was never invented.” So begins Guy Deutscher’s investigation into the evolution of language. No one believes that the Roman Senate sat down one day to design Latin grammar, and few believe, these days, in the literal truth of the story of the Tower of Babel. But then how did there come to be so many languages of such elaborate design? If we started off with rudimentary utterances on the level of “man throw spear,” how did we end up with sophisticated grammars, enormous vocabularies, and intricately nuanced shades of meaning? Drawing on recent discoveries in modern linguistics, The Unfolding of Language exposes the elusive forces of creation at work in human communication. The emergence of linguistic complexity is reconstructed from an imaginary “Me Tarzan” stage to the expressive power of languages today. Arguing that destruction and creation in language are intimately entwined, Deutscher shows how these processes are continuously in operation, generating new words, new structures, and new meanings. From the written records of lost civilizations to the spoken idiom of today’s streets, we move from ancient Babylonian through medieval French to the English of the present. We marvel at the triumph of design that is the Semitic verb, puzzle over single words that can express highly elaborate sentiments, such as the Turkish sehirlilestiremediklerimizdensiniz (“you are one of those whom we couldn’t turn into a town-dweller”), and observe how great changes of pronunciation may result from an age old human habit - simple laziness. Through the dramatic story of The Unfolding of Language, we discover the genius behind a uniquely human faculty. Advance praise: "Exciting, witty, and a masterpiece of contemporary scholarship." - Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Stanford University. "At last, an entertaining and readable book that presents the most current views on language and its evolution. Deutscher recreates for his readers the joy of discovery that many of the forces that created language for the first time are still in action today.” - Joan Bybee, University of New Mexico. "Thoroughly enjoyable... Guy Deutscher is an erudite and entertaining guide through the paradoxes and complexities of language evolution." - Gene Gragg, University of Chicago Contents: Introduction:'This marvellous invention’ Chapter 1: A Castle in the Air Chapter 2: Perpetual Motion Chapter 3: The Forces of Destruction Chapter 4: A Reef of Dead Metaphors Chapter 5: The Forces of Creation Chapter 6: Craving for Order Chapter 7: The Unfolding of Language Epilogue Appendix A: Flipping Categories Appendix B: Laryngeals Again? Appendix C: The Devil in the Detail Appendix D: The Cook’s Counterpoint Appendix E: The Turkish Mirror Regards, Richard Rhorer Director of Marketing Henry Holt and Company The Henry Holt offices have moved. Please note my new mailing address and phone number. 175 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10010 646-307-5244 From lists at chaoticlanguage.com Sun May 22 05:05:32 2005 From: lists at chaoticlanguage.com (Rob Freeman) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:05:32 +0800 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050512135720.74950DEC42@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Hi Debra, "Correct" usage is really a mire. Sorry to be a pedant, and it doesn't change your point that this contrast doesn't exist in Chinese, but you know, "You wore shorts!" sounds completely idiomatic to me in the context. You decided to wear shorts, you made the decision earlier, past-tense of wore, wear. On the other hand, to me, "You have put on shorts" carries of implications of recent change. So the implication would be either that you changed just a little earlier, or you are going to continue wearing shorts all summer (c.f. You've put on summer uniform.) Perhaps if I'd been there I would have heard it differently. The more you think about these things the less clear they become. When it comes down to it, so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side of the bed you get out of in the morning :-) Best, Rob Freeman On Thursday 12 May 2005 22:56, Debra.Ziegeler wrote: > Dear David, > > It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this > distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean > and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once > walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: > "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those > dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin > chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. > > Best, > Debra Ziegeler From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Tue May 24 12:43:26 2005 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia Ulrich) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:43:26 +0200 Subject: Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar (de Groot, Hengeveld) Message-ID: NEW FROM MOUTON DE GRUYTER MORPHOSYNTACTIC EXPRESSION IN FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR Edited by Casper de Groot and Kees Hengeveld 2005. x, 534 pages. Cloth. EUR 118.00 / sFr 189.00 / for USA, Canada, Mexico: US$ 165.20 ISBN 3-11-018365-X (Functional Grammar Series 27) Language of publication: English Date of publication: 05/2005 http://www.degruyter.de/rs/bookSingle.cfm?id=IS-311018365X-1&l=E Morphological and syntactic issues have received relatively little attention in Functional Grammar, due to the fact that this grammatical model, given its functional orientation, was primarily concerned with developing its pragmatic and semantic components. Now that these have been solidly developed, this book turns to the further development of the syntactic and morphological components of the model. Two recent developments receive pride of place: Bakker's Dynamic Expression Model and Hengeveld and Mackenzie's Functional Discourse Grammar. The first model aims at accounting for the complex interactions that one finds in many languages between the sets of expression rules that have to account for form on the one hand and those that establish order on the other. The second model takes a further step by considering morphosyntactic and phonological representations to be part of the underlying structure of the grammar rather than as the output of that grammar, contrary to the original assumptions in FG. The book accordingly contains synopses of these two proposals as well as applications of these to a variety of linguistic phenomena. Further articles provide detailed analyses of a range of semantic and pragmatic categories and their morphosyntactic expression in a wide variety of languages. The articles in this book contain data on some 60 different languages, including focused articles on phenomena in Arabic, Danish, English, Lengua de Señas Española, Mapudungun, Plains Cree, and Tanggu. In all, the contributions to this volume show that the issue of morphosyntactic expression in Functional Grammar is very much alive and moving into promising new directions, while at the same time contributing to a better understanding of a large number of morphosyntactic phenomena in a wide variety of languages. EDITORS: Casper de Groot is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Kees Hengeveld is Professor at the Department of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. OF INTEREST TO: Researchers and Students interested in Functional Grammar and Morphosyntactic Issues; Scholars working in the Field of Descriptive Linguistics; Academic Libraries; Institutes FROM THE CONTENTS: Agreement: More arguments for the dynamic expression model DIK BAKKER Constituent ordering in the expression component of Functional Grammar JOHN H. CONNOLLY Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar KEES HENGEVELD Noun incorporation in Functional Discourse Grammar Niels Smit Morphosyntactic templates CASPER DE GROOT A crosslinguistic study of 'locative inversion': Evidence for the Functional Discourse Grammar model FRANCIS CORNISH The agreement cross-reference continuum: Person marking in FG ANNA SIEWIERSKA AND DIK BAKKER The explanatory power of typological hierarchies: Developmental perspectives on non-verbal predication EVA H. VAN LIER Non-verbal predicability and copula support rule in Spanish Sign Language ÁNGEL HERRERO-BLANCO AND VENTURA SALAZAR-GARCÍA A new view on the semantics and pragmatics of operators of aspect, tense and quantification ANNERIEKE BOLAND Exclamation: Sentence type, illocution or modality? AHMED MOUTAOUAKIL Close appositions EVELIEN KEIZER Inversion and the absence of grammatical relations in Plains Cree AROK WOLVENGREY Direction diathesis and obviation in Functional Grammar: The case of the inverse in Mapudungun, an indigenous language of south central Chile OLE NEDERGAARD THOMSEN Unexpected insertion or omission of an absolutive marker as an icon of a surprising turn of events in discourse JOHAN LOTTERMAN AND J. LACHLAN MACKENZIE Pronominal expression rule ordering in Danish and the question of a discourse grammar LISBETH FALSTER JAKOBSEN ORDERS: 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 language at sprynet.com Fri May 27 18:14:43 2005 From: language at sprynet.com (Alexander Gross2) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:14:43 -0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: I've mulled over this whole `wear vs put-on' exchange a bit, and I think I'll vote with Rob when he says "'Correct' usage is really a mire" and that "so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side of the bed you get out of in the morning :-)" Can anyone explain to me why we are still citing Aristotle as an authority on linguistics, when all the other sciences kicked him out long ago? Even modern dramaturgy has gone far beyond the principles invoked in his Poetics. Could it be that our entire field of study has fallen into a neo-Aristotelian Quinean quagmire? Most of Quine's notions about language don't hold up very well--is it just possible that their acceptance by a single impressionable and uncritical student could have led us into our current impasse? Also, no one bothered to answer David's second question, namely: "are there other pairs of verbs with a similar distinction?" There sure are, probably several truckloads full, some of them matching the telic-atelic so-called model but more of them either falling between the cracks or into a pattern of their own. There are at least two sources for hunting them down, one which i recommended to Steve a few months back, my own ancient, pre-windows program, "The Glorious Verb `To Put,'" a free download from my website at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/download.htm#to_put Or an even better source, the Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English ,* which should provide not just examples with "put" but "get," "set," "run," & "turn" plus lots of prepositions, along with many, many more as well. All of which can be more or less "translated" by other English words as can "put on" by "wear," which may or may not actually be equivalent. These are among the tools available to translators for resolving this sort of frequently encountered issue on a case-by-case basis, and it seems a bit strange to me that they do not seem to be equally available to linguists as well. The tools so far provided by linguists--WordNet, CYC, Sowa's ontology, Schank's scripts, or any number of MT methodologies--don't come anywhere near defining the job, much less doing it. very best to all! alex *I assume this is roughly the same as a volume with a closely related title, which I found at the UN Library 20 years ago when I first became interested in these questions. I have a copy of that book 100 miles upstate but am unable to provide any further details right now. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Freeman" To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > Hi Debra, > > "Correct" usage is really a mire. > > Sorry to be a pedant, and it doesn't change your point that this contrast > doesn't exist in Chinese, but you know, "You wore shorts!" sounds > completely > idiomatic to me in the context. You decided to wear shorts, you made the > decision earlier, past-tense of wore, wear. > > On the other hand, to me, "You have put on shorts" carries of implications > of > recent change. So the implication would be either that you changed just a > little earlier, or you are going to continue wearing shorts all summer > (c.f. > You've put on summer uniform.) > > Perhaps if I'd been there I would have heard it differently. The more you > think about these things the less clear they become. When it comes down to > it, so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side > of > the bed you get out of in the morning :-) > > Best, > > Rob Freeman > > On Thursday 12 May 2005 22:56, Debra.Ziegeler wrote: >> Dear David, >> >> It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this >> distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean >> and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once >> walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: >> "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those >> dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin >> chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. >> >> Best, >> Debra Ziegeler > > From sidi at ufpa.br Mon May 30 02:17:01 2005 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidi Facundes) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 23:17:01 -0300 Subject: Call for papers: historical linguistics in South America Message-ID: (Sorry for cross postings) Dear all, This is to inform that the forms to submit abstracts for the International Symposium of Historical Linguistics in South America (Aug 27 - Sept 02/05) is now available at www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas (on weekdays) or www.ufpa.br/silhas (any day). Abstracts will be accepted until June 30, and they must be returned by e-mail to: silhas at ufpa.br ou silhas at museu-goeldi.br. Papers on diachronic linguistics involving genetic relationships, comparative or internal reconstruction, diachronic syntax, inferences on prehistory, evolution of typological features, areal linguistics, effects from language contact, and related themes are highly encouraged. For more information, visit the sites above or contact us at: Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Sidi Facundes ----------------------------------------------------------- Esta mensagem foi enviada atraves da pagina Correio.UFPA.BR From girod at stybba.ntc.nokia.com Mon May 30 07:21:45 2005 From: girod at stybba.ntc.nokia.com (Marc Girod) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:21:45 +0300 Subject: Aristotle (was: "wear" and "put on") In-Reply-To: <002901c562e7$f5ba6c90$0b1ef7a5@woowoo> Message-ID: >>>>> "AG" == Alexander Gross2 writes: AG> Can anyone explain to me why we are still citing Aristotle as an AG> authority on linguistics, when all the other sciences kicked him AG> out long ago? Not all... Genetics and evolution still use the concept of species, in an Aristotelian (pre-Copernician) way -- Ref: /Ni Dieu ni gène/, by Kupiec-Sonigo (2000). -- Marc Girod P.O. Box 323 Voice: +358-71 80 25581 Nokia BI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415 Valimo 21 / B616 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 64474 From dcyr at yorku.ca Mon May 30 18:13:15 2005 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:13:15 -0400 Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: I'm currently in the process of kicking Aristotle out of linguistics too, if only on the question of personal ranking. My current research on the hypothesis of TU as a first person in Algonquian languages shows that there is no philosophical reason to put EGO as a first person in grammar. In Algonquian TU looks more like a first person and EGO like a second. Conversations with linguists working on other language groups tend to corroborate my hypothesis which I came up with in 1996. It has proned Marie-Odile Junker (Carleton University0f Ottawa) to pursue on the same hypothesis from a general typological perspective. Her research confirms mine. Danielle E. Cyr From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Mon May 30 18:18:08 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18:08 +0100 Subject: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1117476795.429b57bb08ce3@webmail.yorku.ca> Message-ID: The importance of Aristotle to linguistics is not so much his specific proposals but, in contradistinction to Plato, can be interpreted as arguing that language, as convention, emerges from culture/society. This is quite different from believing that language is a form of math about which out knowledge is underdetermined by our experience. In my recent review article in Journal of Linguistics "Biology and language: a consideration of alternatives", I suggest that 'Aristotle's Problem' should replace 'Plato's Problem' as the focus of linguistic concern, i.e. that we should be looking for cultural bases of languages rather than a priori knowledge. DLE On 30 May 2005, at 19:13, dcyr at yorku.ca wrote: > > > I'm currently in the process of kicking Aristotle out of linguistics > too, if > only on the question of personal ranking. My current research on the > hypothesis of TU as a first person in Algonquian languages shows that > there > is no philosophical reason to put EGO as a first person in grammar. In > Algonquian TU looks more like a first person and EGO like a second. > Conversations with linguists working on other language groups tend to > corroborate my hypothesis which I came up with in 1996. It has proned > Marie-Odile Junker (Carleton University0f Ottawa) to pursue on the same > hypothesis from a general typological perspective. Her research > confirms > mine. > > Danielle E. Cyr > > --------------------------------------------- Daniel L. Everett Professor of Phonetics & Phonology School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Fax: 44-161-275-3031 Phone: 44-161-275-3158 http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff) From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue May 31 14:40:42 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:40:42 EDT Subject: Aristotle Message-ID: In a message dated 5/30/05 2:18:49 PM, daniel.everett at uol.com.br writes: << The importance of Aristotle to linguistics is not so much his specific proposals but, in contradistinction to Plato, can be interpreted as arguing that language, as convention, emerges from culture/society. This is quite different from believing that language is a form of math about which our knowledge is underdetermined by our experience.