From lavelle at unm.edu Fri Apr 7 03:17:18 2006 From: lavelle at unm.edu (Andrew LaVelle) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:17:18 -0600 Subject: Semiotic Society of America Conference 2006: Call for Papers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sun Apr 9 14:25:43 2006 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:25:43 -0400 Subject: Science Proves Linguists are Different! Message-ID: Linguists 'have different brains'- short blip in the BBC News pages: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4883418.stm (Let the games begin....) Jess Tauber From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 15:27:51 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:27:51 -0500 Subject: Science Proves Linguists are Different! In-Reply-To: <2403924.1144592743700.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink. net> Message-ID: jess tauber wrote: > Linguists 'have different brains'- short blip in the BBC News pages: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4883418.stm It strikes me that the BBC article says nothing about the subjects' ages, and that that would make a lot of difference if you're trying to make causal inferences between L2 acquisition and neuroanatomy. For the time being, I'll assume that these linguists (sic) have different brains because they've been using them differently than non-linguists (sic). Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us more. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 18:26:52 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:26:52 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! Message-ID: Okay, I'll see if I can forward this to the list. -- Mark ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! From: "Morton Ann Gernsbacher" Date: Sun, April 9, 2006 11:45 am To: "Mark P. Line" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- For some reason I'm not allowed to post to the funknet group (who knows why; I've never done it before, so I've never noticed). Anyway, below is the message that I just sent you and the group. Feel free to forward my original message to the group. >Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:37:53 -0500 >From: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Science Proves Linguists are Different! >Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has >been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are >being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at >funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu. >At 10:28 AM -0500 4/9/06, Mark P. Line wrote: >>Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us more. >>-- Mark > >A PDF is attached. >-- >Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D. >Vilas Research Professor and Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor >University of Wisconsin-Madison >1202 W. Johnson Street >Madison, WI 53706-1611 >(608) 262-6989 [fax (608) 262-4029] >www.gernsbacherlab.org > From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 18:40:58 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:40:58 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! In-Reply-To: <16291.4.230.156.192.1144607212.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: It looks like the FUNKNET server doesn't allow attachments. Maybe you can provide a URL to the PDF article. -- Mark Mark P. Line wrote: > Okay, I'll see if I can forward this to the list. > > -- Mark > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! > From: "Morton Ann Gernsbacher" > Date: Sun, April 9, 2006 11:45 am > To: "Mark P. Line" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For some reason I'm not allowed to post to the funknet group (who > knows why; I've never done it before, so I've never noticed). Anyway, > below is the message that I just sent you and the group. Feel free to > forward my original message to the group. > >>Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:37:53 -0500 >>From: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Science Proves Linguists are Different! >>Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> >>You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has >>been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are >>being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at >>funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu. > > > >>At 10:28 AM -0500 4/9/06, Mark P. Line wrote: >>>Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us >>> more. >>>-- Mark >> >>A PDF is attached. >>-- >>Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D. >>Vilas Research Professor and Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor >>University of Wisconsin-Madison >>1202 W. Johnson Street >>Madison, WI 53706-1611 >>(608) 262-6989 [fax (608) 262-4029] >>www.gernsbacherlab.org >> > -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Apr 10 21:03:56 2006 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:03:56 +0200 Subject: Reminder: Abstract deadline for RRG '06 is May 1 Message-ID: 2006 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar September 28-October 1, 2006 University of Leipzig Leipzig, Germany Invited speakers: Balthasar Bickel, University of Leipzig Ina Bornkessel, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Daniel Everett, Illinois State University Martin Haspelmath, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Ricardo Mairal, UNED, Madrid Matthias Schlesewsky, University of Marburg Michael Tomasello, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Robert Van Valin, University at Buffalo Deadline for submitting abstracts and workshop proposals: May 1, 2006 Abstracts for papers should be a maximum of two pages, including data and references, and proposals for workshops should be a maximum of five pages. Submit abstracts and proposals by e-mail to: rrg2006 at uni-leipzig.de Further information about the conference will be posted on the conference website: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~typology/rrg2006/ (not up and running yet) ********************************* Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Professor of Linguistics University at Buffalo, The State University of New York VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU Humboldt Research Award winner, 2006 On sabbatical 2005-2006: Neurotypology Project Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Stephanstraße 1a D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Telefon: (49) 341-3552-1719 Fax: (49) 341-3552-1731 From c.gabrielatos at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Apr 11 11:11:01 2006 From: c.gabrielatos at lancaster.ac.uk (Costas Gabrielatos) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:11:01 +0100 Subject: The First Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching (second call for papers) In-Reply-To: <16291.4.230.156.192.1144607212.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: The First Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching Saturday, 15 July 2006, Lancaster, United Kingdom CALL FOR PAPERS The first Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching aims to offer the opportunity for postgraduate students from various areas in linguistics and language teaching /assessment to come together to present papers related to their research and to exchange ideas. We are pleased to announce Professor Geoffrey Leech and Professor Paul Kerswill as the inaugural keynote speakers. Postgraduate students are invited to submit abstracts for oral or poster presentations on any topic related to their research. Papers are to be 20 minutes in length plus 10 minutes for comments and questions. ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE Abstracts must be received by 30 April 2006. Authors will be notified by 21 May 2006. Please send your abstracts to pgconference2006 at googlemail.com ABSTRACT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Abstracts should between 300 400 words and should be submitted via e-mail attachments (Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format files). Abstracts should include: 1. The title of the paper 2. A list of 3 -6 key words describing the area and focus 3. The research focus 4. The research methodology 5. A brief summary of findings (if applicable) 6. A short list of key references Abstracts should not include the authors name or any other identifying information. The e-mail message accompanying the abstract should contain the following information: 1. The title and preferred presentation type (oral or poster) 2. The name(s) of the author(s) and their affiliation(s) 3. The authors e-mail address and contact details 4. Audiovisual equipment required (if any) PROCEEDINGS We plan to publish accepted papers in the online LAEL2006 proceedings. Presenters who would like their papers included in the proceedings need to submit them by 15 September 2006. REGISTRATION INFORMATION -- £6 for registration by 31 May 2006. -- £10 for registration after 31 May 2006 . The registration fee includes refreshments and lunch. Registration forms are available at the conference website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/ Please complete and mail the form along with payment (by cheque/postal order made payable to Lancaster University) to: LILY ATANGA LAEL PGCONFERENCE 2006 Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University, LA1 4YT United Kingdom (LAEL students can pay cash to Tina Kosetzi or Zarina Othman at the department). Further details about the conference can be found at the conference website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/ From bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de Thu Apr 13 10:22:22 2006 From: bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de (bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:22:22 GMT Subject: Call for Papers Lexical Acquisition GCLA Conference Message-ID: Call for Papers Lexical Bootstrapping in Child Language Acquisition and Child Conceptual Development Theme session To be held at the Second International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Munich, 5-7 October 2006 Apart from some few exceptions (Brown 1958, Nelson 1973), the research on child lexical development did not receive much attention from students of child language in the 1960s and 1970s. In opposition to some statements found in the more recent literature (Rothweiler & Meibauer 1999), this fact is not really surprising when one considers the very influential role then played by formal linguistics with its primacy of syntactic structures and the view of lexicon and semantics as something rather epiphenomenal. From the 1980s on, this state of affairs has changed dramatically. For one thing, over the last 25 years or so, there has been more and more interest in topics related to child lexical acquisition. Over these several years, the research has issued many relevant theoretical insights resp. assumptions, and methodologies about lexical development, such as the view of individual differences in early vocabulary composition in terms of a continuum between referential and expressive style (Nelson 1973) and the holophrastic nature of early words (Nelson 1985), the differentiation between expressive and receptive vocabulary, as well as the use of correlational methods (Bates et al. 1988), or the role of domain-general cognitive skills of categorisation and theory of mind (Tomasello 2003), amongst several others. Secondly and most importantly, this body of research (much of which has been done within functionalist-cognitivist frameworks) seems to allow for the formulation of general assumptions concerning child language development in general, as well as the interplay between language and conceptual development. Thus, especially studies focussing on within- and cross-domain developmental correlations seem to provide evidence for a Lexical Bootstrapping (Dale et al. 2000, Dionne et al. 2003), i.e., the assumption that early lexical development, as mapping of words to referents or their conceptualisations, and even to whole propositions, is not only prior to, but also pre-requisite for the emergence of morpho-syntactic constructions (which, incidentally, are not fundamentally different from words, in that they are equally form-meaning pairs). The notion of lexical bootstrapping presupposes an early stage in lexical development characterized by the learning of archilexemes, a term originally proposed by Zemb (1978), as grammarless lexemes composed of form and concept only, here understood as the means by which the child begins to cognize and categorize the world. Such assumption on the fundamental role of early lexical acquisition for later language development as a whole challenges the view about the primacy of syntax over lexicon and semantics that has been postulated in these 50 years of formal linguistics. For our special paper session, we would like to invite researchers interested in an exploratory discussion about lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development, and willing to present their own studies as contributions to this discussion. Empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions dealing with aspects of word learning in the one-word phase (and perhaps also before) that might predict diverse aspects of later language and conceptual development of typically developing and impaired children may focus on one or more of the following questions and topics (evidently, other suggestions are equally welcome): - How can measures of, and assumptions on, early lexical development (vocabulary size, vocabulary composition, vocabulary growth rate, vocabulary style, vocabulary spurt, critical mass, others?) be correlated to measures of later grammatical emergence and development (emergence and proportion of multi-word utterances, Mean Length of Utterance, development of inflectional paradigms and use of function words, realisation of argument constructions, others?) How reliable are such correlations? - How can the study of early lexical development shed light on the issue of individual variance and developmental language disorders? Can aspects of early word learning (expressive vs. referential style, dissimilar timing of vocabulary development, peculiarities in vocabulary composition, peculiarities in the conceptual mapping, others?) provide criteria for a differentiation between mere individual variance and developmental disorder, as well as for a differentiation between transient and persistent disorders? Can such aspects be used in the context of early diagnosis of such disorders? - Which cognitive processes underlie word learning as both word-to-concept mapping and categorization task? Are there constraints and principles at play? What is the nature of such constraintsare they domain(=language) specific or domain general? How are they related to later language and conceptual development? - Does a notion of lexical bootstrapping in language acquisition preclude other bootstrapping mechanisms in the stages before the emergence of grammar, such as prosodic, semantic, syntactic bootstrapping, or can interplay amongst these types of bootstrapping mechanisms be assumed? - Related to the last question, how does the child construct her mental lexicon? How is it structuredis this structure modular or network-like or anything else? Which processes of reorganisation are at work along development? - Can early words (at least partially) be seen as holophrases in that they (at least partially) refer to whole propositions? Which developmental change(s) takes place in the transition from holophrastic one-word utterances to multi-word utterances? - Which evidences can be drawn from studies of word learning in children with cognitive developmental disorders (Down Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, others?), as well as in blind and deaf children? - Which insights can be drawn from research based on (i) corpora analyses; (ii) computer learning simulations; (iii) neural activation in experimental situations, such as categorisation tasks; (iv) lexical/conceptual processing in adults with and without language disorders (e.g. aphasia)? - Which similarities, differences or peculiarities can be observed when comparing mono- and multilingual word learning, as well as comparing monolingual and cross-linguistic studies? Depending on the number of contributions, the special session will take place at one or two days of the conference. The theme session will be framed by a paper introducing the topic of lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development and, again depending on the number of contributions, one or two discussion rounds. Please send only detailed abstracts (2 pages), in which you make clear how your study is related to the topic of lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development. The deadline for abstract submission is 15 May 2006. Participants will be notified of the acceptance of their papers by 1 July 2006. Participants should send us an updated abstract of their papers by 21 September 2006. Please send your abstracts exclusively as email attachments (doc- or rtf-files) to: Susanna Bartsch Dagmar Bittner bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de dabitt at zas.gwz-berlin.de The conference languages are German and English. The organizers are investigating the possibility of, after review, publishing the presented papers in a compilation on lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development. References Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. 1988. From First Words to Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Brown, R. 1958. Words and things. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Dale, P. S., Dionne, G., Eley, T. C., & Plomin, R. 2000. Lexical and grammatical development: A behavioural genetic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 27/3, 619-642. Dionne, G., Dale, P. S., Boivin, M., & Plomin R. 2003. Genetic evidence for bidirectional effects of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74, 394-412. Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London & New York: Routledge. Marchman, V. A. & Bates, E. 1994. Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass. Journal of Child Language, 21/2, 339-366. Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Chicago: Univ. Press. Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning. Developmental psychology series. Orlando: Academic Press. Pinker, S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Rothweiler, M. & Meibauer, J. (eds.) (1999). Das Lexikon im Sprcherwerb: Ein Überblick. In: Meibauer, J., & Rothweiler, M. (Eds.). (1999). Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb. UTB für Wissenschaft;Mittlere Reihe, 2039. Tübingen: Francke. Rescorla, L., Mirak, J., & Singh, L. (2000). Vocabulary growth in late talkers: Lexical development from 2;0 to 3;0. Journal of Child Language, 27, 293-311. Zemb, J. M. 1978. Vergleichende Grammatik Französisch Deutsch: Comparaison de deux systèmes. Mannheim et al.: Bibliographisches Institut. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Susanna Bartsch Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZaS) Centre for General Linguistics, Typology, and Universals Research Jägerstr. 10-11 10117 Berlin Germany From m.norde at rug.nl Thu Apr 13 10:59:33 2006 From: m.norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:59:33 +0200 Subject: PhD positions at the University of Groningen Message-ID: Graduate Fellowships in Linguistics, April 2006 University of Groningen, The Netherlands The Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) announces the following positions: -Three Ubbo Emmius Fellowships in Linguistics (various topics, see below) -One Fellowship in Linguistics for work in the project 'Linguistic determinants of mutual intelligibility in Scandinavia' The Ubbo Emmius positions (all the PhD positions) are open only to foreign applicants. Dutch citizens are not eligible due to tax restrictions. Deadline for applications is May 15, 2006 The range of opportunities (specializations): Three open positions may be filled in any of the following research groups: - computational linguistics - discourse structure - second language development - syntax and semantics - language variation and language change Conditions: The "open" positions should begin Sept. 1, 2006, and the position on intelligibility in Jan., 2007. They all require residence in Groningen, 38 hours/week research, and the stipends must result in a PhD dissertation. Fellowship Stipends: Graduate students receive stipends of gross 1399 per month, normally with slight cost-of-living increases in later years. Graduate student fellows receive a contract for one year extendible for three further years subject to evaluation after the first year. Your profile: -a MA degree in Linguistics or a related field such as Computer Science, Psychology, etc (depending on the project) -preferably research experience in the relevant field -able to work independently -interest in interdisciplinary research -excellent record of undergraduate and Master's level study -willing to learn Dutch See specific projects for additional desiderata, differing per project . For more information about fields of specialization and application procedures, please visit: http://www.let.rug.nl/~nerbonne/clcg/phd-2006/ From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sat Apr 15 04:01:24 2006 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:01:24 -0700 Subject: Lecturer position in linguistics Message-ID: LINGUISTICS: Full-Time Lecturer, one-year temporary appointment at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the 2006-2007 academic year, beginning September 18, 2006, with the possibility of renewal. Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. Ph.D. or ABD in linguistics and experience in teaching introductory general and applied linguistics as well as either freshman composition, ESL composition, or general education courses in literature required. To apply, please go to http://www.calpolyjobs.org, complete an online faculty application, and apply to Requisition #100917. Please attach a cover letter and curriculum vita to electronic application. Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript showing highest degree mailed to David Kann, Chair of the English Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407. Review of applications will begin May 28, 2006. Applications received after that date may be considered. For questions, please contact the department at (805)756-5850. http://cla.calpoly.edu/engl/. Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals. EEO. Johanna Rubba, Assoc. Prof., Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93047 Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel. 805.756.6374 Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 18 12:08:39 2006 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:08:39 EDT Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution Message-ID: The full article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/science/11comm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Subscription is required, but it is free. (Note that the article is about language mechanisms, not language itself. So, as is usual in new genomania literature, there is no real mention of the environmental contingencies that drove natural selection or of survival value -- i.e., there is no real mention of how any specific advantage of language along the way could have kept favoring the development of this long string of genetic changes -- and why the same causes did not favor the same development of language in other species.) >>From Squeak to Syntax: Language's Incremental Evolution By GARY MARCUS Published: April 11, 2006 The origin of human language has always been a puzzle. No animal communication system comes close to human language in its power, and by most accounts language has been on the planet less than half a million years, a mere blink of the eye in geological time. How could this be, if language evolved like any other biological trait? Where is the trail of natural selection? Until recently, there was little direct evidence of language's evolution. Languages don't leave fossils, and while there has never been any dearth of theories explaining why language might have evolved (be it for grooming, gossip or seduction), empirical evidence has been hard to come by. All that is finally starting to change. The booming science of comparative genomics is allowing researchers to investigate the origins of language in an entirely new way: by asking how the genes that underwrite human language relate to genes found in other species. And these new data provide a fresh example of the power of natural selection. If language had been built on a completely unprecedented set of genes, Darwin (and his successors) would have a lot of explaining to do. With no more than a few hundred thousand years to play with, a linguistic system that depended on thousands of evolutionarily unprecedented genes would seem impossible. But evolution is about random processes that tinker with old parts, not about engineering new ones. Most of the genes involved in language have some sort of close and ancient counterpart in other species. As a case in point, consider the first gene to be unambiguously tied to language, known as FOXP2, discovered by Simon Fisher and Anthony Monaco, Oxford geneticists. Rather than emerging from scratch in the course of human evolution, FOXP2 has been evolving for several hundred million years — in a way that placed it perfectly for evolving a critical role in language acquisition.... This is what Darwin called "descent with modification." An intelligent engineer faced with a brand new problem might start from scratch, but evolution instead rejiggers old parts for new functions. >>From the perspective of function, human language is without evolutionary precedent. But from the perspective of biology, human language appears simply to be one more remarkable variation on an ancient set of ancestral themes. From eep at hum.ku.dk Tue Apr 18 14:13:39 2006 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:13:39 +0200 Subject: Agreement Message-ID: Can anyone help me with information on languages with a change in agreement controller, seemingly depending on discourse status? In spoken Danish, but also in written Danish used in chat rooms and e-mails, you find now the following type of construction: dem er jeg vild-e med those am I crazy-PL about 'I am crazy about those ones' and also: jeg er vild-e med dem I am crazy-PL about those It seems that agreement with the preposition complement depends on its being focused. In the standard language the predicative adjective _vild_ 'crazy' agrees with the subject: jeg er vild med dem I am crazy-SG about those vi er vild-e med it we are crazy-PL about that Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics University of Copenhagen Njalsgade 120 DK-2300 Copenhagen S. Denmark #45 35328664 eep at hum.ku.dk From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 18 14:57:28 2006 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution Message-ID: Oh where oh where to begin? First, its the New York Times, so what do you expect? These are the same folks whose "Say No More" (Jack Hitt, Feb. 29 2004, NYTimes Magazine) was such an erudite piece of factual journalism. As for content- no new parts? Random evolutionary