>> The difficulty here is created not when we consider language as a form of math, but math as a form of language. Plato's notion that things have "true names" seems a curious one until we understand it from the point of view of math and geometry. Aristotle's nominalism basically asserted that the world existed independent of language. This is modern naturalism and every modern scientist is an heir of Aristotle. But for neither Greek was language biological or arbitrary. The main constraint in Plato was not an Aristotelian conforming to an accurate description of the world, it was instead an accurate picture of the abstract and formal logic that seems to rule the world. This is a parallel tradition -- it's Kepler and Newton "reading the mind of God" and Chomsky's language mechanism. The old classic nominalism versus idealism debate repeated over and over again. The problem comes from the fact that the mathematics of language (not merely the language of math) does have predictive power -- i.e., it does go beyond our literal past experience. I know that Alex doesn't mean that language is completely chaotic. There is an amazing accuracy in language despite all the everyday missteps. The resolution I think is to understand that there is quite a bit of naturalistic logic and orderliness and predictableness in the objective world. And that our language and our culture and our evolved biology -- are all intentional or accidental attempts to accurately conform to the imperatives of the physical world. We can be fooled into thinking that the orderliness and logic of language somehow originated in us. It did not. It originated out there, in a somewhat clockwork world that goes on ticking whether we are around to talk to each other about it or not. Starting from the assumption that it's the world around and in us that dictates the structure of language, the structural distinction between language as biology (accident-driven) and culture (intentionality-driven) becomes a blur. We expect the same language structure from both. When we look at function however, that blur disappears. What so-called "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power of culture and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the history of language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise sense that biological evolution is driven by the accidental. Regards, Steve Long From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Tue May 31 14:44:30 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:44:30 +0100 Subject: Aristotle In-Reply-To: <104.623c8a59.2fcdd16a@aol.com> Message-ID: I don't disagree terribly with Steve Long's post. But since the 'truth' of whatever Aristotle or Plato proposed is largely past its 'sell-by' date, I think their value is mainly as inspiring this or that programme, with the interpretation that best fits this or that individual's reading. Not a lot of precision to get worked up about for the most part. I do agree with Steve's last line strongly: "When we look at function however, that blur disappears. What so-called "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power of culture and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the history of language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise sense that biological evolution is driven by the accidental." There is a large article appearing on some of these issues in this summer's edition of Current Anthropology, with commentaries by several eminent anthropologists and psychologists/psycholinguists. A near-final version of the paper (sans the commentaries and my reply) can be downloaded from my website. Basically, my point is that language evolution is on-going and heavily influenced by culture. Dan Everett --------------------------------------------- Daniel L. Everett Professor of Phonetics & Phonology School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 3031. Phone: + 44 (0) 161 275 3158 http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff) From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue May 31 21:49:09 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:49:09 -0700 Subject: Aristotle Message-ID: With all due respect, taking evolution, especially of social species, to be a matter of purely accidents (random mutations) is not the most sophisticated approach to evolution, nor the one favored by (at least most) evolutionary psychologists. The late great Ernst Mayr said is best: "(adaptive) behavior is the pace-maker of evolution". And adaptive behavior, a constant factor in selection, is not random, but rather purposive, thus in a clear way 'intentional' (if mostly non-conscious). There is a wonderful recent book by Boyd & Richerson on cultural evolution "Not by genes alone" (U. Chicago, 2005). I shows that there is no principled contrast between biological and cultural evolution. This 'continuum' position is the most standard one in EP today--that culture is an extension of biological evolution, that it is just as adaptive (tho obviouly more complex), and that it is much older than humanity. By the same token, biology didn't cease with human culture. The two consitute a finely blended continuum, and trying to erect a barrier somewhewre in the middle is but another Cartesian/Platonic exercise. By the way, Dan, with all my great admiration to Aristotle as the founder of adaptive biology, empirical political science, pragmatics, and even (according to at least one expert) also the founder of socio-biology/evolutionary psychology, I still find nothing in his treatment of language that transcends the logic of The Categories and thand the Posterior Analytic, nor the structuralism of De Interpretatione. If you want to find arguments for "language as a natural (physis) phenomenon rather than as an arbitrary (nomos) one", you can find it in Socrates' position in Plato's Cratylus. It is not clear whether Plato side with Socrates (physis) or Cratylus (nomos). And Cratylus position is essentially the same as Aristotle's De Interpretatione (nomos). Best, TG ========================== Daniel Everett wrote: > I don't disagree terribly with Steve Long's post. But since the > 'truth' of whatever Aristotle or Plato proposed is largely past its > 'sell-by' date, I think their value is mainly as inspiring this or > that programme, with the interpretation that best fits this or that > individual's reading. Not a lot of precision to get worked up about > for the most part. > > I do agree with Steve's last line strongly: "When we look at function > however, that blur disappears. What so-called > "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power > of culture > and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the > history of > language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise > sense that > biological evolution is driven by the accidental." > > There is a large article appearing on some of these issues in this > summer's edition of Current Anthropology, with commentaries by > several eminent anthropologists and psychologists/psycholinguists. A > near-final version of the paper (sans the commentaries and my reply) > can be downloaded from my website. Basically, my point is that > language evolution is on-going and heavily influenced by culture. > > Dan Everett > > --------------------------------------------- > Daniel L. Everett > Professor of Phonetics & Phonology > School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL UK > Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 3031. > Phone: + 44 (0) 161 275 3158 > http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html > > "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct > relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, > except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the > state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the > culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas > (1911,59ff) From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Tue May 31 21:59:05 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:59:05 +0100 Subject: Aristotle In-Reply-To: <429CDBD5.9FDB47AF@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, We have had this discussion before, it seems to me. I agree with you about the greatness of Ernst Mayr and there is nothing to object to in his statement, obviously. On the other hand, I think your teleological interpretation of it is somewhat off the mark. The fact that evolution is guided by adaptive behavior doesn't mean that evolution is goal-directed. Nor does it mean that all there is to evolution is random mutation. The choices you provide do not exhaust the possibilities. And for modern humans, sure, cultural evolution has taken on a role that it didn't have for trilobites or even troglodytes. I certainly wouldn't claim that it is by 'genes alone'. In fact I believe that cultural forces shape language evolution even now, constraining form and function in ways that neither functionalists nor formalists have considered, though in ways which Boas at least would have predicted (as in the quote from his introduction to the Handbook of AIL - "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff)). With regard to Aristotle and Cratylus, Pieter Seuren's discussion of their relative contributions in his _Western Linguistics_ seems persuasive and useful. As Plato's ideas go back further, so do Aristotle's. But I think it is good for those of us who believe that "Plato's Problem" is no problem at all should have an alternative 'problem' to propose to focus on the symbiosis between grammar and culture (not just society), in ways that take Boas's quote above seriously (which on the surface is anti-Whorfian). I am not anti-Whorfian, but I do think that that particular tool is less significant in certain cases than Boasian culture-> language interactions. The Plato's Problem I am concerned about is political, and best posed by Popper in the Open Society and its Enemies. But I doubt, once again, that we disagree on that much, aside from the role of teleology in evolution (or historical linguistics). I don't think it plays a role in either. And for the latter, I think that Sarah Grey Thomason has had quite a few interesting things to say. And Juliette Blevins as well in her Evolutionary Phonology. Peace, Dan P.S. If this weren't a public forum I might mention, Tom, that there is some new music on my website. But I won't... From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue May 31 23:38:31 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:38:31 EDT Subject: Evolution Message-ID: In a message dated 5/31/05 5:31:39 PM, tgivon at uoregon.edu writes: << With all due respect, taking evolution, especially of social species, to be a matter of purely accidents (random mutations) is not the most sophisticated approach to evolution,... >> Nevertheless, it is the only defensible model of natural selection and biological evolution. Up until humans are able to vary biological traits by directly manipulating genetic material, the only source of biological variation or diversity is random mutation. Bio-geneticists may accelerate or prune variation, but the basic mechanism remains random mutation. The structure of social animals may select "social traits" instead of solitary ones. But that structure is simply a piece of the selecting environment. The grist for the mill remains random mutation. <> No question here -- although Dawkins and Pinker paint a different picture. But adaptive behavior is most certainly never the initial source of biology diversity. Genes are replicators. If they had their way, we would all still be amoebas. The basic source of variance in biological evolution is always random mutation -- against the conservatism of the gene. Viable adaptive behavior may advance the chance of survival where adaptive morphology would not (i.e., learning might overcome a physical disadvantage.) But that's down the line in the process. The basic source of biological diversity is mutation. What follows -- selection -- is a different story. <> And some of us feel that is precisely what is severely wrong with "evolutionary psychology." Culture does NOT evolve in the same manner as biological species do. Randomness gives way to intentionality. The ruthlessness of biological evolution is a model of enormous waste and mindless expansion of forms. Mayr didn't go far enough. In fact, intentionality and learning are adaptive in a way is that is very different from random mutation and subsequent adaptation or failure. And -- going a step further -- human culture and language -- the ability to store huge amounts of information over generations without storing it in DNA -- broke the continuum just as sexuality (the mixing of two genotypes) broke the singular replication continuum in the passing of genetic information from one generation to the next. There have been revolutions in evolution. "Evolutionary psychology" is just plain using the wrong model. Cultural "evolution" is not Darwinian. It is Lamarckian -- only Lamarck was applying it to the wrong set of data. There are hints that bees and ants can pass on small amounts of learned information from generation to generation. There is definite indication of this among non-human mammals. But the quantitively greater information-load-carrying of human language and culture across generations has created something qualitatively different. Human culture is super-biological. Regards, Steve Long From hopper at cmu.edu Sun May 1 02:45:38 2005 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:45:38 -0400 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: On reversatives: It would be interesting to know something about the discourse contexts in which Kutenai is used. Does it "reverse" a previous assumption/expectation, for example? Is it like English that has been discussed in the literature (including my paper "Hendiadys and Auxiliation in English" in 'Complex Sentences in Grammar & Discourse' ed. Bybee/Noonan Benjamins 2002), as in "they turned round and fired him"? It might be fruitful to extend the search from "morphemes" to include "constructions". Paul Hopper > A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying references > to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical morphemes that > sometimes translate into English as ?back? and sometimes as ?again? (so > that when combining with ?He went?, the resulting meaning might be either > ?He went back? or ?He went again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, > the reversative has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses > containing a morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the > following (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: > > taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. then-obv revers > without-water-obv.subj-indic ?Then there was no more water.? > > An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they were > without water again?, since that implies that they are returning to a > state without water, when the original sentence appears not to have any > such implication. Another Kutenai example: > > qapi-l la lu?-s-i all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic ?All > of them were gone ? > > Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian that > shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any other > information about reversatives, especially any other instances where they > interact with negative morphemes in this way. > > You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). > > Thanks, > > Matthew Dryer > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 From dryer at buffalo.edu Sun May 1 03:04:19 2005 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew Dryer) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:04:19 -0400 Subject: reversative morphemes (fwd) Message-ID: Paul Hopper has asked me to forward this to the list. > Matthew, > > On reversatives: It doesn't seem enough to rely on English translations > like "back" or "again". It would be interesting - in fact essential - to > know something about the surrounding discourse contexts in which Kutenai > is used. Does it "reverse" a previous assumption/expectation, for > example? This would be like English > > > > that has been discussed in the literature (including my paper "Hendiadys > and Auxiliation in English" in the Thompson festschrift 'Complex > Sentences in Grammar & Discourse' ed. Bybee/Noonan Benjamins 2002), as in > "they turned round and fired him". A suggestion: it might be fruitful to > extend the search from "morphemes" to include "constructions". > > Paul > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying references >> to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical morphemes >> that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and sometimes as ?again? >> (so that when combining with ?He went?, the resulting meaning might be >> either ?He went back? or ?He went again?). In some languages, such as >> Kutenai, the reversative has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in >> clauses containing a morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated >> by the following (using to represent the voiceless lateral >> fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. > then-obv revers >> without-water-obv.subj-indic ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they were >> without water again?, since that implies that they are returning to a >> state without water, when the original sentence appears not to have any >> such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i all-prvb > revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic ?All >> of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian that >> shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any other >> information about reversatives, especially any other instances where >> they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer >> >> >> > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Director of Graduate Studies Paul Mellon Distinguished > Professor of the Humanities Department of English College of Humanities > and Social Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA > Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Director of Graduate Studies Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of the Humanities Department of English College of Humanities and Social Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA Tel. 412-683-1109 Fax 412-268-7989 ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- From mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk Mon May 2 08:10:08 2005 From: mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk (Miriam Meyerhoff) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:10:08 +0100 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things like (apologies to German speakers): Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ best, Miriam >A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >references to reversative morphemes in various languages, >grammatical morphemes that sometimes translate into English as >?back? and sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He >went?, the resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He >went again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative >has a use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >(using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: > >taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >?Then there was no more water.? > >An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >were without water again?, since that implies that they are >returning to a state without water, when the original sentence >appears not to have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: > >qapi-l la lu?-s-i >all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >?All of them were gone ? > >Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. > >You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). > >Thanks, > >Matthew Dryer -- Miriam Meyerhoff Reader, Theoretical & Applied Linguistics University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH8 9LL SCOTLAND, UK ph.: +44 131 650-3961 or (direct line) 651-1836 fax: +44 131 650-3962 http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~mhoff From hartmut at ruc.dk Mon May 2 09:11:26 2005 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:11:26 +0200 Subject: reversative morphemes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk wrote: > As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German > that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things > like (apologies to German speakers): > > Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet > Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen > > where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in > temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than > it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might > be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ > > best, Miriam I didn't check Arnim's paper yet, but the second sentence (Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen) makes perfect sense to me. The first (Die T?r wurde wieder ge?ffnet) I find slightly problematic, since the intended second reading (opening the door further) presupposes an atelic reading of ?ffnen, which I don't get without any further (e.g. adverbial) support. Die T?r wurde wieder etwas ge?ffnet 'The door was opened a bit again' is clearly ambiguous to me, though. Maybe that's Arnim's original example. Very close til Kutenai la is Danish tilbage 'back', cf. Der var ingen kaffe tilbage DUMMY be.PAST no coffee back 'There was no coffee left' In the '90s, I gave a number of papers on 'Reversal, Repair and Repetition' at some of the EUROTYP conferences, but the material (including a lot of data from languages of the EUROTYP sample) has never been published. What fascinated me at that time, was the fact that adverbs and affixes meaning 'again' and 'back' are either ambiguous (like Italian, French, English (etc.) re-, German wieder, Danish igen) or 'share' the work for expressing these R-meanings. Hartmut Haberland > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >> references to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical >> morphemes that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and >> sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He went?, the >> resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He went >> again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative has a >> use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >> morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >> (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >> then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >> ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >> were without water again?, since that implies that they are returning >> to a state without water, when the original sentence appears not to >> have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i >> all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >> ?All of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >> that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >> other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >> where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer > > > From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Mon May 2 09:32:14 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:32:14 +0400 Subject: reversative morphemes Message-ID: I think "encore" in French, "encara" in Catalan and probably cognates in Italian, Spanish etc can have a related meaning (related to "wieder", anyway), e.g. in French "encore une fois" = "once again", "encore mieux" = still better (I think), and "pas encore" (not yet). :-D >>> Hartmut Haberland 02-May-05 1:11:26 PM >>> mhoff at ling.ed.ac.uk wrote: > As I recall, Arnim von Stechow had a discussion of 'wieder' in German > that might be relevant. I think the kinds of examples included things > like (apologies to German speakers): > > Die Tuer wuerde wieder geoeffnet > Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen > > where 'wieder' may presuppose an earlier door opening or rise in > temperature, but also may mean 'opened yet further'/'rose higher than > it was'. Von Stechow has a paper from 1996 on his web page that might > be useful. http://vivaldi.sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de/~arnim10/Aufsaetze/ > > best, Miriam I didn't check Arnim's paper yet, but the second sentence (Die Temperatur ist wieder angestiegen) makes perfect sense to me. The first (Die T?r wurde wieder ge?ffnet) I find slightly problematic, since the intended second reading (opening the door further) presupposes an atelic reading of ?ffnen, which I don't get without any further (e.g. adverbial) support. Die T?r wurde wieder etwas ge?ffnet 'The door was opened a bit again' is clearly ambiguous to me, though. Maybe that's Arnim's original example. Very close til Kutenai la is Danish tilbage 'back', cf. Der var ingen kaffe tilbage DUMMY be.PAST no coffee back 'There was no coffee left' In the '90s, I gave a number of papers on 'Reversal, Repair and Repetition' at some of the EUROTYP conferences, but the material (including a lot of data from languages of the EUROTYP sample) has never been published. What fascinated me at that time, was the fact that adverbs and affixes meaning 'again' and 'back' are either ambiguous (like Italian, French, English (etc.) re-, German wieder, Danish igen) or 'share' the work for expressing these R-meanings. Hartmut Haberland > >> A student of mine, Scott Paauw, is interested in identifying >> references to reversative morphemes in various languages, grammatical >> morphemes that sometimes translate into English as ?back? and >> sometimes as ?again? (so that when combining with ?He went?, the >> resulting meaning might be either ?He went back? or ?He went >> again?). In some languages, such as Kutenai, the reversative has a >> use that goes beyond this, that occurs in clauses containing a >> morpheme that is semantically negative, illustrated by the following >> (using to represent the voiceless lateral fricative: >> >> taxa-s la lit-uk-s-i. >> then-obv revers without-water-obv.subj-indic >> ?Then there was no more water.? >> >> An English translation with ?again? doesn?t work, like ?Then they >> were without water again?, since that implies that they are returning >> to a state without water, when the original sentence appears not to >> have any such implication. Another Kutenai example: >> >> qapi-l la lu?-s-i >> all-prvb revers not.exist-obv.subj-indic >> ?All of them were gone ? >> >> Scott tells me that there is a reversative morpheme in Indonesian >> that shares this property with Kutenai. So he is interested in any >> other information about reversatives, especially any other instances >> where they interact with negative morphemes in this way. >> >> You can reply either to me or to Scott (shpaauw at buffalo.edu). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Matthew Dryer > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed May 4 21:57:57 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 14:57:57 -0700 Subject: A memorial of Ernst Mayr Message-ID: Dear funk-people, I thought it would be of interest to functionally-inclined linguists to take a look at the following "appreciation" of the life and work of a recently-departed eminent evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr. It is a very thoughtful piece, in spite of the few lapses into PC and the occasional Marxist slip. Mayr's grand Darwinian themes resonate well in linguistics: adaptive selection (functionalism), diversity and its crucial role in change (the Labovian theme of variation-and-diachrony), emergence (non-mechanistic change), the interplay between field-work and theory, and between qualitative (field) and quantitative (lab) methodology; and, above all perhaps, the dynamic-historical (diachronic) theoretical understanding of extant forms (synchronic typology). TG ******************************* Ernst Mayr, arguably the preeminent biologist of the twentieth century, died on February 3, succumbing after a short illness at the age of 100. Mayr was the last survivor of a generation of renowned natural scientists that included the likes of Julian Huxley, George Gaylord Simpson, Theodocious Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, G.L. Stebbins and Hermann Muller, all of whom worked to establish Darwinian evolution as the cornerstone theory of biology. Mayr's contributions to the science of biology, during the course of his remarkable life, are manifold. He will be remembered primarily for his role in the elaboration of what has become known as the Synthetic Theory of Evolution?the syntheses of the Darwinian ideas of evolution through natural selection and the common descent of all living organisms from extinct forms, with the science of genetics?from the groundbreaking work of Gregor Mendel in the nineteenth century to the revealing of the DNA double helix by Rosalind Franklin, James Watson and Francis Crick in the early 1950s. In addition, Mayr is chiefly credited with formulating the "biological species concept," the notion that species are not simply defined by a static compilation of common physical characteristics, but are dynamic populations of interbreeding organisms interacting with other species in an environment while remaining reproductively isolated, that is, they are prevented either geographically or behaviorally from breeding with other closely related groups. The biological species concept both incorporated and enriched Darwin's revolutionary ideas regarding the introduction of species and their geographical distribution. Darwin had sought causal explanations(ability of a species to disperse, e.g.) for the appearance of closely related species in unexpected locations, striking a blow against the creationist notion that species are found where they were originally "created." The subsequent work of Mayr with birds, and that of G.G. Simpson with mammals, has greatly enhanced our understanding of the geographical distribution of species. Mayr was a tireless proponent of "population thinking," a profound idea that plumbs the depths of the contradictions inherent in concepts such as "species" and "population." He emphasized that while the characteristics of populations are shaped and altered by natural selection, each individual member of that population is unique. Early on, Mayr rejected "essentialism," an idealist conception that posited the existence of "typical" individuals within any given population, a viewpoint that, with the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of inheritance at the turn of the last century, made a considerable comeback at the expense of Darwinism. Mayr pointed out that the racialist notions that were widely held during that period were thoroughly essentialist, in that they accepted as given the existence of "average" or typical racial types. Mayr, on the other hand, favored the viewpoint that focused on the fact that no two individuals making up a species (or a "race" for that matter) are alike. For Mayr, as for Darwin, it was the uniqueness of every member of a population that served as the fuel for natural selection, providing the impetus for the evolution of entirely new types of organisms. Once the genetic mechanism for the production of continuous diversity was understood, the profundity of Darwin's original ideas were reestablished and enriched in the form of the new synthesis. Ernst Mayr was born in Germany, in the town of Kempten, Bavaria in 1904. The offspring of a long line of doctors, Mayr chose instead to concentrate his considerable intellectual abilities in the field of zoology, with a special interest in ornithology. At that time, Germany was still a major center of evolutionary biology, a tradition that owed to the work during the latter half of the nineteenth century of such notables as Ernst Haeckel and August Weismann. Haeckel, who had made major contributions in zoology, as well as in originating some of the familiar terms in biology (ecology, e.g.), is chiefly remembered for advancing his famous "Biogenetic Law," which held that the developing embryo of an organism (ontogeny) was a recapitulation of the evolutionary history of that organism (phylogeny). Weismann was a pioneer in the science of genetics, who, among his major accomplishments, established the role of sex in promoting variation within a species, and determined that gametes (sex cells) have the haploid number (half the normal or diploid number) of chromosomes. Mayr's attraction to birds brought him in contact with Erwin Stresemann, who was the curator of birds at the University of Berlin Museum of Natural History. Stresemann became his PhD advisor, and Mayr attained this advanced degree at the age of 21. Due to his astonishing longevity, as well as his European origin, Mayr was in certain essential respects a living link between nineteenth and twentieth century biology, in that while he was certainly comfortable with the quantitative aspects of the biological sciences devoted to genetics and molecular biology, he held qualitative methodologies, the use of observation and comparison to gain new insights, in high regard. It is not surprising, then, that following his studies in Berlin, Mayr, like countless naturalists before him, embarked on an expedition of discovery to the Solomon Islands and New Guinea, to collect specimens for Lord Rothschild's museum at Tring, Hertfordshire, in England, and for the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In 1931, Mayr emigrated to New York, and took a job at the museum as a curator of birds, in particular of the 280,000 bird specimens of the Rothschild collection that were donated to the museum shortly after Mayr's arrival. In an interview that marked his 100th birthday, Mayr declared: "I was very anti-Nazi, so there was no way I could return [to Germany]" (2004). In 1953, Mayr left the museum to take a position as the Alexander Agassiz professor of zoology at Harvard. Mayr remained at Harvard for the rest of his life, and was active until his final illness. Mayr was the author or co-author of more than 20 books?among them Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), Animal Species and Evolution (1963), One Long Argument: Population, Species and Evolution, What Evolution Is (2001), his seminal work, The Growth of Biological Thought (1982) and Toward a New Philosophy of Biology(1988). His final work, titled What Makes Biology Unique, was published shortly after his 100th birthday. He also founded the journal Evolution in 1947, and was a contributor to more than 600 scientific papers. Mayr's spouse of 55 years, Margarete (Gretel) Simon, died in 1990. If one were to characterize the trajectory of Mayr's development as a scientist, it would be that he was primarily a naturalist turned theoretician. He was not a popularizer in the manner of his Harvard ,colleague, the late Stephen Jay Gould, but his theoretical acumen (in this writer's opinion) ran deeper. In fact, Mayr was critical of the late paleontologist's punctuated equilibrium hypothesis as an explanation of the evolutionary process for its overemphasis on the role of saltation (leaps). Mayr didn't completely reject Gould's theory, but explained that it did not contradict Darwinian gradualism, because such sudden bursts of evolutionary development are populational phenomena, that is, they occur at the species level. Thus, a sudden evolutionary spurt is always subsumed within the overall processes of evolution, which are for the most part gradual. Mayr took pains to point out that these accelerated evolutionary events appear saltational only when compared with the vastness of the geological time scale. Various theories of saltation as descriptors of the "sudden" appearance of new types of organisms have come and gone over the centuries, having their roots in the catastrophism (multiple creations) of the renowned comparative anatomist Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), who tried to explain the existence of extinct animals (dinosaurs, e.g.), and fit them into some kind of schema compatible with Biblical creation. Even later saltationist theories for the evolution of species or whole groups of organisms could be interpreted as implying a kind of special creation, opening the door to a religious interpretation of the complexities of the natural world. Mayr was certainly cognizant of this danger as his well-known discourse on the nature of chance and>>selection, what he termed the "adaptationist dilemma," attests. In his book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology (1988), Mayr is critical of Gould and Richard Lewontin for their attack on the notion that the development of adaptations as a result of natural selection is anything but the result of stochastic (chance) processes, therefore rendering the term adaptation obsolete, and casting a pall over natural selection, the foundation concept of Darwinism. Gould went so far as to call the notion of a process of adaptation a "Panglossian paradigm" (after Voltaire's character in Candide), a futile search for perfection in the evolutionary process. Mayr's reply is a clinic on the dialectical approach to a complex and seemingly contradictory process. He wrote: "When asked whether or not the adaptationist program is a legitimate scientific approach, one must realize that the method of evolutionary biology is in some ways quite different from that of the physical sciences. Although evolutionary phenomena are subject to universal laws, as are most phenomena in the physical sciences, the explanation of a particular evolutionary phenomenon can be given only as a `historical narrative.' Consequently, when one attempts to explain the features of something that is the product of evolution, one must attempt to reconstruct the evolutionary history of this feature." He continued by explaining that when one rejects all manner of teleological explanations for the adaptation of species to their changing environments one is left with two unified, but seemingly contradictory propositions?chance and selection forces. "The identification of these two factors as the principal causes of evolutionary change by no means completed the task for the evolutionist. As is the case with most scientific problems, this initial solution represented only the first orientation. For completion it requires a second stage, a fine-grained analysis of these two factors: What are the respective roles of chance >>>and or natural selection, and how can this be analyzed?" (1988) Mayr's life-long interest in the fundamental questions that continue to animate the biological sciences, combined with his exceptional longevity as a working and thinking scientist, engendered in him a profound appreciation of its history. In particular, he stressed the importance of a study of the history of scientific concepts (natural selection, e.g.). He wrote: "Preoccupation with this sort of conceptual history of science is sometimes belittled as a hobby of retired scientists. Such an attitude ignores the manifold contributions which this branch of scholarship makes" (1982). He stated further: "One can take almost any advance, either in evolutionary biology or in systematics, and show that it did not depend as much on discoveries as on the introduction of new concepts.... Those are not far wrong who insist that the progress of science consists principally in the progress of scientific concepts" (1982). Mayr frequently commented on what he perceived to be the sharp dichotomy between experimental and theoretical science, and the growing inclination toward reductionism in biology. He would bristle against the accusation, often made by physicists and philosophers, that biology was not "hard" science. An interesting byproduct of this common misconception, one that Mayr noted in a recent interview, was that there continues to be no Nobel Prize awarded in biology. Mayr championed the notion that the governing concepts of the science of biology were not simply reducible to mathematical formulae and the timeless laws of physics. By this he did not mean that biological processes existed outside the realm of the laws of chemistry and physics, or that many aspects of the living world did not lend themselves to quantification, but that living processes could not be entirely explained or even understood from those standpoints. Mayr explained that in previous centuries natural scientists, under pressure to be able to draw conclusions from their working hypotheses that were reducible to mathematical formulae and the laws of physics, either succumbed to that pressure and presented purely mechanical explanations for living processes, or sought vitalist (those who claim that the property of being alive is sparked by an outside force) and even religious explanations for the processes being studied. In referring to the higher levels of complexity of living systems, Mayr stressed their duality, that is, each organism is at once an expression of its genotype, the historically developed genetic code for the synthesis of proteins, and its phenotype, the unique physical appearance of each individual of a species; the product of the complex interplay of physiological, embryological and