processes? Without new parts, where did the OLD parts come from? How do you define 'new', or 'parts'? Interesting little jab at 'intelligent engineers' though. With regard to 'no evolutionary precedent', I of course maintain my right to beg to differ. The more we learn about animal vocal communication the clearer the precedents become. But people with agendas in other directions, and those that follow them, are hardly likely to listen. Couple of issues- apes don't do much with oral articulation so far as we know, but they make do with other ones (glottal, supralaryngeal airs sacs, etc.). Innervations and developmental elaborations of musculature can shift over evolutionary time (as can other kinds of field effects, such as affect bone, skin, pigmentation, etc.). There are MANY examples known. Such functional handing off from one zone to another is a bit more organized than mere reworking of parts, in a 'de-novo'-like fashion. So one can box off the problem (like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp, or the blind men and the elephant) and say 'no precedent' if you like. A lot of folks like to do things like this. That's not a knife- THIS is a knife. Great for creating and defending turf, not so good for getting to the heart of the matter. Jess Tauber From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Apr 18 16:10:24 2006 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:10:24 -0700 Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution In-Reply-To: <39d.be0e81.317630c7@aol.com> Message-ID: I guess I'll have to agree with Steve on this one. The article (and presumably the book it summarized) was a rather lame exemplar of how not to treat evolution--not only of language, but also of anything--in a responsible, illuminating way. Not to mention the rather controversial nature of associating that "gene" with language to begin with (there was a heated discussion on FUNKNET at the time, as I recall). Seems one more attempt to score a quickie & scoop the competition, which is not much of a strategy in science (tho it does happen), but is alas all too prevalent in linguistics. TG ================== Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: >The full article is at >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/science/11comm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin >Subscription is required, but it is free. > >(Note that the article is about language mechanisms, not language itself. >So, as is usual in new genomania literature, there is no real mention of the >environmental contingencies that drove natural selection or of survival value -- >i.e., there is no real mention of how any specific advantage of language along >the way could have kept favoring the development of this long string of >genetic changes -- and why the same causes did not favor the same development of >language in other species.) > >>>From Squeak to Syntax: Language's Incremental Evolution >By GARY MARCUS >Published: April 11, 2006 > >The origin of human language has always been a puzzle. No animal >communication system comes close to human language in its power, and by most accounts >language has been on the planet less than half a million years, a mere blink of >the eye in geological time. > >How could this be, if language evolved like any other biological trait? Where >is the trail of natural selection? Until recently, there was little direct >evidence of language's evolution. Languages don't leave fossils, and while there >has never been any dearth of theories explaining why language might have >evolved (be it for grooming, gossip or seduction), empirical evidence has been >hard to come by. > >All that is finally starting to change. The booming science of comparative >genomics is allowing researchers to investigate the origins of language in an >entirely new way: by asking how the genes that underwrite human language relate >to genes found in other species. And these new data provide a fresh example of >the power of natural selection. > >If language had been built on a completely unprecedented set of genes, Darwin >(and his successors) would have a lot of explaining to do. With no more than >a few hundred thousand years to play with, a linguistic system that depended >on thousands of evolutionarily unprecedented genes would seem impossible. But >evolution is about random processes that tinker with old parts, not about >engineering new ones. > >Most of the genes involved in language have some sort of close and ancient >counterpart in other species. As a case in point, consider the first gene to be >unambiguously tied to language, known as FOXP2, discovered by Simon Fisher and >Anthony Monaco, Oxford geneticists. > >Rather than emerging from scratch in the course of human evolution, FOXP2 has >been evolving for several hundred million years — in a way that placed it >perfectly for evolving a critical role in language acquisition.... > >This is what Darwin called "descent with modification." An intelligent >engineer faced with a brand new problem might start from scratch, but evolution >instead rejiggers old parts for new functions. > >>>From the perspective of function, human language is without evolutionary >precedent. But from the perspective of biology, human language appears simply to >be one more remarkable variation on an ancient set of ancestral themes. > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Apr 19 20:59:04 2006 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:59:04 -0700 Subject: Full-time lecturer positions Message-ID: I sent this to FUNKNET on April 14, but it has not shown up yet in my mail. I'm sending it again in case something went wrong the first time. LINGUISTICS: Full-Time Lecturer, one-year temporary appointment at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the 2006-2007 academic year, beginning September 18, 2006, with the possibility of renewal. Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. Ph.D. or ABD in linguistics and experience in teaching introductory general and applied linguistics as well as either freshman composition, ESL composition, or general education courses in literature required. To apply, please go to http://www.calpolyjobs.org, complete an online faculty application, and apply to Requisition #100917. Please attach a cover letter and curriculum vita to electronic application. Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript showing highest degree mailed to David Kann, Chair of the English Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407. Review of applications will begin May 28, 2006. Applications received after that date may be considered. For questions, please contact the department at (805)756-5850. http://cla.calpoly.edu/engl/. Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity. The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals. EEO. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu Tue Apr 25 02:24:41 2006 From: coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Seana Coulson) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:24:41 -0700 Subject: CFP: Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language Message-ID: CSDL 2006: Preliminary Call for Abstracts (Apologies for cross-postings) The 8th conference on CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE, DISCOURSE, AND LANGUAGE Theme: Language in Action will be held on November 3-5, 2006 at the University of California, San Diego The deadline for abstracts is June 1, 2006 The following invited speakers will lecture at the conference: William Croft (University of New Mexico) Ronald Langacker (UCSD) The conference is sponsored by UCSD's Department of Cognitive Science, Department of Linguistics, the Center for Research in Language, and the Division of Social Sciences. Papers in cognitive, functional, and discourse linguistics and related research areas are welcome, including research on conceptual structure, conceptual operations, grammar, meaning, cognitive processing, acquisition, language use, discourse function, and other issues. Papers are especially encouraged bearing on, but not limited to, the following topics related to the special conference theme Language in Action: Cognition, Gesture, and Sign Conceptual Blending in Discourse Language in Interaction Situated and Distributed Cognition Usage-Based Models Talks will be 20 minutes in length, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. There will be 2-3 parallel sessions of regular papers, plus plenary lectures. ABSTRACTS in PDF format are due June 1, 2006. An abstract of 500 words should be submitted via the web interface: http://csdl.ucsd.edu/ Abstracts should make a clear and interesting point, and indicate the kind of arguments and evidence that will be given in support of it. For additional information on the conference, please consult our rapidly evolving website: http://csdl.ucsd.edu/home/ --------------------------------- Seana Coulson, Ph.D. UCSD Cognitive Science tel: 858-534-7486 fax: 858-534-1128 coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/ From lavelle at unm.edu Fri Apr 7 03:17:18 2006 From: lavelle at unm.edu (Andrew LaVelle) Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 21:17:18 -0600 Subject: Semiotic Society of America Conference 2006: Call for Papers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sun Apr 9 14:25:43 2006 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:25:43 -0400 Subject: Science Proves Linguists are Different! Message-ID: Linguists 'have different brains'- short blip in the BBC News pages: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4883418.stm (Let the games begin....) Jess Tauber From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 15:27:51 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:27:51 -0500 Subject: Science Proves Linguists are Different! In-Reply-To: <2403924.1144592743700.