ecological processes. He placed particular emphasis on two properties unique to living systems, teleonomy (goal-directed processes) and "emergentism," the tendency for the evolution of "emergent properties," a notion that reaches beyond the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Regarding the latter, he wrote in The Growth of Biological Thought: "Systems almost always have the peculiarity that the characteristics of the whole cannot (not even in theory) be deduced from the most complete knowledge of the components, taken separately or in other partial combinations. This appearance of new characteristics in wholes has been designated as emergence" (1982). As a prime example, he cited the work to uncover the importance of DNA for the science of genetics. "The discovery of the double helix of DNA and of its code was a breakthrough of the first order.... There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years! At the same time, this purely materialistic explanation elucidates many of the phenomena which the vitalists had claimed could not be explained chemically or physically. To be sure, it is still a physicalist explanation, but one infinitely more sophisticated than the gross mechanistic explanations of earlier centuries" (1982). An emergent property, then, is something unanticipated?the evolution of new behaviors, or new adaptations (lungs, language, abstract thought, e.g.), that has unforeseen implications that propel a species or a group of organisms in an entirely new direction. It should be noted that Mayr considered the concept of emergentism to be philosophically "entirely materialistic." Not surprisingly, Mayr was a lifelong atheist and a staunch opponent of the ongoing attack on evolution by the motley assemblage of religious zealots, creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. In 1991, he commented in an interview in the Harvard Gazette: "I'm an old-time fighter for Darwinism. I say, `Please tell me what's wrong with Darwinism. I can't see anything wrong with Darwinism." For Mayr, Darwin's contribution to mankind's knowledge of the natural world was revolutionary. During an interview on his 93rd birthday, Mayr commented that one of "Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, `Where is God in your theory?' And Laplace answered, `I don't need that hypothesis.' "Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created asecular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal" (2005). In the introduction to his The Growth of Biological Thought, Mayr wrote: "A well-known Soviet theoretician of Marxism once referred to my writings as `pure dialectical materialism.' I am not a Marxist and I do not know the latest definition of dialectical materialism, but I do admit that I share some of Engel's anti-reductionist views, as stated in his Anti-Duhring, and that I am greatly attracted to Hegel's scheme of thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis." For the most part, Mayr can be classified as a consistent materialist. However, his outlook stops short of embracing historical materialism, falling victim to the widely promulgated viewpoint that history consists of a series of narratives, rather than the workings of historical laws. Mayr was one of the outstanding figures of twentieth century science? brilliant and passionate, with an encyclopedic knowledge of science, history and philosophy. His contributions to an understanding of the big questions in biology, not to mention those animating science in general, have been enormous. One can only anticipate that others, in the face of the continuing assault on the scientific world outlook, will take up the defense and further illumination of the fundamental theoretical conquests of biology with equal vigor and erudition. Steven A. Peterson Director, School of Public Affairs Penn State Capital College 777 West Harrisburg Pike Middletown, PA 17057 From langconf at acs.bu.edu Thu May 5 23:25:09 2005 From: langconf at acs.bu.edu (BUCLD) Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:25:09 -0400 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: Jeff Elman (University of California at San Diego), LouAnn Gerken (University of Arizona) and Mark Johnson (Brown University) "Statistical Learning in Language Development: What is it, What is its Potential, and What are its Limitations?" *********************************** 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 http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 E-mail: *********************************** From Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu Mon May 9 17:30:34 2005 From: Zygmunt.Frajzyngier at Colorado.Edu (Zygmunt Frajzyngier) Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 11:30:34 -0600 Subject: Book notice Message-ID: The following has been recently published by Koeppe (Cologne) Grammatical and Semantic Relations in Hausa The Categories ?Point of View?, ?Goal? and ?Affected Object? Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Mohammed Munkaila Series: Grammatische Analysen afrikanischer Sprachen volume 24 2004 10 pp. Roman, 92 pp., 1 table, 2 diagrams ??19.80 The present study examines a distinct language structure built around categories that have been ignored until recently by linguistic theories. One of these is the category ?point of view? of the subject. The other category is ?goal?, coding the presence of the goal of the predicate. This study demonstrates that the two categories play a fundamental role in the grammar of Hausa, a West Chadic language. They determine the way arguments are coded, the form of the predicate, the semantic interpretation of the clause, and the interpretation of the semantic roles of the noun phrases occurring in the clause. The presence of the first categories has created the motivation of yet another catogory, the coding of the presence of the affected object. This study demonstrates that, in some languages the coding of the point of view takes precedence of the coding of grammatical or semantic relations. The implication of this study is that structures of various languages may be organized around different functional domains having different hierarchical structures. Zygmunt Frajzyngier Dept. of Linguistics Box 295 University of Colorado Boulder CO 80309 USA Phone: 303-492-6959 Fax: 303-492-4416 From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 13:49:20 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:49:20 +0200 Subject: four PhD positions in 'Metaphor in discourse' Message-ID: Dear all, please find enclosed an advertisement for four PhD position at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, in the research program 'Metaphor in discourse.' Best wishes, Gerard Steen. From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 13:53:48 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 15:53:48 +0200 Subject: advertisement in main message Message-ID: 4 PHD POSITIONS IN METAPHOR AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS F/M FOR 32 HOURS A WEEK (NOT NEGOTIABLE) Vacancynumber 1.2005.00089 The Faculty of Arts at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is inviting applications for four PhD positions, beginning 1 September 2005, in the vici-programme "Metaphor in discourse: linguistic forms, conceptual structures, cognitive representations.? The five-year research programme, awarded to Gerard Steen by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), addresses the role of metaphor in discourse by examining its distribution, structure, function, and effect in four varieties of English. The hypothesis is that distinct linguistic forms and conceptual structures of metaphor display distributions and functions of their own, and that these interact with the domains of discourse in which language users employ them. The programme aims at describing and explaining these interactions on the basis of detailed corpus research on four samples from the British National Corpus, and at testing the cognitive effects of some of these interactions in their mental representation by language users. Metaphor in discourse will be modelled by means of a discourse-analytical elaboration of the cognitive-linguistic approach to metaphor as a cross-domain mapping. Research involves corpus analysis of samples from the British National Corpus and psycholinguistic experiments on various aspects of metaphor processing. The four PhD projects constitute the core of the programme. Each of the projects will concentrate on the use of metaphor in one specific language variety: conversation, news texts, academic texts, and fiction. All projects will be organized by the same?five-year?timetable, and the research will be characterized by a great deal of synchronized team work. During the first year, all researchers will identify metaphors in samples from all four language varieties, after which each researcher will concentrate on one language variety for the rest of the programme. Each of the four PhD projects will involve a research training and aims at a dissertation within five years. As part of their training, PhD students will take courses offered by the National Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT). They will present their work at annual expert meetings and participate in international conferences. Candidates will also be requested to make a small contribution to the teaching programme of the Department of English Language and Culture at the Vrije Universiteit. Candidates should have native-speaker or near-native speaker command of (British) English. They should have an excellent MA thesis in English language and linguistics, or be able to show that such a thesis will be completed by August 31. Expertise in metaphor, discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, and/or corpus linguistics will be regarded as an advantage. Employer Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Arts The vici-programme is part of one of the four research programmes of the Institute of Language, Culture, and History of the Faculty of Arts of the Vrije Universiteit, ?The architecture of the human language faculty?. This research programme investigates the modular structure of human language and cognition, with participation from formal, functional, and cognitive grammarians, and psycholinguists as well as discourse analysts. The vici-programme is also connected to the recently founded Ster research programme of the Vrije Universiteit on ?Discourse, cognition, and communication,? for which two further PhD research positions are advertised independently. This is an interdisciplinary research programme between the faculties of Arts, Psychology, and Social Science, with the Faculty of Arts concentrating on ?The conversationalization of public discourse? in the usage of Dutch. Conditions of employment For all projects we offer a part-time (80%) five-year PhD position with gross monthly salary starting at ? 1,867,- in the first year to ? 2,394,- in the fifth year of appointment (salary based on a full-time-contract). Appointment will initially be for one year, to be extended with a maximum of four more years upon positive evaluation. We also offer a pension scheme, a health insurance allowance and flexible employment conditions. Conditions are based on the Collective Employment Agreement of the Dutch Universities and are supplemented with a holiday allowance of 8% per year. Additional Information A full description of the complete programme and additional information about the vacancy can be obtained from dr. G.J. Steen, phone 31-20-598 6445, e-mail address: Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Application Your letter of application will have to be in by Monday 30 May. Please send your application to Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v. dr. G.J. Steen, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam or by e-mail to Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Applications (by regular mail or by e-mail) should include a curriculum vitae and the names and addresses of two referees. An MA thesis and a list of courses plus results should also be included. E-mail applications should be sent in pdf format and should specify your name and vacancy number in the message as well as in the topic, include a list of attachments in the message, and specify your name in every attachment. Interviews are planned between 15 and 20 June 2005. When applying for this job always mention the vacancy number: 1.200500089. From gj.steen at let.vu.nl Tue May 10 14:14:22 2005 From: gj.steen at let.vu.nl (G.J. Steen) Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 16:14:22 +0200 Subject: two PhD positions in Dutch discourse analysis Message-ID: 2 PROMOVENDI-POSITIES IN TEKST, COGNITIE EN COMMUNICATIE V/M VOOR 32 UUR PER WEEK (NIET ONDERHANDELBAAR) Vacaturenummer 1.2005.00083 De Faculteit der Letteren van de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam zoekt 2 promovendi, vanaf 1 september 2005, voor de duur van vijf jaar, voor het Letterendeel van het interdisciplinaire ster-programma ?Mechanismen van publieksbe?nvloeding.? In dit ster-programma werken onderzoekers samen uit de Faculteit der Letteren, de Faculteit voor Psychologie en Pedagogiek, en de Faculteit der Sociale Wetenschappen om onderzoek te doen op het snijvlak van tekst, cognitie en communicatie. In totaal bestaat het ster-programma uit zes promovendus en postdoc projecten, waarvan twee in de Letterenfaculteit. In het Letterendeel, ?Conversationalisatie van publieke communicatie,? wordt de hypothese onderzocht dat publieke communicatie gebruik maakt van retorische middelen uit natuurlijke conversaties om het publiek sterker te be?nvloeden. Het onderzoeksprogramma bestaat uit twee complementaire projecten die elk het gebruik van een aantal andere talige middelen in conversaties en nieuwsteksten met elkaar vergelijken. Beide projecten omvatten corpusonderzoek en experimenteel psycholingu?stisch onderzoek. Beide projecten worden volgens hetzelfde vijfjarenplan uitgevoerd. Project 1 Metaforiek in publieke communicatie In het eerste project wordt het gebruik van metaforiek in journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties vergeleken. Op basis van deze vergelijking worden karakteristieke verschillen tussen journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties ge?nventariseerd. Door manipulatie van het gebruik van metaforiek in journalistieke teksten wordt vervolgens in de laatste fase van het project onderzocht wat de invloed is van conversationalisatie van teksten op begrip van en waardering voor die teksten. In de eerste fase, corpusanalyse (jaar 1-3), wordt in twee deelcorpora (journalistieke teksten, conversaties) metaforiek geanalyseerd. In de tweede fase (jaar 4) vindt receptieonderzoek bij participanten van verschillende leeftijdsgroepen plaats. Het laatste jaar (jaar 5) van het project wordt besteed aan verslaglegging in de vorm van een proefschrift. Project 2 Subjectivering in publieke communicatie In het tweede project worden subjectiveringsverschijnselen in journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties vergeleken. Op basis van deze vergelijking worden karakteristieke verschillen tussen journalistieke teksten en spontane conversaties ge?nventariseerd. Door manipulatie van journalistieke teksten wordt vervolgens in de laatste fase van het project onderzocht wat de invloed is van de subjectivering van journalistieke teksten op begrip van en waardering voor die teksten. In de eerste fase, corpusanalyse (jaar 1-3), worden in twee deelcorpora (journalistieke teksten, conversaties) subjectiviteitskenmerken geanalyseerd, deels geautomatiseerd. In de tweede fase (jaar 4) vindt receptieonderzoek bij participanten van verschillende leeftijdsgroepen plaats. Het laatste jaar (jaar 5) van het project wordt besteed aan verslaglegging in de vorm van een proefschrift. Taken Beide promovendi-projecten behelzen een onderzoekstraining en monden uit in een dissertatie in vijf jaar. Als deel van hun training volgen de promovendi cursussen in de Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (LOT). Ook presenteren de promovendi hun resultaten in een aantal workshops van het ster-programman en nemen zijn deel aan internationale conferenties. Van de promovendi wordt tevens een kleine bijdrage verwacht aan het onderwijsprogramma van de afdelingen Taal en Communicatie en Moderne Taal en Cultuur van de Faculteit der Letteren. Functie-eisen Van kandidaten wordt een uitstekende MA scriptie in Taal en Communicatie of een gerelateerd gebied gevraagd, of zij moeten kunnen aantonen dat zijn een dergelijke scriptie hebben afgerond per 31 augustus 2005 (beide projecten starten op 1 september). Ervaring met tekstwetenschap, cognitieve lingu?stiek, of corpuslingu?stiek strekt tot aanbeveling. Faculteit der Letteren, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Het letterendeel van het ster-programma is ingebed in een van de vier onderzoekszwaartepunten van het Instituut voor Taal, Cultuur, en Geschiedenis van de Letterenfaculteit van de Vrije Universiteit, ?The architecture of the human language faculty,? waarin taalkundigen, tekstwetenschappers, en psycholingu?sten met elkaar samenwerken om de modulaire structuur van taal en taalgebruik te onderzoeken. Het letterendeel van het ster-programma is tevens nauw verbonden met het vici-programma ?Metaphor in discourse: linguistic forms, conceptual structures, cognitive representations,? onder leiding van Gerard Steen, waarvoor elders vier promovendi worden geworven. Bijzonderheden Voor beide projecten is de mogelijkheid voor een totale duur van het tijdelijke dienstverband van 5 jaar op basis van een 0,8 dienstverband. Op de website van de Vrije Universiteit kunt u onze verdere arbeidsvoorwaarden uitgebreid terugvinden (www.vu.nl/vacatures). Salaris Het salaris voor deze functie bedraagt ? 1.867,- in het eerste jaar tot ? 2.394,- in het vijfde jaar van het dienstverband bij een volledige werktijd Het dienstverband wordt aangegaan voor een periode van 12 maanden. Bij gebleken geschiktheid volgt een verlenging met 4 jaar. Informatie Een beschrijving van het programma en verdere informatie over de projecten kan worden ingewonnen bij: Project 1 Dr. Gerard Steen, afdeling Moderne Talen en Culturen, tel. (020)-5986445, of e-mail: Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Project 2 Prof.dr. Wilbert Spooren, afdeling Taal en Communicatie, tel.(020)-5986572, of e-mail: W.Spooren at let.vu.nl. Sollicitatie Sollicitaties (per reguliere post of per e-mail) kunnen, onder vermelding van het vacaturenummer op brief en envelop of in de e-mail worden ingestuurd tot maandag 30 mei 2005 naar: Project 1 Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v., dr. G.J. Steen, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam of per e-mail aan Gj.Steen at let.vu.nl. Project 2 Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren, t.a.v., prof. dr. W. Spooren, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam of per e-mail aan W.Spooren at let.vu.nl. Sollicitaties dienen vergezeld te gaan van een curriculum vitae en de namen en adressen van twee referenten. Een MA scriptie en een cijferlijst dienen ook te worden ingesloten. De e-mail sollicitaties moeten in pdf-formaat worden gestuurd. Naam en vacaturenummer moeten in de boodschap en in de onderwerpbalk worden vermeld. Een lijst attachments moet in de boodschap worden bijgesloten, met op elk attachment de naam van de sollicitant. Sollicitatiegesprekken staan gepland voor de week van 15 t/m 20 juni. From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Wed May 11 04:48:52 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:48:52 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of verbs with a similar distinction? :-D From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed May 11 05:53:16 2005 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 08:53:16 +0300 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to `atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is `stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' (atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and (telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish (saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. `sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' There are many words like this. Best wishes, John Quoting David Palfreyman : > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? > > :-D > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From oesten at ling.su.se Wed May 11 11:22:10 2005 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:22:10 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <1115790796.42819dccae8be@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Telicity is not quite the whole story. Notice that in the example "learn" vs. "study", it is the presence or absence of an endpoint that makes the difference (in somewhat simplified terms...) But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. - ?sten Dahl > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > john at research.haifa.ac.il > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 07:53 > To: David Palfreyman > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > David, > The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to > `atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is > `stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as > inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's > book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew > speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' > (atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard > Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and > (telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish > (saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain > sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is > the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. > `sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these > are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that > non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' > There are many words like this. > Best wishes, > John > > > > Quoting David Palfreyman : > > > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running > late. He > > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on > > doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, > > wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but > > how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there > other pairs > > of verbs with a similar distinction? > > > > :-D > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > From Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl Wed May 11 12:11:05 2005 From: Nick.Enfield at mpi.nl (Nick Enfield) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:11:05 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511112213.BF61337E7F@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: One reading is "be in state X"; the other is "do an action which results in being in state X". For a similar distinction, consider verbs of posture: for example, in various languages, 'sit' may mean to undergo a change of state resulting in being in a sitting posture (i.e. 'sit down') or simply to be in sitting posture. See John Newman's 2002 volume "The linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying" (John Benjamins), e.g. chapters 2 and 3. Nick ?sten Dahl wrote: > Telicity is not quite the whole story. Notice that in the example "learn" > vs. "study", it is the presence or absence of an endpoint that makes the > difference (in somewhat simplified terms...) But "put on" and "wear" differ > in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state > that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said > to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is > not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. > > - ?sten Dahl > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of >>john at research.haifa.ac.il >>Sent: den 11 maj 2005 07:53 >>To: David Palfreyman >>Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" >> >>David, >>The relevant category is called `telic' (as opposed to >>`atelic', or some people might want to say that `wear' is >>`stative'). It means an action which is conceptualized as >>inherently having an endpoint (e.g. put on). See Comrie's >>book `Aspect', for example. A similar pair which Hebrew >>speakers have problems with is `learn' (telic) vs. `study' >>(atelic), which are both `lamad' in Hebrew. I have heard >>Spanish speakers get confused between (atelic) `look for' and >>(telic) `get', because they can both be `buscar' in Spanish >>(saying e.g. `Look for the cat!' when the cat is in plain >>sight; what they mean is `get the cat'). A similar problem is >>the distinction between `go to/fall asleep' (punctual) vs. >>`sleep' (atelic or perhaps stative); in many languages these >>are morphologically related forms of the same verb so that >>non-native speakers will say e.g. `I slept at 11 o'clock last night.' >>There are many words like this. >>Best wishes, >>John >> >> >> >>Quoting David Palfreyman : >> >> >>>My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native >>>English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running >> >>late. He >> >>>indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on >>>doing her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, >>>wear that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". >>> >>>Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but >>>how would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there >> >>other pairs >> >>>of verbs with a similar distinction? >>> >>>:-D >>> >> >> >> >> >>-------------------------------------------------------------- >>---------- >>This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>University >> > > > -- N. J. Enfield Language & Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PB 310, 6500 AH, Nijmegen, The Netherlands From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 14:04:19 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:04:19 EDT Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing are future events. In English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" Steve Long From oesten at ling.su.se Wed May 11 14:15:33 2005 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:15:33 +0200 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <6b.450fe44d.2fb36ae3@aol.com> Message-ID: What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a difference. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". - ?sten Dahl > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > Salinas17 at aol.com > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 16:04 > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" > denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot > simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". > Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or > ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not > quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> > > In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be > synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's > command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage > described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the > dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing > are future events. In > English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey > the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, > 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" > > Steve Long > From sidi at ufpa.br Wed May 11 15:13:37 2005 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidi Facundes) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:13:37 -0300 Subject: International Symposium on Historical Linguistics in South America Message-ID: Sorry for crosspostings. International Symposium on Historical Linguistics in South America Bel?m, Par?, Brazil, August 27 - September 02, 2005 Museu Paraense Em?lio Goeldi and Universidade Federal do Par? History and goals What is the current state of knowledge of the historical development of indigenous languages of South America? What can this knowledge teach us about the (pre)history of the indigenous people? What do we know about the relationships involving the genetic groups and their internal classification? What are the typological properties that can be associated with the indigenous languages of South America and how did their evolution or acquisition take place? Which properties are due to influence by contact among languages (genetically related or not) and not to transmission from a mother tongue? Which inferences can be made about culture, proto-culture and population migration on the basis of linguistic data? Looking for answers to these questions, a number of linguists have met at an international workshop called "Exploring the Linguistic Past: Historical Linguistics in South America", in 2003 e 2004, in Leiden (Netherlands) and Eugene (USA), respectively. This series of workshops is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), with local support from the host Institutions. Some of the issues discussed include: the Tu-Ka-J? hypothesis (possible genetic relationship among the Tup?, Kar?b and J? groups); nasal evolution and spreading; possible areal phenomena in Northwest Amazon; the results from the Tup?-Comparative project, with new information on the internal classification of this group. This year the workshop will take the form of the INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS OF SOUTH AMERICA. The goals are: (1) Exchange information among researchers working on linguistic history and pre history in South America, (2) stimulate the dialogue among historical linguistics, anthropology, archeology and genetics so that specialists from these fields can gain the perspective from other sciences, (3) publicize the results reached through the previous workshops, and (4) stimulate interest in research on the historical development of indigenous languages of South America. The symposium will bring together specialists in diachronic linguistics, anthropology, archeology, and human biology, as well as specialists (including graduate students) working on descriptions of indigenous languages of South America, especially those whose work has comparative-historical significance. In this way, the symposium will serve as medium for sharing and further development of the results from the previous workshops, as well as sharing the results produced by other groups working on historical-comparative research on South America from the point of view of linguistics and related disciplines. Organizing committee Dra. Ana Vilacy Gal?cio (MPEG) Dra. Carmen L?cia Reis Rodrigues (UFPA) Dr. Denny Moore (MPEG) Dra. Mar?lia de Nazar? de Oliveira Ferreira (UFPA) Dr. Sidney da Silva Facundes (UFPA) Paper Submission Papers dealing with or relevant to diachronic linguistics (genetic relationships between languages, reconstruction using the comparative method, internal reconstruction, diachronic syntax, inferences about prehistory, evolution of typological characteristics, areal linguistics, effects of language contact, and other relevant themes) are preferred. Abstract Submission Instructions Electronic submission: Abstracts will be submitted through email to: silhas at ufpa.br or silhas at museu-goeldi.br Abstracts will be accepted between May 13 and June 30, 2005. Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform using the form available at the conference website: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract. At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster or a paper. Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation a maximum of 01 paper per participant as single author plus 01 as co-author. Auditors will also be accepted. Abstract Selection Each abstract is blind reviewed by reviewers from a panel of international scholars. Abstracts will accepted in Portuguese, English, Spanish or French. Further information about the review process is available at: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas or http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas. Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt from reviewers. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in July 30, by e-mail. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late July 2005. Publication of papers Full versions of the papers given at the symposium can be submitted for publication (at a date to be announced) to be reviewed by ad hoc referees and, if selected, will appear in an international publication. Poster presentations will be published in electronic version only. Financial support The symposium is funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), with local support from the hosting Institutions. The organization committee is searching for means to reduce the costs of the stay in Bel?m, indicating cheaper lodging or crash space for some of the participants. For more information, contact the organizers in the e-mails below. Further information Information regarding the symposium, including lodging and crash space, may be accessed at http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Museu Paraense Em?lio Goeldi, ?rea de Ling??stica - CCH CxP: 399, Bel?m, PA, Brasil 66040-170 Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Confirmed Speakers Dra. Ana Vilacy Galucio, Museu Em?lio Goeldi (Tupi) Dra. ?ndrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos, UFPA (South American Genetic Groups) Dr. Carlos Fausto, Museu Nacional (Social Anthropology, Ethnology, Tup?) Dr. Denny Moore, Museu Em?lio Goeldi (Tup?) Dr. Eduardo Neves, Museu de Arqueologia e Etnologia, USP (Amazonian Archeology) MSc. Eduardo R. Ribeiro, University of Chicago e Museu Antropol?gico de Goi?s (Macro-J?) Dra. Filomena Sandalo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Guaikur? and Mataco) Dr. Hein van der Voort, WOTRO/University of Nijmegen (Genetic relationship between languages; language isolates of Rond?nia) Dra Kristine Stenzel, Instituto Socioambiental, Museu Nacional (Tukano) Dr. Michael Heckenberger, University of Florida (Archeology, linguistic groups in prehistory, Arawak and Karib, Xingu) Dr. Mily Crevels, NWO/University of Nijmegen (Areal phenomena and typological characteristics; languages of Bolivia) Dr. Pieter Muysken, University of Nijmegen (Languages in contact; relationship between the Andes and Amazonia; Quechua, languages of Bolivia) Dr. S?rgio Meira, KNAW/University of Leiden (Karib and Tup?) Dr. Sidney Facundes, Universidade Federal do Par? (diachronic linguistics, Arawak) Dr. Sidney Santos, Universidade Federal do Par? (South American Genetic Groups) Dr. Spike Gildea, University of Oregon (Diachronic syntax, internal reconstruction; Kar?b) PROGRAM (Preliminary) Part I: August 27 - 30 Aug 27 Registration, opening conference - (times do be determined) Aug 28 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Genetics Aug 29 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Arqueology Aug 30 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 16:45 - Thematic sessions 17:00 - 18:00 - Plenary session: Antropology Part II: August 31 - September 02 Aug 31 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 18:00 - Thematic sessions Sept 01 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 - Thematic sessions Afternoon 14:30 - 18:00 - Thematic sessions Sept 02 Morning 08:30 - 12:00 Plenary session for presentation of conclusions of each thematic group and indications of actions for the future. Afternoon - Closing session Simp?sio Internacional sobre Ling??stica Hist?rica na Am?rica do Sul Bel?m, PA, 27 de agosto a 02 de setembro de 2005 Museu Paraense Em?lio Goeldi e Universidade Federal do Par? Hist?rico do evento e objetivos Qual o estado atual do conhecimento sobre o desenvolvimento hist?rico das l?nguas ind?genas sul americanas? O que esse conhecimento pode nos ensinar sobre a (pr?-)hist?ria dos povos ind?genas? O que se sabe sobre as rela??es entre fam?lias e troncos ling??sticos e sobre suas classifica??es internas? Quais as propriedades tipol?gicas caracter?sticas das l?nguas ind?genas sul-americanas e como foi a sua evolu??o ou aquisi??o? Quais caracter?sticas devem-se a contatos entre l?nguas geneticamente relacionadas (ou n?o) e n?o ? simples transmiss?o a partir da l?ngua m?e? Quais as infer?ncias poss?veis sobre a cultura, proto-cultura e deslocamentos populacionais que podem ser feitas a partir dos dados ling??sticos? Objetivando encontrar respostas para essas perguntas, v?rios ling?istas do Brasil e do exterior se reuniram durante as edi??es anteriores do workshop internacional denominado Exploring the Linguistic Past: Historical Linguistics in South America, realizadas, respectivamente, em 2003 e 2004, nas cidades de Leiden (Holanda) e Eugene (EUA). Esta s?rie de workshops ? patrocinada pela Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, com o apoio local das Institui??es organizadoras. Temas discutidos nos eventos anteriores incluem: a viabilidade da hip?tese Tu-Ka-J? (poss?vel rela??o gen?tica entre os grupos Tup?, Kar?b e J?); evolu??o e espalhamento da nasalidade; poss?veis fen?menos areais do Noroeste Amaz?nico; os resultados de pesquisas do projeto Tup?-Comparativo, com novas informa??es sobre a classifica??o interna desse grupo. Neste ano o workshop se transformar? no SIMP?SIO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE LING??STICA HIST?RICA NA AM?RICA DO SUL e ser? realizado tendo em vista os seguintes objetivos: (1) possibilitar o interc?mbio entre pesquisadores que desenvolvem investiga??es sobre a hist?ria e pr?-hist?ria ling??stica da Am?rica do Sul, (2) permitir o di?logo entre a ling??stica hist?rica, a antropologia, a arquelogia e a gen?tica de modo que especialistas dessas ?reas possam avaliar interdisciplinarmente os resultados de suas pesquisas, (3) divulgar os resultados atingidos a partir dos trabalhos realizados ou inspirados nos dois primeiros workshops sobre o passado ling??stico da Am?rica do Sul, e (4) estimular o interesse na pesquisa sobre o desenvolvimento hist?rico das l?nguas ind?genas da Am?rica do Sul. O Simp?sio reunir? especialistas em ling??stica diacr?nica, antropologia, arqueologia e biologia humana, bem como especialistas (incluindo estudantes de p?s-gradua??o) que estejam trabalhando com descri??es de l?nguas ind?genas da Am?rica do Sul, especialmente aqueles cujos trabalhos t?m perspectivas hist?rico-comparativas. Com isso, o simp?sio deve servir de meio para compartilhar e desenvolver os resultados dos workshops anteriores, assim como compartilhar os resultados produzidos por outros grupos trabalhando em pesquisas hist?rico-comparativas na Am?rica do Sul, tanto do ponto de vista da ling??stica quanto das outras disciplinas afins (antropologia, arqueologia, biologia humana). Comiss?o organizadora Dra. Ana Vilacy Gal?cio (MPEG) Dra. Carmen L?cia Reis Rodrigues (UFPA) Dr. Denny Moore (MPEG) Dra. Mar?lia de Nazar? de Oliveira Ferreira (UFPA) Dr. Sidney da Silva Facundes (UFPA) Submiss?es de trabalhos Ser? dada prefer?ncia para comunica??es relevantes para ling??stica diacr?nica (rela??es gen?ticas entre l?nguas, reconstru??o com o m?todo comparativo, reconstru??o interna, sintaxe diacr?nica, infer?ncias sobre a pr?