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink. net> Message-ID: jess tauber wrote: > Linguists 'have different brains'- short blip in the BBC News pages: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4883418.stm It strikes me that the BBC article says nothing about the subjects' ages, and that that would make a lot of difference if you're trying to make causal inferences between L2 acquisition and neuroanatomy. For the time being, I'll assume that these linguists (sic) have different brains because they've been using them differently than non-linguists (sic). Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us more. -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 18:26:52 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:26:52 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! Message-ID: Okay, I'll see if I can forward this to the list. -- Mark ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! From: "Morton Ann Gernsbacher" Date: Sun, April 9, 2006 11:45 am To: "Mark P. Line" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- For some reason I'm not allowed to post to the funknet group (who knows why; I've never done it before, so I've never noticed). Anyway, below is the message that I just sent you and the group. Feel free to forward my original message to the group. >Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:37:53 -0500 >From: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Science Proves Linguists are Different! >Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has >been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are >being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at >funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu. >At 10:28 AM -0500 4/9/06, Mark P. Line wrote: >>Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us more. >>-- Mark > >A PDF is attached. >-- >Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D. >Vilas Research Professor and Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor >University of Wisconsin-Madison >1202 W. Johnson Street >Madison, WI 53706-1611 >(608) 262-6989 [fax (608) 262-4029] >www.gernsbacherlab.org > From mark at polymathix.com Sun Apr 9 18:40:58 2006 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 13:40:58 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! In-Reply-To: <16291.4.230.156.192.1144607212.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: It looks like the FUNKNET server doesn't allow attachments. Maybe you can provide a URL to the PDF article. -- Mark Mark P. Line wrote: > Okay, I'll see if I can forward this to the list. > > -- Mark > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Fwd: Re: Science Proves Linguists are Different! > From: "Morton Ann Gernsbacher" > Date: Sun, April 9, 2006 11:45 am > To: "Mark P. Line" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For some reason I'm not allowed to post to the funknet group (who > knows why; I've never done it before, so I've never noticed). Anyway, > below is the message that I just sent you and the group. Feel free to > forward my original message to the group. > >>Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 11:37:53 -0500 >>From: funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Science Proves Linguists are Different! >>Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> >>You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has >>been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are >>being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at >>funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu. > > > >>At 10:28 AM -0500 4/9/06, Mark P. Line wrote: >>>Maybe somebody has the paper in Cerebral Cortex handy and can tell us >>> more. >>>-- Mark >> >>A PDF is attached. >>-- >>Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Ph.D. >>Vilas Research Professor and Sir Frederic C. Bartlett Professor >>University of Wisconsin-Madison >>1202 W. Johnson Street >>Madison, WI 53706-1611 >>(608) 262-6989 [fax (608) 262-4029] >>www.gernsbacherlab.org >> > -- Mark Mark P. Line Polymathix San Antonio, TX From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Apr 10 21:03:56 2006 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.) Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:03:56 +0200 Subject: Reminder: Abstract deadline for RRG '06 is May 1 Message-ID: 2006 International Conference on Role and Reference Grammar September 28-October 1, 2006 University of Leipzig Leipzig, Germany Invited speakers: Balthasar Bickel, University of Leipzig Ina Bornkessel, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Daniel Everett, Illinois State University Martin Haspelmath, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Ricardo Mairal, UNED, Madrid Matthias Schlesewsky, University of Marburg Michael Tomasello, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Robert Van Valin, University at Buffalo Deadline for submitting abstracts and workshop proposals: May 1, 2006 Abstracts for papers should be a maximum of two pages, including data and references, and proposals for workshops should be a maximum of five pages. Submit abstracts and proposals by e-mail to: rrg2006 at uni-leipzig.de Further information about the conference will be posted on the conference website: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~typology/rrg2006/ (not up and running yet) ********************************* Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Professor of Linguistics University at Buffalo, The State University of New York VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU Humboldt Research Award winner, 2006 On sabbatical 2005-2006: Neurotypology Project Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Stephanstra?e 1a D-04103 Leipzig, Germany Telefon: (49) 341-3552-1719 Fax: (49) 341-3552-1731 From c.gabrielatos at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Apr 11 11:11:01 2006 From: c.gabrielatos at lancaster.ac.uk (Costas Gabrielatos) Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:11:01 +0100 Subject: The First Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching (second call for papers) In-Reply-To: <16291.4.230.156.192.1144607212.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: The First Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching Saturday, 15 July 2006, Lancaster, United Kingdom CALL FOR PAPERS The first Lancaster University Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching aims to offer the opportunity for postgraduate students from various areas in linguistics and language teaching /assessment to come together to present papers related to their research and to exchange ideas. We are pleased to announce Professor Geoffrey Leech and Professor Paul Kerswill as the inaugural keynote speakers. Postgraduate students are invited to submit abstracts for oral or poster presentations on any topic related to their research. Papers are to be 20 minutes in length plus 10 minutes for comments and questions. ABSTRACT SUBMISSION DEADLINE Abstracts must be received by 30 April 2006. Authors will be notified by 21 May 2006. Please send your abstracts to pgconference2006 at googlemail.com ABSTRACT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Abstracts should between 300 ? 400 words and should be submitted via e-mail attachments (Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format files). Abstracts should include: 1. The title of the paper 2. A list of 3 -6 key words describing the area and focus 3. The research focus 4. The research methodology 5. A brief summary of findings (if applicable) 6. A short list of key references Abstracts should not include the author?s name or any other identifying information. The e-mail message accompanying the abstract should contain the following information: 1. The title and preferred presentation type (oral or poster) 2. The name(s) of the author(s) and their affiliation(s) 3. The author?s e-mail address and contact details 4. Audiovisual equipment required (if any) PROCEEDINGS We plan to publish accepted papers in the online LAEL2006 proceedings. Presenters who would like their papers included in the proceedings need to submit them by 15 September 2006. REGISTRATION INFORMATION -- ?6 for registration by 31 May 2006. -- ?10 for registration after 31 May 2006 . The registration fee includes refreshments and lunch. Registration forms are available at the conference website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/ Please complete and mail the form along with payment (by cheque/postal order made payable to Lancaster University) to: LILY ATANGA LAEL PGCONFERENCE 2006 Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University, LA1 4YT United Kingdom (LAEL students can pay cash to Tina Kosetzi or Zarina Othman at the department). Further details about the conference can be found at the conference website: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/ From bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de Thu Apr 13 10:22:22 2006 From: bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de (bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:22:22 GMT Subject: Call for Papers Lexical Acquisition GCLA Conference Message-ID: Call for Papers Lexical Bootstrapping in Child Language Acquisition and Child Conceptual Development Theme session To be held at the Second International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Munich, 5-7 October 2006 Apart from some few exceptions (Brown 1958, Nelson 1973), the research on child lexical development did not receive much attention from students of child language in the 1960s and 1970s. In opposition to some statements found in the more recent literature (Rothweiler & Meibauer 1999), this fact is not really surprising when one considers the very influential role then played by formal linguistics with its primacy of syntactic structures and the view of lexicon and semantics as something rather epiphenomenal. From the 1980s on, this state of affairs has changed dramatically. For one thing, over the last 25 years or so, there has been more and more interest in topics related to child lexical acquisition. Over these several years, the research has issued many relevant theoretical insights resp. assumptions, and methodologies about lexical development, such as the view of individual differences in early vocabulary composition in terms of a continuum between referential and expressive style (Nelson 1973) and the holophrastic nature of early words (Nelson 1985), the differentiation between expressive and receptive vocabulary, as well as the use of correlational methods (Bates et al. 1988), or the role of domain-general cognitive skills of categorisation and theory of mind (Tomasello 2003), amongst several others. Secondly and most importantly, this body of research (much of which has been done within functionalist-cognitivist frameworks) seems to allow for the formulation of general assumptions concerning child language development in general, as well as the interplay between language and conceptual development. Thus, especially studies focussing on within- and cross-domain developmental correlations seem to provide evidence for a Lexical Bootstrapping (Dale et al. 2000, Dionne et al. 2003), i.e., the assumption that early lexical development, as mapping of words to referents or their conceptualisations, and even to whole propositions, is not only prior to, but also pre-requisite for the emergence of morpho-syntactic constructions (which, incidentally, are not fundamentally different from words, in that they are equally form-meaning pairs). The notion of lexical bootstrapping presupposes an early stage in lexical development characterized by the learning of archilexemes, a term originally proposed by Zemb (1978), as grammarless lexemes composed of form and concept only, here understood as the means by which the child begins to cognize and categorize the world. Such assumption on the fundamental role of early lexical acquisition for later language development as a whole challenges the view about the primacy of syntax over lexicon and semantics that has been postulated in these 50 years of formal linguistics. For our special paper session, we would like to invite researchers interested in an exploratory discussion about lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development, and willing to present their own studies as contributions to this discussion. Empirical, methodological and theoretical contributions dealing with aspects of word learning in the one-word phase (and perhaps also before) that might predict diverse aspects of later language and conceptual development of typically developing and impaired children may focus on one or more of the following questions and topics (evidently, other suggestions are equally welcome): - How can measures of, and assumptions on, early lexical development (vocabulary size, vocabulary composition, vocabulary growth rate, vocabulary style, vocabulary spurt, critical mass, others?) be correlated to measures of later grammatical emergence and development (emergence and proportion of multi-word utterances, Mean Length of Utterance, development of inflectional paradigms and use of function words, realisation of argument constructions, others?) How reliable are such correlations? - How can the study of early lexical development shed light on the issue of individual variance and developmental language disorders? Can aspects of early word learning (expressive vs. referential style, dissimilar timing of vocabulary development, peculiarities in vocabulary composition, peculiarities in the conceptual mapping, others?) provide criteria for a differentiation between mere individual variance and developmental disorder, as well as for a differentiation between transient and persistent disorders? Can such aspects be used in the context of early diagnosis of such disorders? - Which cognitive processes underlie word learning as both word-to-concept mapping and categorization task? Are there constraints and principles at play? What is the nature of such constraints?are they domain(=language) specific or domain general? How are they related to later language and conceptual development? - Does a notion of lexical bootstrapping in language acquisition preclude other bootstrapping mechanisms in the stages before the emergence of grammar, such as prosodic, semantic, syntactic bootstrapping, or can interplay amongst these types of bootstrapping mechanisms be assumed? - Related to the last question, how does the child construct her mental lexicon? How is it structured?is this structure modular or network-like or anything else? Which processes of reorganisation are at work along development? - Can early words (at least partially) be seen as holophrases in that they (at least partially) refer to whole propositions? Which developmental change(s) takes place in the transition from holophrastic one-word utterances to multi-word utterances? - Which evidences can be drawn from studies of word learning in children with cognitive developmental disorders (Down Syndrome, Williams Syndrome, others?), as well as in blind and deaf children? - Which insights can be drawn from research based on (i) corpora analyses; (ii) computer learning simulations; (iii) neural activation in experimental situations, such as categorisation tasks; (iv) lexical/conceptual processing in adults with and without language disorders (e.g. aphasia)? - Which similarities, differences or peculiarities can be observed when comparing mono- and multilingual word learning, as well as comparing monolingual and cross-linguistic studies? Depending on the number of contributions, the special session will take place at one or two days of the conference. The theme session will be framed by a paper introducing the topic of lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development and, again depending on the number of contributions, one or two discussion rounds. Please send only detailed abstracts (2 pages), in which you make clear how your study is related to the topic of lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development. The deadline for abstract submission is 15 May 2006. Participants will be notified of the acceptance of their papers by 1 July 2006. Participants should send us an updated abstract of their papers by 21 September 2006. Please send your abstracts exclusively as email attachments (doc- or rtf-files) to: Susanna Bartsch Dagmar Bittner bartsch at zas.gwz-berlin.de dabitt at zas.gwz-berlin.de The conference languages are German and English. The organizers are investigating the possibility of, after review, publishing the presented papers in a compilation on lexical bootstrapping in child language and conceptual development. References Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. 1988. From First Words to Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Brown, R. 1958. Words and things. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Dale, P. S., Dionne, G., Eley, T. C., & Plomin, R. 2000. Lexical and grammatical development: A behavioural genetic perspective. Journal of Child Language, 27/3, 619-642. Dionne, G., Dale, P. S., Boivin, M., & Plomin R. 2003. Genetic evidence for bidirectional effects of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74, 394-412. Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London & New York: Routledge. Marchman, V. A. & Bates, E. 1994. Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass. Journal of Child Language, 21/2, 339-366. Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Chicago: Univ. Press. Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared meaning. Developmental psychology series. Orlando: Academic Press. Pinker, S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Rothweiler, M. & Meibauer, J. (eds.) (1999). Das Lexikon im Sprcherwerb: Ein ?berblick. In: Meibauer, J., & Rothweiler, M. (Eds.). (1999). Das Lexikon im Spracherwerb. UTB f?r Wissenschaft;Mittlere Reihe, 2039. T?bingen: Francke. Rescorla, L., Mirak, J., & Singh, L. (2000). Vocabulary growth in late talkers: Lexical development from 2;0 to 3;0. Journal of Child Language, 27, 293-311. Zemb, J. M. 1978. Vergleichende Grammatik Franz?sisch Deutsch: Comparaison de deux syst?mes. Mannheim et al.: Bibliographisches Institut. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Susanna Bartsch Zentrum f?r allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZaS) Centre for General Linguistics, Typology, and Universals Research J?gerstr. 10-11 10117 Berlin Germany From m.norde at rug.nl Thu Apr 13 10:59:33 2006 From: m.norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:59:33 +0200 Subject: PhD positions at the University of Groningen Message-ID: Graduate Fellowships in Linguistics, April 2006 University of Groningen, The Netherlands The Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG) announces the following positions: -Three Ubbo Emmius Fellowships in Linguistics (various topics, see below) -One Fellowship in Linguistics for work in the project 'Linguistic determinants of mutual intelligibility in Scandinavia' The Ubbo Emmius positions (all the PhD positions) are open only to foreign applicants. Dutch citizens are not eligible due to tax restrictions. Deadline for applications is May 15, 2006 The range of opportunities (specializations): Three open positions may be filled in any of the following research groups: - computational linguistics - discourse structure - second language development - syntax and semantics - language variation and language change Conditions: The "open" positions should begin Sept. 1, 2006, and the position on intelligibility in Jan., 2007. They all require residence in Groningen, 38 hours/week research, and the stipends must result in a PhD dissertation. Fellowship Stipends: Graduate students receive stipends of gross 1399 per month, normally with slight cost-of-living increases in later years. Graduate student fellows receive a contract for one year extendible for three further years subject to evaluation after the first year. Your profile: -a MA degree in Linguistics or a related field such as Computer Science, Psychology, etc (depending on the project) -preferably research experience in the relevant field -able to work independently -interest in interdisciplinary research -excellent record of undergraduate and Master's level study -willing to learn Dutch See specific projects for additional desiderata, differing per project . For more information about fields of specialization and application procedures, please visit: http://www.let.rug.nl/~nerbonne/clcg/phd-2006/ From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sat Apr 15 04:01:24 2006 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 21:01:24 -0700 Subject: Lecturer position in linguistics Message-ID: LINGUISTICS:?Full-Time Lecturer, one-year temporary appointment at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the 2006-2007 academic year, beginning September 18, 2006, with the possibility of renewal.?Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience.?Ph.D. or ABD in linguistics and experience in teaching introductory general and applied linguistics as well as either freshman composition, ESL composition, or general education courses in literature required.?To apply, please go to http://www.calpolyjobs.org, complete an online faculty application, and apply to Requisition #100917.?Please attach a cover letter and curriculum vita to electronic application.?Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript showing highest degree mailed to David Kann, Chair of the English Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407.?Review of applications will begin May 28, 2006.?Applications received after that date may be considered.?For questions, please contact the department at (805)756-5850.?http://cla.calpoly.edu/engl/.??Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity.?The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals.?EEO.?? Johanna Rubba, Assoc. Prof., Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93047 Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel. 805.756.6374 Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 18 12:08:39 2006 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:08:39 EDT Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution Message-ID: The full article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/science/11comm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Subscription is required, but it is free. (Note that the article is about language mechanisms, not language itself. So, as is usual in new genomania literature, there is no real mention of the environmental contingencies that drove natural selection or of survival value -- i.e., there is no real mention of how any specific advantage of language along the way could have kept favoring the development of this long string of genetic changes -- and why the same causes did not favor the same development of language in other species.) >>From Squeak to Syntax: Language's Incremental Evolution By GARY MARCUS Published: April 11, 2006 The origin of human language has always been a puzzle. No animal communication system comes close to human language in its power, and by most accounts language has been on the planet less than half a million years, a mere blink of the eye in geological time. How could this be, if language evolved like any other biological trait? Where is the trail of natural selection? Until recently, there was little direct evidence of language's evolution. Languages don't leave fossils, and while there has never been any dearth of theories explaining why language might have evolved (be it for grooming, gossip or seduction), empirical evidence has been hard to come by. All that is finally starting to change. The booming science of comparative genomics is allowing researchers to investigate the origins of language in an entirely new way: by asking how the genes that underwrite human language relate to genes found in other species. And these new data provide a fresh example of the power of natural selection. If language had been built on a completely unprecedented set of genes, Darwin (and his successors) would have a lot of explaining to do. With no more than a few hundred thousand years to play with, a linguistic system that depended on thousands of evolutionarily unprecedented genes would seem impossible. But evolution is about random processes that tinker with old parts, not about engineering new ones. Most of the genes involved in language have some sort of close and ancient counterpart in other species. As a case in point, consider the first gene to be unambiguously tied to language, known as FOXP2, discovered by Simon Fisher and Anthony Monaco, Oxford geneticists. Rather than emerging from scratch in the course of human evolution, FOXP2 has been evolving for several hundred million years ? in a way that placed it perfectly for evolving a critical role in language acquisition.... This is what Darwin called "descent with modification." An intelligent engineer faced with a brand new problem might start from scratch, but evolution instead rejiggers old parts for new functions. >>From the perspective of function, human language is without evolutionary precedent. But from the perspective of biology, human language appears simply to be one more remarkable variation on an ancient set of ancestral themes. From eep at hum.ku.dk Tue Apr 18 14:13:39 2006 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:13:39 +0200 Subject: Agreement Message-ID: Can anyone help me with information on languages with a change in agreement controller, seemingly depending on discourse status? In spoken Danish, but also in written Danish used in chat rooms and e-mails, you find now the following type of construction: dem?er jeg vild-e?med those am I crazy-PL?about 'I am crazy about those ones' and also: jeg er vild-e med?dem I?am crazy-PL about those It seems that agreement with the preposition complement depends on its being focused. In the standard language the predicative adjective _vild_ 'crazy' agrees with the subject: jeg?er vild?med?dem I am crazy-SG about those vi?er vild-e med?it we are crazy-PL about that Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics University of Copenhagen Njalsgade 120 DK-2300 Copenhagen S. Denmark #45 35328664 eep at hum.ku.dk From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 18 14:57:28 2006 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:57:28 -0400 Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution Message-ID: Oh where oh where to begin? First, its the New York Times, so what do you expect? These are the same folks whose "Say No More" (Jack Hitt, Feb. 29 2004, NYTimes Magazine) was such an erudite piece of factual