-hist?ria, evolu??o de caracter?sticas tipol?gicas, ling??stica areal, efeitos de l?nguas em contato, e outros temas relacionados) Instru??es para envio de resumos Resumos ser?o recebidos, via e-mail silhas at ufpa.br ou silhas at museu-goeldi.br, entre 13 de maio a 30 de junho de 2005. Informa??o para contato com cada autor deve ser submetida via formul?rio dispon?vel em http://www.ufpa.br/silhas, http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Ao submeter seu trabalho, o autor dever? indicar a categoria: apresenta??o oral ou painel. Al?m da participa??o com apresenta??o de trabalhos nessas duas categorias, haver? tamb?m a possibilidade de participa??o como ouvintes. Embora cada autor possa submeter tantos resumos quantos desejar, ser?o aceitos o m?ximo de 01 trabalho individual por participante mais 01 como co-autor. Sele??o de resumos Cada resumo ser? lido em forma an?nima pelos pareceristas. Informa??es mais detalhadas est?o dispon?veis nos sites acima. Resumos ser?o aceitos em portugu?s, ingl?s, espanhol ou franc?s Confirma??o de recebimento de resumos ser? feita logo ap?s o recebimento destes. Resultados da sele??o de resumos ser?o enviados por e-mail at? o dia 30 de julho de 2005. O programa final estar? dispon?vel no site acima no in?cio de agosto. Publica??o dos trabalhos Vers?es completas dos trabalhos poder?o ser submetidas para publica??o (em data a ser anunciada) e ser?o analisadas por pareceristas ad hoc. Aqueles selecionados ser?o inclu?dos em uma publica??o internacional. Pain?is somente ser?o publicados em forma eletr?nica. Apoio Financeiro O Simp?sio conta com patroc?nio da Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) e apoio local das duas institui??es organizadoras. A comiss?o organizadora est? procurando alternativas para diminuir os custos para os participantes em Bel?m. Para mais informa??es, contacte a comiss?o atrav?s dos e-mails indicados abaixo. Contatos e informa??es Informa??es sobre o simp?sio, incluindo hot?is e poss?veis alojamentos gratuitos para alunos, podem ser obtidas nos endere?os: http://www.ufpa.br/silhas ou http://www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas Museu Paraense Em?lio Goeldi, ?rea de Ling??stica - CCH CxP: 399, Bel?m, PA, Brasil 66040-170 Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Palestrantes confirmados Dra. Ana Vilacy Galucio, Museu Em?lio Goeldi (Tronco Tup?) Dra. ?ndrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos, UFPA (Gen?tica de grupos ind?genas sul americanos) Dr. Carlos Fausto, Museu Nacional (Antropologia Social, Etnologia Ind?gena, Tronco Tup?) Dr. Denny Moore, Museu Em?lio Goeldi (Tronco Tup?) Dr. Eduardo Neves, Museu de Etnologia e Arqueologia, USP (Arqueologia da Amaz?nia) Msc. Eduardo R. Ribeiro, University of Chicago e Museu Antropol?gico de Goi?s (Tronco Macro-j?) Dra. Filomena Sandalo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Fam?lias Guaikur? e Mataco) Dr. Hein van der Voort, WOTRO/University of Nijmegen (L?nguas isoladas de Rond?nia; rela??es gen?ticas entre l?nguas) Dra Kristine Stenzel, Instituto Socioambiental, Museu Nacional (Fam?lia Tukano) Dr. Michael Heckenberger, University of Florida (Arqueologia, pr?-hist?ria de grupos ling??sticos, Fam?lias Aru?k e Karib, Xingu) Dr. Mily Crevels, NWO/University of Nijmegen (Fenom?nos areais e caracter?sticas tipol?gicas; l?nguas ind?genas da Bol?via) Dr. Pieter Muysken, University of Nijmegen (L?nguas em contato, rela??es entre os Andes e Amaz?nia; Fam?lia Quechua, l?nguas ind?genas da Bol?via) Dr. S?rgio Meira, KNAW/University of Leiden (Fam?lia Karib e Tronco Tup?) Dr. Sidney Facundes, Universidade Federal do Par? (Ling??stica diacr?nica, Fam?lia Aru?k) Dr. Sidney Santos, Universidade Federal do Par? (Gen?tica de grupos ind?genas sul americanos) Dr. Spike Gildea, University of Oregon (Sintaxe diacr?nica, reconstru??o interna; Fam?lia Kar?b) Dra. Stella Telles, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (Fam?lia Nambikw?ra) PROGRAMA (Provis?rio) Primeira Parte: 27 - 30 de Agosto: 27 Agosto Inscri??o, entrega material, cerim?nia e confer?ncia de abertura - (hor?rios a definir) 28 Agosto Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Confer?ncia de Arqueologia 29 Agosto Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Confer?ncia de Gen?tica 30 Agosto Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 16:45 - Apresenta??o de trabalhos, agrupados por ?reas de especialidade dos participantes 17:00 - 18:00 - Confer?ncia de Antropologia Segunda Parte: 31 Agosto a 02 de Setembro 31 Agosto Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 - Debates de temas espec?ficos em grupos tem?ticos de estudo, segundo a ?rea de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 18:00 - Debates de temas espec?ficos em grupos tem?ticos de estudo, segundo a ?rea de especialidade dos participantes 01 Setembro Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 - Debates de temas espec?ficos em grupos tem?ticos de estudo, segundo a ?rea de especialidade dos participantes Tarde 14:30 - 18:00 - Debates de temas espec?ficos em grupos tem?ticos de estudo, segundo a ?rea de especialidade dos participantes 02 Setembro Manh? 08:30 - 12:00 Plen?ria com apresenta??o das conclus?es de cada grupo tem?tico e levantamento das conclus?es e indica??es de a??es para o futuro na ?rea da ling??stica hist?rica dos povos ind?genas sul americanos, al?m do encerramento do evento. Tarde - Encerramento From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed May 11 15:15:47 2005 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:15:47 +0300 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: I was not claiming that e.g. put on and wear are identical other than aspect, I just meant to say that in many languages in many usages the same verb would be used in different aspectual forms. John Myhill Quoting ?sten Dahl : > What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a difference. > "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is > different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an > intentional (agentive) component in "put on". > - ?sten Dahl > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of > > Salinas17 at aol.com > > Sent: den 11 maj 2005 16:04 > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > > > > In a message dated 5/11/05 7:22:32 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > > << But "put on" and "wear" differ in that "putting on" > > denotes an action which is rather the starting-point of > > "wearing". It is true that "put on" is telic, but you cannot > > simply state that it is the telic counterpart of "wear". > > Perhaps "put on" could be said to be inchoative or > > ingressive, but if you look closely at it "put on" is not > > quite synonymous to "start wearing" either. >> > > > > In the sense of the story, "put on" does seem to be > > synonymous to "start wearing". The brother-in-law's > > command/request jumped the inchoative step. In the usage > > described, there appears to be no way that his wife could wear the > > dress without putting it on. Both putting on and wearing > > are future events. In > > English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey > > the same intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, > > 'cause we're going out tonight", "wear that tonight" > > > > Steve Long > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 15:50:32 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:50:32 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Palfreyman said: > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? It's just the usual distinction between state and change of state, isn't it? PUT ON X means to change from a state of NOT WEAR X to WEAR X. The brother-in-law was expecting WEAR to carry a change-of-state meaning and for his wife to comply, but it doesn't and she didn't. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From lyosovs at cityline.ru Wed May 11 16:47:00 2005 From: lyosovs at cityline.ru (sergey) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:47:00 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: I have long been wondering whether sentences like 'the food stock is diminishing' are telic. The sentence 'I am running out of money' seems to be clearly telic because it has a natural endpoint 'I am out of money' or (with the same verb) 'I have run out of money'. But is there an inherent endpoint of diminishing for mass nouns? Or of increasing? Aristotle (Metaphysics 9,6) says: Since of the actions which have a limit none is an end but all are relative to the end, e.g. the removing of fat, or fat-removal, and the bodily parts themselves when one is making them thin are in movement in this way (i.e. without being already that at which the movement aims), this is not an action or at least not a complete one (for it is not an end); but that movement in which the end is present is an action. E.g. at the same time we are seeing and have seen, are understanding and have understood, are thinking and have thought (while it is not true that at the same time we are learning and have learnt, or are being cured and have been cured). At the same time we are living well and have lived well, and are happy and have been happy. If not, the process would have had sometime to cease, as the process of making thin ceases: but, as things are, it does not cease; we are living and have lived. Of these processes, then, we must call the one set movements, and the other actualities. For every movement is incomplete-making thin, learning, walking, building; these are movements, and incomplete at that. So Aristotle probably considers diminishing a telic process(~ 'the process of making thin ceases'). But his 'walking' confounds me, it is clearly atelic. My problem is whether telicity is a facts-of-life thing or an artefact of language? Is 'We are running out of food' telic unlike 'Our food store is diminishing' > 'It (has) diminished'? Do the qualitative distinctions posited by our thinking create telicity effect (~does a heap cease to be a heap if a grain is removed)? Sergey From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 17:28:48 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:28:48 EDT Subject: misunderstanding"wear" vs. "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 11:51:09 AM, mark at polymathix.com writes: << The brother-in-law was expecting WEAR to carry a change-of-state meaning and for his wife to comply, but it doesn't and she didn't. >> No, I don't think so. The story says, 'He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up.' The nature of the misunderstanding was about time. The brother-in-law apparently meant put the dress on now. The wife thought he meant wear it when the time comes. I suspect English speakers do not feel comfortable saying "wear that dress, right now." They seem to feel more comfortable saying "put that dress on, right now." There seems to be a constraint on what the word "wear" as a command can refer to. We want to refer to the process and not the end result when the sense is immediate. Of course, in common English usage, "wear" can be used without a nod to the inceptive. "Wait. It's cold outside. Wear a coat." But it feels more comfortable to acknowledge the immediacy and say, "Wait. It's cold outside. Put on a coat." This is evident in the misunderstanding. "Wear that" does command a change of state. But so does "put that on." In English, we only jump the inchoative step -- put on that dress --when we are talking about some more distant future state and not immediacy -- at least with these specific words. The listener reasonably assumed that the speaker was not referring to any kind of immediacy. But the word "wear" had a broader meaning for the speaker, which included the implied "right now." Steve Long From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 17:50:29 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:50:29 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <6b.450fe44d.2fb36ae3@aol.com> Message-ID: Salinas17 at aol.com said: > > In English, the two words can be used alternatively to convey the same > intended result -- "put on that red dress, mama, 'cause we're going out > tonight", "wear that tonight" Yep. In English, future statives can be used to entail a change of state: "I'm going to be nice at the LSA meeting this year." (To get that entailment, the requisite state must not already hold, of course: "Wear that tonight" might mean "keep that on tonight", and thus entail a non-change of state if the addressee is already wearing it.) Either way, WEAR is still a stative and PUT ON is related to it lexically through a change-of-state entailment. The change of state sometimes entailed by a future stative is just a situated inference. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From mark at polymathix.com Wed May 11 18:01:31 2005 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:01:31 -0500 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050511141536.A75BE37F8E@smtp3.su.se> Message-ID: ?sten Dahl said: > What Steve says is correct, but there are cases where there is a > difference. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy > bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and > "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that > there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". Actually, I think it's stickier than that. "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas." is expressed as non-continuous, so it actually does have an agentive ("what did the teddy bear do?") entailment -- although it's easily suppressed by competing entailments relating to the presumptive non-agent nature of teddy bears. This agentive entailment is probably an implicature: if you say the teddy bear wore something in particular, then you must believe that the teddy bear had a choice of attire at the time. Putting this in a continuous form removes the agentive entailment and puts the sentence back into purely stative space: "The teddy bear was wearing pink pyjamas." -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed May 11 18:04:07 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:04:07 EDT Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional (agentive) component in "put on". >> But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." Regards, Steve Long From amnfn at well.com Thu May 12 03:31:42 2005 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:31:42 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae Thu May 12 07:15:47 2005 From: David.Palfreyman at zu.ac.ae (David Palfreyman) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:47 +0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means "get dressed". :-D >>> "A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From rberman at post.tau.ac.il Thu May 12 19:00:44 2005 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (Ruth Berman) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:00:44 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The same holds for Hebrew -- li-lbosh means both 'wear' and 'put', cf. causative le-halbish 'dress someone (in something, put something on someone), reflexive/middle le-hitlabesh -- from the root l-b-sh. The non-native error mentioned at the outset of this interchange is typical of Hebrew speakers, too Ruth Berman David Palfreyman wrote: >FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" >covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means >"get dressed". > >:-D > > >>>>"A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> >>>> >>>> > > >On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > > > >>In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: >><< "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear >> >> >put on > > >>pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is >> >> >different > > >>from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an >> >> >intentional > > >>(agentive) component in "put on". >> >> >>But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in >> >> >English? > > >> Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink >> >> >pyjamas > > >>on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how >> >> >the > > >>focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different >> >> >senses of > > >>time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to >> >> >differences > > >>in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this >> >> >dress on > > >>you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." >> >>Regards, >>Steve Long >> >> >> >> > >To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, >English >speakers can use "to be dressed in". > >(1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. > >(2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. > > >Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be >dressed. >The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the >woman >dressed herself is purely pragmatic. > >In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. > > >"Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) > >"Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is >on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) > > Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" > > But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is >what >you wear." > > In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are >the >patient. > > >However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the >construction >used. > > >"ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." >agent: woman patient: pajama > > >"ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a >pajama." > >Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is >neither >an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: >"Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." > >"hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) >in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the >sentence >still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent >is specified. > > >English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of >the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. >You can't say: > > > "Put on!" > > or > "Wear" > >without sounding very strange. > >"Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive >version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly >"wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about >how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can >use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: >"to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." > > >It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of >"to >dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works >a >lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. > > > --Aya Katz > ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 >http://www.well.com/user/amnfn > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > > > From Debra.P.Ziegeler at manchester.ac.uk Thu May 12 14:56:59 2005 From: Debra.P.Ziegeler at manchester.ac.uk (Debra.Ziegeler) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 14:56:59 +0000 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear David, It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. Best, Debra Ziegeler Date sent: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:47 +0400 From: "David Palfreyman" To: , Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" Copies to: funknet at mailman.rice.edu [ Double-click this line for list subscription options ] FYI, my brother-in-law's first language is Turkish, in which "giymek" covers both "wear" and "put on". The reflexive/middle "giyinmek" means "get dressed". :-D >>> "A. Katz" 05/12/05 7:31 AM >>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 5/11/05 10:15:53 AM, oesten at ling.su.se writes: > << "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" does not imply "The teddy bear put on > pink pyjamas". That is, the relation between "put on" and "wear" is different > from that between "fall asleep" and "sleep", in that there is an intentional > (agentive) component in "put on". >> > > But isn't that a matter of the peculiar syntax governing "put on" in English? > Might not "The teddy bear wore pink pyjamas" imply "Someone put pink pyjamas > on the teddy bear"? I think the original example is mainly about how the > focus on process versus end results can be used to convey different senses of > time. Difference in agents don't appear to affect the reference to differences > in time. E.g., whether I say, "Put this dress on" or "I will put this dress on > you," they both mean that "You WILL wear this dress." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > To remove any implication of agentivity on the part of the wearer, English speakers can use "to be dressed in". (1) The teddy bear was dressed in pink pajamas. (2) The woman was dressed in pink pajamas. Both (1) and (2) imply nothing about how the subjects came to be dressed. The inference that someone probably dressed the teddy bear while the woman dressed herself is purely pragmatic. In Hebrew, the binyanim help to deal with this issue. "Hitlabshi" -- Means "get dressed" (As in "dress yourself", reflexive) "Livshi et ze" -- Means "get dressed in this" (Whether the emphasis is on the dressing or on the thing to be worn is decided by stress.) Thus "LIVSHI et ze" means "Put that on right now!" But "Livshi et ZE" means "When you get dressed, make sure this is what you wear." In both the above cases, the wearer is an agent. The clothes are the patient. However, the wearer need not be an agent. That depends on the construction used. "ha'isha lavsha pijama" means "The woman wore a pajama." agent: woman patient: pajama "ha'isha haita levusha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed in a pajama." Being dressed here is a stative built from a passive. The woman is neither an agent nor a patient. Note that the pajamas can be completely omitted: "Haisha haita levusha" means "The woman was dressed." "hilbishu et ha'isha bepijama" means "The woman was dressed (by someone) in a pajama." (Again, the pajamas can easily be omitted, and the sentence still makes sense.) Here the woman is clearly a patient, though no agent is specified. English vocabulary items such as "put on" stress the inceptive nature of the action, but they also require that the patient be specified. You can't say: "Put on!" or "Wear" without sounding very strange. "Wear" is more agentive than "to be dressed", because the passive version of "wear", "to be worn" has the clothes for a subject. Clearly "wear" is very focused on the thing worn, but says nothing about how the wearing came about. If we want to focus on the agent, we can use some form of a verb that does not always require an overt patient: "to dress", "to be dressed in" or "to dress another." It may be that the husband in the anecdote was using the semantics of "to dress" rather than "wear", because "to dress" in its various forms works a lot more like "lavash" in Hebrew, in that its focus is on the agent. --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, P.O. Box 267, Raymondville, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Debra Ziegeler School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK Tel.: (0161) 275 3142 Fax: (0161) 275 3031 From Salinas17 at aol.com Thu May 12 13:58:56 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:58:56 EDT Subject: "wear"/"put on"/time again Message-ID: In a message dated 5/11/05 11:32:12 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: <> If we take the story precisely at face value, this does NOT clarify the nature of the misunderstanding. 'He indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing her make-up.' There was no problem here with agency. If the husband says, "Get dressed," he is saying something different in English than "put that [dress] on now." The husband was specifying a particular dress. "Get dressed in that dress" also usually means something different than "put that [dress] on now." It loses its immediacy. The essence of the misunderstanding (it would be non-analytical to call it an "error") was once again about time, not about change-of-state or agency. If the husband had said "wear that dress right now," the misunderstanding would have been less likely, though the form is unexpected. The key here is that "put [something] on" carries a message about time that was lost when the husband said "wear that." That's why the wife said "ok" but kept doing something else. Looking for the source of the misunderstanding in Turkish (or Hebrew) makes sense, but only when the nature of the miscommunication is properly understood from actual context. The English forms "put this on" or "get dressed" seems to carry a connotation of immediacy by focusing on the inceptive rather than the final state. I notice that the closest parallel in terms of time reference, in all the Hebrew examples given by Aya, appears to rely on emphasis rather than the inceptive: <> This shows a different strategy for communicating immediacy than the one we see used in English in the original story. Regards, Steve Long From amnfn at well.com Thu May 12 14:01:22 2005 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 07:01:22 -0700 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry about getting the language wrong, for the non-native speaker brother-in-law. I should have read the message more carefully. As Ruth mentioned, the same error is often made by Hebrew speakers in English. The more general point of my post, though, was that this kind of error is not necessarily caused by failing to note the stative versus change-of-state nature of the distinction between "to wear" and "put on". It may be caused by a misunderstanding concerning agent versus patient focus in the basic semantics of the verb. Does "giymek" have to take an object in the same way that "wear" and "put on" must? Where the agent is the focus of the sentence, then the action of dressing is emphasized. Where the patient is the focus, then the garment will be emphasized, rather than the urgency of putting it on. A confounding factor in English is the use of the demonstrative pronoun. Even with a verb like "wear" or "put on" the emphasis on the patient can be reduced by changing from "that" to "it." "Wear that!" Means that garment, rather than this one. "Wear it!" Means put it on right now or in the immediate future. "Put THAT on!" means choose that rather than this. "Put it on." means "Come on, get dressed." Best, --Aya Katz <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Aya Katz, INVERTED-A, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005, David Palfreyman wrote: > My non-native English-speaking brother-in-law and his native > English-speaking wife were preparing to go out, and running late. He > indicated a dress and said "wear that". She said "OK" and went on doing > her make-up. A minute later he said in frustration "come on, wear > that!" It turned out that he meant "put that on". > > Now, I can see the difference in meaning between the two verbs, but how > would you describe it in semantic terms, and are there other pairs of > verbs with a similar distinction? > > :-D > > From funkadmn at ruf.rice.edu Fri May 20 19:33:06 2005 From: funkadmn at ruf.rice.edu (Funknet List Admin) Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 14:33:06 -0500 Subject: New Book: THE UNFOLDING OF LANGUAGE by Guy Deutscher (fwd) Message-ID: I have been asked to forward the following book announcement, which will undoubtedly be of interest to many Funknet list members. Please address any further queries or replies to the original sender, not to the Funknet Admin address. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:15:53 -0400 From: Richard Rhorer Subject: New Book: THE UNFOLDING OF LANGUAGE by Guy Deutscher Book Notice: Metropolitan Books is pleased to announce the publication of The Unfolding of Language : an evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention, by Guy Deutscher. Publication date: June 1, 2005 (US); May 5, 2005 (UK) Publisher: Metropolitan (Henry Holt, US), Heinemann (Random House, UK) Book URL: www.unfoldingoflanguage.com Publisher URL: http://www.henryholt.com/metropolitanbooks.htm Author: Guy Deutscher, University of Leiden Hardback (US): ISBN: 0805079076, Pages: 360 pp, Price: $ 26.00 Hardback (UK): ISBN: 043401155X, Pages: 360 pp, Price: ??? 20.00 Abstract: ???Language is mankind???s greatest invention ??? except of course, that it was never invented.??? So begins Guy Deutscher???s investigation into the evolution of language. No one believes that the Roman Senate sat down one day to design Latin grammar, and few believe, these days, in the literal truth of the story of the Tower of Babel. But then how did there come to be so many languages of such elaborate design? If we started off with rudimentary utterances on the level of ???man throw spear,??? how did we end up with sophisticated grammars, enormous vocabularies, and intricately nuanced shades of meaning? Drawing on recent discoveries in modern linguistics, The Unfolding of Language exposes the elusive forces of creation at work in human communication. The emergence of linguistic complexity is reconstructed from an imaginary ???Me Tarzan??? stage to the expressive power of languages today. Arguing that destruction and creation in language are intimately entwined, Deutscher shows how these processes are continuously in operation, generating new words, new structures, and new meanings. From the written records of lost civilizations to the spoken idiom of today???s streets, we move from ancient Babylonian through medieval French to the English of the present. We marvel at the triumph of design that is the Semitic verb, puzzle over single words that can express highly elaborate sentiments, such as the Turkish sehirlilestiremediklerimizdensiniz (???you are one of those whom we couldn???t turn into a town-dweller???), and observe how great changes of pronunciation may result from an age old human habit - simple laziness. Through the dramatic story of The Unfolding of Language, we discover the genius behind a uniquely human faculty. Advance praise: "Exciting, witty, and a masterpiece of contemporary scholarship." - Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Stanford University. "At last, an entertaining and readable book that presents the most current views on language and its evolution. Deutscher recreates for his readers the joy of discovery that many of the forces that created language for the first time are still in action today.??? - Joan Bybee, University of New Mexico. "Thoroughly enjoyable... Guy Deutscher is an erudite and entertaining guide through the paradoxes and complexities of language evolution." - Gene Gragg, University of Chicago Contents: Introduction:'This marvellous invention??? Chapter 1: A Castle in the Air Chapter 2: Perpetual Motion Chapter 3: The Forces of Destruction Chapter 4: A Reef of Dead Metaphors Chapter 5: The Forces of Creation Chapter 6: Craving for Order Chapter 7: The Unfolding of Language Epilogue Appendix A: Flipping Categories Appendix B: Laryngeals Again? Appendix C: The Devil in the Detail Appendix D: The Cook???s Counterpoint Appendix E: The Turkish Mirror Regards, Richard Rhorer Director of Marketing Henry Holt and Company The Henry Holt offices have moved. Please note my new mailing address and phone number. 175 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10010 646-307-5244 From lists at chaoticlanguage.com Sun May 22 05:05:32 2005 From: lists at chaoticlanguage.com (Rob Freeman) Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 13:05:32 +0800 Subject: "wear" and "put on" In-Reply-To: <20050512135720.74950DEC42@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Hi Debra, "Correct" usage is really a mire. Sorry to be a pedant, and it doesn't change your point that this contrast doesn't exist in Chinese, but you know, "You wore shorts!" sounds completely idiomatic to me in the context. You decided to wear shorts, you made the decision earlier, past-tense of wore, wear. On the other hand, to me, "You have put on shorts" carries of implications of recent change. So the implication would be either that you changed just a little earlier, or you are going to continue wearing shorts all summer (c.f. You've put on summer uniform.) Perhaps if I'd been there I would have heard it differently. The more you think about these things the less clear they become. When it comes down to it, so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side of the bed you get out of in the morning :-) Best, Rob Freeman On Thursday 12 May 2005 22:56, Debra.Ziegeler wrote: > Dear David, > > It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this > distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean > and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once > walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: > "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those > dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin > chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. > > Best, > Debra Ziegeler From Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com Tue May 24 12:43:26 2005 From: Julia.Ulrich at degruyter.com (Julia Ulrich) Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:43:26 +0200 Subject: Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar (de Groot, Hengeveld) Message-ID: NEW FROM MOUTON DE GRUYTER MORPHOSYNTACTIC EXPRESSION IN FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR Edited by Casper de Groot and Kees Hengeveld 2005. x, 534 pages. Cloth. EUR 118.00 / sFr 189.00 / for USA, Canada, Mexico: US$ 165.20 ISBN 3-11-018365-X (Functional Grammar Series 27) Language of publication: English Date of publication: 05/2005 http://www.degruyter.de/rs/bookSingle.cfm?id=IS-311018365X-1&l=E Morphological and syntactic issues have received relatively little attention in Functional Grammar, due to the fact that this grammatical model, given its functional orientation, was primarily concerned with developing its pragmatic and semantic components. Now that these have been solidly developed, this book turns to the further development of the syntactic and morphological components of the model. Two recent developments receive pride of place: Bakker's Dynamic Expression Model and Hengeveld and Mackenzie's Functional Discourse Grammar. The first model aims at accounting for the complex interactions that one finds in many languages between the sets of expression rules that have to account for form on the one hand and those that establish order on the other. The second model takes a further step by considering morphosyntactic and phonological representations to be part of the underlying structure of the grammar rather than as the output of that grammar, contrary to the original assumptions in FG. The book accordingly contains synopses of these two proposals as well as applications of these to a variety of linguistic phenomena. Further articles provide detailed analyses of a range of semantic and pragmatic categories and their morphosyntactic expression in a wide variety of languages. The articles in this book contain data on some 60 different languages, including focused articles on phenomena in Arabic, Danish, English, Lengua de Se?as Espa?ola, Mapudungun, Plains Cree, and Tanggu. In all, the contributions to this volume show that the issue of morphosyntactic expression in Functional Grammar is very much alive and moving into promising new directions, while at the same time contributing to a better understanding of a large number of morphosyntactic phenomena in a wide variety of languages. EDITORS: Casper de Groot is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Kees Hengeveld is Professor at the Department of Theoretical Linguistics, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. OF INTEREST TO: Researchers and Students interested in Functional Grammar and Morphosyntactic Issues; Scholars working in the Field of Descriptive Linguistics; Academic Libraries; Institutes FROM THE CONTENTS: Agreement: More arguments for the dynamic expression model DIK BAKKER Constituent ordering in the expression component of Functional Grammar JOHN H. CONNOLLY Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse Grammar KEES HENGEVELD Noun incorporation in Functional Discourse Grammar Niels Smit Morphosyntactic templates CASPER DE GROOT A crosslinguistic study of 'locative inversion': Evidence for the Functional Discourse Grammar model FRANCIS CORNISH The agreement cross-reference continuum: Person marking in FG ANNA SIEWIERSKA AND DIK BAKKER The explanatory power of typological hierarchies: Developmental perspectives on non-verbal predication EVA H. VAN LIER Non-verbal predicability and copula support rule in Spanish Sign Language ?NGEL HERRERO-BLANCO AND VENTURA SALAZAR-GARC?A A new view on the semantics and pragmatics of operators of aspect, tense and quantification ANNERIEKE BOLAND Exclamation: Sentence type, illocution or modality? AHMED MOUTAOUAKIL Close appositions EVELIEN KEIZER Inversion and the absence of grammatical relations in Plains Cree AROK WOLVENGREY Direction diathesis and obviation in Functional Grammar: The case of the inverse in Mapudungun, an indigenous language of south central Chile OLE NEDERGAARD THOMSEN Unexpected insertion or omission of an absolutive marker as an icon of a surprising turn of events in discourse JOHAN LOTTERMAN AND J. LACHLAN MACKENZIE Pronominal expression rule ordering in Danish and the question of a discourse grammar LISBETH FALSTER JAKOBSEN ORDERS: 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 language at sprynet.com Fri May 27 18:14:43 2005 From: language at sprynet.com (Alexander Gross2) Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 14:14:43 -0400 Subject: "wear" and "put on" Message-ID: I've mulled over this whole `wear vs put-on' exchange a bit, and I think I'll vote with Rob when he says "'Correct' usage is really a mire" and that "so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side of the bed you get out of in the morning :-)" Can anyone explain to me why we are still citing Aristotle as an authority on linguistics, when all the other sciences kicked him out long ago? Even modern dramaturgy has gone far beyond the principles invoked in his Poetics. Could it be that our entire field of study has fallen into a neo-Aristotelian Quinean quagmire? Most of Quine's notions about language don't hold up very well--is it just possible that their acceptance by a single impressionable and uncritical student could have led us into our current impasse? Also, no one bothered to answer David's second question, namely: "are there other pairs of verbs with a similar distinction?" There sure are, probably several truckloads full, some of them matching the telic-atelic so-called model but more of them either falling between the cracks or into a pattern of their own. There are at least two sources for hunting them down, one which i recommended to Steve a few months back, my own ancient, pre-windows program, "The Glorious Verb `To Put,'" a free download from my website at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/download.htm#to_put Or an even better source, the Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English ,* which should provide not just examples with "put" but "get," "set," "run," & "turn" plus lots of prepositions, along with many, many more as well. All of which can be more or less "translated" by other English words as can "put on" by "wear," which may or may not actually be equivalent. These are among the tools available to translators for resolving this sort of frequently encountered issue on a case-by-case basis, and it seems a bit strange to me that they do not seem to be equally available to linguists as well. The tools so far provided by linguists--WordNet, CYC, Sowa's ontology, Schank's scripts, or any number of MT methodologies--don't come anywhere near defining the job, much less doing it. very best to all! alex *I assume this is roughly the same as a volume with a closely related title, which I found at the UN Library 20 years ago when I first became interested in these questions. I have a copy of that book 100 miles upstate but am unable to provide any further details right now. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Freeman" To: Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] "wear" and "put on" > Hi Debra, > > "Correct" usage is really a mire. > > Sorry to be a pedant, and it doesn't change your point that this contrast > doesn't exist in Chinese, but you know, "You wore shorts!" sounds > completely > idiomatic to me in the context. You decided to wear shorts, you made the > decision earlier, past-tense of wore, wear. > > On the other hand, to me, "You have put on shorts" carries of implications > of > recent change. So the implication would be either that you changed just a > little earlier, or you are going to continue wearing shorts all summer > (c.f. > You've put on summer uniform.) > > Perhaps if I'd been there I would have heard it differently. The more you > think about these things the less clear they become. When it comes down to > it, so much of what we think of as meaning does seem to depend what side > of > the bed you get out of in the morning :-) > > Best, > > Rob Freeman > > On Thursday 12 May 2005 22:56, Debra.Ziegeler wrote: >> Dear David, >> >> It is interesting to hear how many languages do not make this >> distinction. It is also found in Hong Kong English and Singaporean >> and Malaysian English. I recall a Singaporean speaker once >> walking into a room and saying to me on a hot day in Australia: >> "You wore shorts!" ( = 'You have put on shorts'). The use in those >> dialects is probably related Chinese contact dialects - Mandarin >> chuan1 means either 'wear' or 'put on' as well. >> >> Best, >> Debra Ziegeler > > From sidi at ufpa.br Mon May 30 02:17:01 2005 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidi Facundes) Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 23:17:01 -0300 Subject: Call for papers: historical linguistics in South America Message-ID: (Sorry for cross postings) Dear all, This is to inform that the forms to submit abstracts for the International Symposium of Historical Linguistics in South America (Aug 27 - Sept 02/05) is now available at www.museu-goeldi.br/silhas (on weekdays) or www.ufpa.br/silhas (any day). Abstracts will be accepted until June 30, and they must be returned by e-mail to: silhas at ufpa.br ou silhas at museu-goeldi.br. Papers on diachronic linguistics involving genetic relationships, comparative or internal reconstruction, diachronic syntax, inferences on prehistory, evolution of typological features, areal linguistics, effects from language contact, and related themes are highly encouraged. For more information, visit the sites above or contact us at: Telephone: (55) (91) 3274-4004, 3183-2016, Fax: (55) (91) 3274-4004 E-mail: avilacy at museu-goeldi.br, sidifacundes at aol.com Sidi Facundes ----------------------------------------------------------- Esta mensagem foi enviada atraves da pagina Correio.UFPA.BR From girod at stybba.ntc.nokia.com Mon May 30 07:21:45 2005 From: girod at stybba.ntc.nokia.com (Marc Girod) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 10:21:45 +0300 Subject: Aristotle (was: "wear" and "put on") In-Reply-To: <002901c562e7$f5ba6c90$0b1ef7a5@woowoo> Message-ID: >>>>> "AG" == Alexander Gross2 writes: AG> Can anyone explain to me why we are still citing Aristotle as an AG> authority on linguistics, when all the other sciences kicked him AG> out long ago? Not all... Genetics and evolution still use the concept of species, in an Aristotelian (pre-Copernician) way -- Ref: /Ni Dieu ni g?ne/, by Kupiec-Sonigo (2000). -- Marc Girod P.O. Box 323 Voice: +358-71 80 25581 Nokia BI 00045 NOKIA Group Mobile: +358-50 38 78415 Valimo 21 / B616 Finland Fax: +358-71 80 64474 From dcyr at yorku.ca Mon May 30 18:13:15 2005 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 14:13:15 -0400 Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: I'm currently in the process of kicking Aristotle out of linguistics too, if only on the question of personal ranking. My current research on the hypothesis of TU as a first person in Algonquian languages shows that there is no philosophical reason to put EGO as a first person in grammar. In Algonquian TU looks more like a first person and EGO like a second. Conversations with linguists working on other language groups tend to corroborate my hypothesis which I came up with in 1996. It has proned Marie-Odile Junker (Carleton University0f Ottawa) to pursue on the same hypothesis from a general typological perspective. Her research confirms mine. Danielle E. Cyr From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Mon May 30 18:18:08 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:18:08 +0100 Subject: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1117476795.429b57bb08ce3@webmail.yorku.ca> Message-ID: The importance of Aristotle to linguistics is not so much his specific proposals but, in contradistinction to Plato, can be interpreted as arguing that language, as convention, emerges from culture/society. This is quite different from believing that language is a form of math about which out knowledge is underdetermined by our experience. In my recent review article in Journal of Linguistics "Biology and language: a consideration of alternatives", I suggest that 'Aristotle's Problem' should replace 'Plato's Problem' as the focus of linguistic concern, i.e. that we should be looking for cultural bases of languages rather than a priori knowledge. DLE On 30 May 2005, at 19:13, dcyr at yorku.ca wrote: > > > I'm currently in the process of kicking Aristotle out of linguistics > too, if > only on the question of personal ranking. My current research on the > hypothesis of TU as a first person in Algonquian languages shows that > there > is no philosophical reason to put EGO as a first person in grammar. In > Algonquian TU looks more like a first person and EGO like a second. > Conversations with linguists working on other language groups tend to > corroborate my hypothesis which I came up with in 1996. It has proned > Marie-Odile Junker (Carleton University0f Ottawa) to pursue on the same > hypothesis from a general typological perspective. Her research > confirms > mine. > > Danielle E. Cyr > > --------------------------------------------- Daniel L. Everett Professor of Phonetics & Phonology School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Fax: 44-161-275-3031 Phone: 44-161-275-3158 http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff) From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue May 31 14:40:42 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:40:42 EDT Subject: Aristotle Message-ID: In a message dated 5/30/05 2:18:49 PM, daniel.everett at uol.com.br writes: << The importance of Aristotle to linguistics is not so much his specific proposals but, in contradistinction to Plato, can be interpreted as arguing that language, as convention, emerges from culture/society. This is quite different from believing that language is a form of math about which our knowledge is underdetermined by our experience.>> The difficulty here is created not when we consider language as a form of math, but math as a form of language. Plato's notion that things have "true names" seems a curious one until we understand it from the point of view of math and geometry. Aristotle's nominalism basically asserted that the world existed independent of language. This is modern naturalism and every modern scientist is an heir of Aristotle. But for neither Greek was language biological or arbitrary. The main constraint in Plato was not an Aristotelian conforming to an accurate description of the world, it was instead an accurate picture of the abstract and formal logic that seems to rule the world. This is a parallel tradition -- it's Kepler and Newton "reading the mind of God" and Chomsky's language mechanism. The old classic nominalism versus idealism debate repeated over and over again. The problem comes from the fact that the mathematics of language (not merely the language of math) does have predictive power -- i.e., it does go beyond our literal past experience. I know that Alex doesn't mean that language is completely chaotic. There is an amazing accuracy in language despite all the everyday missteps. The resolution I think is to understand that there is quite a bit of naturalistic logic and orderliness and predictableness in the objective world. And that our language and our culture and our evolved biology -- are all intentional or accidental attempts to accurately conform to the imperatives of the physical world. We can be fooled into thinking that the orderliness and logic of language somehow originated in us. It did not. It originated out there, in a somewhat clockwork world that goes on ticking whether we are around to talk to each other about it or not. Starting from the assumption that it's the world around and in us that dictates the structure of language, the structural distinction between language as biology (accident-driven) and culture (intentionality-driven) becomes a blur. We expect the same language structure from both. When we look at function however, that blur disappears. What so-called "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power of culture and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the history of language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise sense that biological evolution is driven by the accidental. Regards, Steve Long From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Tue May 31 14:44:30 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:44:30 +0100 Subject: Aristotle In-Reply-To: <104.623c8a59.2fcdd16a@aol.com> Message-ID: I don't disagree terribly with Steve Long's post. But since the 'truth' of whatever Aristotle or Plato proposed is largely past its 'sell-by' date, I think their value is mainly as inspiring this or that programme, with the interpretation that best fits this or that individual's reading. Not a lot of precision to get worked up about for the most part. I do agree with Steve's last line strongly: "When we look at function however, that blur disappears. What so-called "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power of culture and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the history of language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise sense that biological evolution is driven by the accidental." There is a large article appearing on some of these issues in this summer's edition of Current Anthropology, with commentaries by several eminent anthropologists and psychologists/psycholinguists. A near-final version of the paper (sans the commentaries and my reply) can be downloaded from my website. Basically, my point is that language evolution is on-going and heavily influenced by culture. Dan Everett --------------------------------------------- Daniel L. Everett Professor of Phonetics & Phonology School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 3031. Phone: + 44 (0) 161 275 3158 http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff) From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue May 31 21:49:09 2005 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:49:09 -0700 Subject: Aristotle Message-ID: With all due respect, taking evolution, especially of social species, to be a matter of purely accidents (random mutations) is not the most sophisticated approach to evolution, nor the one favored by (at least most) evolutionary psychologists. The late great Ernst Mayr said is best: "(adaptive) behavior is the pace-maker of evolution". And adaptive behavior, a constant factor in selection, is not random, but rather purposive, thus in a clear way 'intentional' (if mostly non-conscious). There is a wonderful recent book by Boyd & Richerson on cultural evolution "Not by genes alone" (U. Chicago, 2005). I shows that there is no principled contrast between biological and cultural evolution. This 'continuum' position is the most standard one in EP today--that culture is an extension of biological evolution, that it is just as adaptive (tho obviouly more complex), and that it is much older than humanity. By the same token, biology didn't cease with human culture. The two consitute a finely blended continuum, and trying to erect a barrier somewhewre in the middle is but another Cartesian/Platonic exercise. By the way, Dan, with all my great admiration to Aristotle as the founder of adaptive biology, empirical political science, pragmatics, and even (according to at least one expert) also the founder of socio-biology/evolutionary psychology, I still find nothing in his treatment of language that transcends the logic of The Categories and thand the Posterior Analytic, nor the structuralism of De Interpretatione. If you want to find arguments for "language as a natural (physis) phenomenon rather than as an arbitrary (nomos) one", you can find it in Socrates' position in Plato's Cratylus. It is not clear whether Plato side with Socrates (physis) or Cratylus (nomos). And Cratylus position is essentially the same as Aristotle's De Interpretatione (nomos). Best, TG ========================== Daniel Everett wrote: > I don't disagree terribly with Steve Long's post. But since the > 'truth' of whatever Aristotle or Plato proposed is largely past its > 'sell-by' date, I think their value is mainly as inspiring this or > that programme, with the interpretation that best fits this or that > individual's reading. Not a lot of precision to get worked up about > for the most part. > > I do agree with Steve's last line strongly: "When we look at function > however, that blur disappears. What so-called > "evolutionary psychology" does not understand is the compelling power > of culture > and intentionality. Whatever accident allowed human language, the > history of > language since than has hardly been been accidental, in the precise > sense that > biological evolution is driven by the accidental." > > There is a large article appearing on some of these issues in this > summer's edition of Current Anthropology, with commentaries by > several eminent anthropologists and psychologists/psycholinguists. A > near-final version of the paper (sans the commentaries and my reply) > can be downloaded from my website. Basically, my point is that > language evolution is on-going and heavily influenced by culture. > > Dan Everett > > --------------------------------------------- > Daniel L. Everett > Professor of Phonetics & Phonology > School of Languages, Linguistics, and Cultures > University of Manchester > Manchester M13 9PL UK > Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 3031. > Phone: + 44 (0) 161 275 3158 > http://ling.man.ac.uk/info/staff/DE/DEHome.html > > "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct > relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, > except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the > state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the > culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas > (1911,59ff) From daniel.everett at uol.com.br Tue May 31 21:59:05 2005 From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:59:05 +0100 Subject: Aristotle In-Reply-To: <429CDBD5.9FDB47AF@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, We have had this discussion before, it seems to me. I agree with you about the greatness of Ernst Mayr and there is nothing to object to in his statement, obviously. On the other hand, I think your teleological interpretation of it is somewhat off the mark. The fact that evolution is guided by adaptive behavior doesn't mean that evolution is goal-directed. Nor does it mean that all there is to evolution is random mutation. The choices you provide do not exhaust the possibilities. And for modern humans, sure, cultural evolution has taken on a role that it didn't have for trilobites or even troglodytes. I certainly wouldn't claim that it is by 'genes alone'. In fact I believe that cultural forces shape language evolution even now, constraining form and function in ways that neither functionalists nor formalists have considered, though in ways which Boas at least would have predicted (as in the quote from his introduction to the Handbook of AIL - "It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by morphological traits of the language." Boas (1911,59ff)). With regard to Aristotle and Cratylus, Pieter Seuren's discussion of their relative contributions in his _Western Linguistics_ seems persuasive and useful. As Plato's ideas go back further, so do Aristotle's. But I think it is good for those of us who believe that "Plato's Problem" is no problem at all should have an alternative 'problem' to propose to focus on the symbiosis between grammar and culture (not just society), in ways that take Boas's quote above seriously (which on the surface is anti-Whorfian). I am not anti-Whorfian, but I do think that that particular tool is less significant in certain cases than Boasian culture-> language interactions. The Plato's Problem I am concerned about is political, and best posed by Popper in the Open Society and its Enemies. But I doubt, once again, that we disagree on that much, aside from the role of teleology in evolution (or historical linguistics). I don't think it plays a role in either. And for the latter, I think that Sarah Grey Thomason has had quite a few interesting things to say. And Juliette Blevins as well in her Evolutionary Phonology. Peace, Dan P.S. If this weren't a public forum I might mention, Tom, that there is some new music on my website. But I won't... From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue May 31 23:38:31 2005 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:38:31 EDT Subject: Evolution Message-ID: In a message dated 5/31/05 5:31:39 PM, tgivon at uoregon.edu writes: << With all due respect, taking evolution, especially of social species, to be a matter of purely accidents (random mutations) is not the most sophisticated approach to evolution,... >> Nevertheless, it is the only defensible model of natural selection and biological evolution. Up until humans are able to vary biological traits by directly manipulating genetic material, the only source of biological variation or diversity is random mutation. Bio-geneticists may accelerate or prune variation, but the basic mechanism remains random mutation. The structure of social animals may select "social traits" instead of solitary ones. But that structure is simply a piece of the selecting environment. The grist for the mill remains random mutation. <> No question here -- although Dawkins and Pinker paint a different picture. But adaptive behavior is most certainly never the initial source of biology diversity. Genes are replicators. If they had their way, we would all still be amoebas. The basic source of variance in biological evolution is always random mutation -- against the conservatism of the gene. Viable adaptive behavior may advance the chance of survival where adaptive morphology would not (i.e., learning might overcome a physical disadvantage.) But that's down the line in the process. The basic source of biological diversity is mutation. What follows -- selection -- is a different story. <> And some of us feel that is precisely what is severely wrong with "evolutionary psychology." Culture does NOT evolve in the same manner as biological species do. Randomness gives way to intentionality. The ruthlessness of biological evolution is a model of enormous waste and mindless expansion of forms. Mayr didn't go far enough. In fact, intentionality and learning are adaptive in a way is that is very different from random mutation and subsequent adaptation or failure. And -- going a step further -- human culture and language -- the ability to store huge amounts of information over generations without storing it in DNA -- broke the continuum just as sexuality (the mixing of two genotypes) broke the singular replication continuum in the passing of genetic information from one generation to the next. There have been revolutions in evolution. "Evolutionary psychology" is just plain using the wrong model. Cultural "evolution" is not Darwinian. It is Lamarckian -- only Lamarck was applying it to the wrong set of data. There are hints that bees and ants can pass on small amounts of learned information from generation to generation. There is definite indication of this among non-human mammals. But the quantitively greater information-load-carrying of human language and culture across generations has created something qualitatively different. Human culture is super-biological. Regards, Steve Long