journalism. As for content- no new parts? Random evolutionary processes? Without new parts, where did the OLD parts come from? How do you define 'new', or 'parts'? Interesting little jab at 'intelligent engineers' though. With regard to 'no evolutionary precedent', I of course maintain my right to beg to differ. The more we learn about animal vocal communication the clearer the precedents become. But people with agendas in other directions, and those that follow them, are hardly likely to listen. Couple of issues- apes don't do much with oral articulation so far as we know, but they make do with other ones (glottal, supralaryngeal airs sacs, etc.). Innervations and developmental elaborations of musculature can shift over evolutionary time (as can other kinds of field effects, such as affect bone, skin, pigmentation, etc.). There are MANY examples known. Such functional handing off from one zone to another is a bit more organized than mere reworking of parts, in a 'de-novo'-like fashion. So one can box off the problem (like the drunk looking for his keys under the lamp, or the blind men and the elephant) and say 'no precedent' if you like. A lot of folks like to do things like this. That's not a knife- THIS is a knife. Great for creating and defending turf, not so good for getting to the heart of the matter. Jess Tauber From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Apr 18 16:10:24 2006 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:10:24 -0700 Subject: Times piece on Language Evolution In-Reply-To: <39d.be0e81.317630c7@aol.com> Message-ID: I guess I'll have to agree with Steve on this one. The article (and presumably the book it summarized) was a rather lame exemplar of how not to treat evolution--not only of language, but also of anything--in a responsible, illuminating way. Not to mention the rather controversial nature of associating that "gene" with language to begin with (there was a heated discussion on FUNKNET at the time, as I recall). Seems one more attempt to score a quickie & scoop the competition, which is not much of a strategy in science (tho it does happen), but is alas all too prevalent in linguistics. TG ================== Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: >The full article is at >http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/science/11comm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin >Subscription is required, but it is free. > >(Note that the article is about language mechanisms, not language itself. >So, as is usual in new genomania literature, there is no real mention of the >environmental contingencies that drove natural selection or of survival value -- >i.e., there is no real mention of how any specific advantage of language along >the way could have kept favoring the development of this long string of >genetic changes -- and why the same causes did not favor the same development of >language in other species.) > >>>From Squeak to Syntax: Language's Incremental Evolution >By GARY MARCUS >Published: April 11, 2006 > >The origin of human language has always been a puzzle. No animal >communication system comes close to human language in its power, and by most accounts >language has been on the planet less than half a million years, a mere blink of >the eye in geological time. > >How could this be, if language evolved like any other biological trait? Where >is the trail of natural selection? Until recently, there was little direct >evidence of language's evolution. Languages don't leave fossils, and while there >has never been any dearth of theories explaining why language might have >evolved (be it for grooming, gossip or seduction), empirical evidence has been >hard to come by. > >All that is finally starting to change. The booming science of comparative >genomics is allowing researchers to investigate the origins of language in an >entirely new way: by asking how the genes that underwrite human language relate >to genes found in other species. And these new data provide a fresh example of >the power of natural selection. > >If language had been built on a completely unprecedented set of genes, Darwin >(and his successors) would have a lot of explaining to do. With no more than >a few hundred thousand years to play with, a linguistic system that depended >on thousands of evolutionarily unprecedented genes would seem impossible. But >evolution is about random processes that tinker with old parts, not about >engineering new ones. > >Most of the genes involved in language have some sort of close and ancient >counterpart in other species. As a case in point, consider the first gene to be >unambiguously tied to language, known as FOXP2, discovered by Simon Fisher and >Anthony Monaco, Oxford geneticists. > >Rather than emerging from scratch in the course of human evolution, FOXP2 has >been evolving for several hundred million years ? in a way that placed it >perfectly for evolving a critical role in language acquisition.... > >This is what Darwin called "descent with modification." An intelligent >engineer faced with a brand new problem might start from scratch, but evolution >instead rejiggers old parts for new functions. > >>>From the perspective of function, human language is without evolutionary >precedent. But from the perspective of biology, human language appears simply to >be one more remarkable variation on an ancient set of ancestral themes. > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Apr 19 20:59:04 2006 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:59:04 -0700 Subject: Full-time lecturer positions Message-ID: I sent this to FUNKNET on April 14, but it has not shown up yet in my mail. I'm sending it again in case something went wrong the first time. LINGUISTICS:?Full-Time Lecturer, one-year temporary appointment at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, for the 2006-2007 academic year, beginning September 18, 2006, with the possibility of renewal.?Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience.?Ph.D. or ABD in linguistics and experience in teaching introductory general and applied linguistics as well as either freshman composition, ESL composition, or general education courses in literature required.?To apply, please go to http://www.calpolyjobs.org, complete an online faculty application, and apply to Requisition #100917.?Please attach a cover letter and curriculum vita to electronic application.?Have three letters of recommendation and official transcript showing highest degree mailed to David Kann, Chair of the English Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407.?Review of applications will begin May 28, 2006.?Applications received after that date may be considered.?For questions, please contact the department at (805)756-5850.?http://cla.calpoly.edu/engl/.??Cal Poly is strongly committed to achieving excellence through cultural diversity.?The university actively encourages applications and nominations of all qualified individuals.?EEO.?? Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu Tue Apr 25 02:24:41 2006 From: coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Seana Coulson) Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:24:41 -0700 Subject: CFP: Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language Message-ID: CSDL 2006: Preliminary Call for Abstracts (Apologies for cross-postings) The 8th conference on CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE, DISCOURSE, AND LANGUAGE Theme: Language in Action will be held on November 3-5, 2006 at the University of California, San Diego The deadline for abstracts is June 1, 2006 The following invited speakers will lecture at the conference: William Croft (University of New Mexico) Ronald Langacker (UCSD) The conference is sponsored by UCSD's Department of Cognitive Science, Department of Linguistics, the Center for Research in Language, and the Division of Social Sciences. Papers in cognitive, functional, and discourse linguistics and related research areas are welcome, including research on conceptual structure, conceptual operations, grammar, meaning, cognitive processing, acquisition, language use, discourse function, and other issues. Papers are especially encouraged bearing on, but not limited to, the following topics related to the special conference theme Language in Action: Cognition, Gesture, and Sign Conceptual Blending in Discourse Language in Interaction Situated and Distributed Cognition Usage-Based Models Talks will be 20 minutes in length, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. There will be 2-3 parallel sessions of regular papers, plus plenary lectures. ABSTRACTS in PDF format are due June 1, 2006. An abstract of 500 words should be submitted via the web interface: http://csdl.ucsd.edu/ Abstracts should make a clear and interesting point, and indicate the kind of arguments and evidence that will be given in support of it. For additional information on the conference, please consult our rapidly evolving website: http://csdl.ucsd.edu/home/ --------------------------------- Seana Coulson, Ph.D. UCSD Cognitive Science tel: 858-534-7486 fax: 858-534-1128 coulson at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/