From andrea.schalley at une.edu.au  Mon Feb  6 01:02:25 2006
From: andrea.schalley at une.edu.au (Andrea Schalley)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:02:25 +1100
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute - ALI 2006
Message-ID: <MON.6.FEB.2006.120225.1100.ANDREA.SCHALLEY@UNE.EDU.AU>

*******************************************************************
First Call for Participation

AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE 2006
ALI 2006

<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/>

DATES:		Monday-Friday, 10-14 JULY 2006
LOCATION: 	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

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

ALI 2006 is a selection of 12 intensive courses presented by world 
experts in their fields. It's a unique opportunity for graduate 
students, advanced undergraduates, professional linguists, and language 
professionals to upgrade their knowledge and skills in key areas of 
linguistics.


- COURSES -

Many courses in ALI 2006 are on the theme 'Language and Cognition', 
while others focus on language typology, acquisition, and aspects of 
linguistic theory.
	
Each course consists of five 90 minute sessions, running Monday through 
Friday. Three sets of courses will be running in parallel, so 
participants can attend a maximum of four courses. Confirmed topics and 
presenters are as follows.

     * Cognitive linguistics
       John Taylor (University of Otago)
     * Combinatory grammar and natural cognition
       Mark Steedman (University of Edinburgh)
     * L2 syntax: Age dependent effects
       Bonnie Schwartz (University of Hawai'i)
     * Language and genetics
       Brian Byrne (University of New England)
     * Language and thought
       Lera Boroditsky (Stanford University)
     * Logic in child language acquisition
       Stephen Crain (Macquarie University Centre for Cognitive Science)
     * Morphology and lexical representations
       Andrew Spencer (University of Essex)
     * NonPamaNyungan languages of Northern Australia
       Nicholas Evans (Melbourne University)
     * Papuan languages
       William Foley (University of Sydney)
     * Semantics masterclass
       Anna Wierzbicka (Australian National University)
     * Understanding typological distribution
       Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig)

We are also working on the inclusion of a course on the topic 
'Bilingualism: cognitive aspects'. The presenter for this topic will be 
announced shortly.


- REGISTRATION -

DEADLINE: 	Early Bird: 26 May 2006
			General: tba

FEES:		  	 			
Early Bird (up to 26 May 2006)
  		Regular 	 			AU$ 400
  		Postgraduate Students 	AU$ 300
  		Undergraduate Students 	AU$ 200

General (from 26 May 2006)
		Regular 	 			AU$ 450
   		Postgraduate Students 	AU$ 350
		Undergraduate Students 	AU$ 250

Information on *how* to register will be available at 
<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/registration.php> at a later time.


- CONTACTS -

Website:	<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/>
Email:	Prof. Cliff Goddard,	<cgoddard at une.edu.au>, or
		Dr Andrea Schalley,	<andrea.schalley at une.edu.au>


- ORGANISERS AND SPONSORS -

ALI 2006 is organised by the Language and Cognition Research Centre of 
the University of New England (<http://www.une.edu.au/arts/LangCog/>). 
It is supported by the Australian Linguistic Society 
(<http://www.als.asn.au/>).


- LINQ 2006 -

ALI 2006 is part of LinQ 2006 'Linguistics in Queensland', a series of 
five high-profile linguistic events to be held in July 2006 at the 
University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. For more information, 
cf. <http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/>.


From andrea.schalley at une.edu.au  Mon Feb  6 01:03:13 2006
From: andrea.schalley at une.edu.au (Andrea Schalley)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:03:13 +1100
Subject: LinQ 2006 - Linguistics in Queensland
Message-ID: <MON.6.FEB.2006.120313.1100.ANDREA.SCHALLEY@UNE.EDU.AU>

*******************************************************************
First Call

LINGUISTICS IN QUEENSLAND 2006
LINQ 2006

<http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/>

DATES:		4-14 JULY 2006
LOCATION: 	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

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

LinQ 2006 is a series of five high-profile linguistic events to be held 
in July 2006 at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.
LinQ 2006 is a collaboration between Griffith University, the 
University of New England, and the University of Queensland.

- EVENTS -

** PacSLRF 2006 **
THE 5TH PACIFIC SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH FORUM
Dates: 		July 4-6, 2006
Webpage: 	http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/pacslrf2006/

PacSLRF is a venue for data-based and theoretical papers on areas of 
basic research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Topics include, 
but are not limited to, SLA in instructed and naturalistic settings; 
the effects of second language (L2) instruction on the rate and route 
of L2 development; the role of individual differences (in e.g., 
aptitude, age, personality, motivation) in SLA; competing models of SLA 
processes; SLA theory construction; the acquisition of L2 pragmatics; 
bilingualism; the influence of cognitive variables (e.g., memory and 
attention) on L2 learning and use; the assessment of L2 use and 
development; methodological issues in research into L2 acquisition.

** AUSTRALEX 2006 **
AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR LEXICOGRAPHY CONFERENCE
Date: 		July 6, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.australex.org/a06.htm>

The theme for Australex 2006 is "Dictionaries: Uses and Users". Topics 
will include: dictionaries as the voice of authority; dictionaries to 
support specialized subjects; the use of dictionaries within language 
pedagogy; designing dictionaries for different levels of reader; 
lexicography in the Pacific region; research on dictionary users.

** ALAA 2006 **
ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE APPLIED LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
Dates:		July 6-8, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.uq.edu.au/slccs/AppliedLing/alaa06>

Papers in all areas of applied linguistics, including language 
teaching, language policy and planning, and computer-based language 
instruction.

** ALS 2006 **
ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTIC SOCIETY
Dates: 		July 7-9, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.uq.edu.au/slccs/AppliedLing/als06/>

Papers in all areas of linguistics, including syntax, phonology, 
Australian languages and sociolinguistics.

** ALI 2006 **
AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE
Dates: 		July 10-14, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.ali06.une.edu.au>

ALI 2006 is a selection of 12 short intensive courses presented by 
world experts in their fields. It's a unique opportunity for graduate 
students, advanced undergraduates, professional linguists, and language 
professionals to upgrade their knowledge and skills in key areas of 
linguistics.

- REGISTRATION -
Deadline: 	Early Bird: 26 May 2006; General: tba.
Information on how to register will be available at 
<http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/registration.php> at a later time.


From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi  Wed Feb  8 12:33:51 2006
From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (Kaius Sinnemaki)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:33:51 +0200
Subject: CFP: Structure and Context
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.143351.0200.>

<<<Apologies for cross-posting>>>

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


     CALL FOR PAPERS


The Linguistic Association of Finland is organizing a symposium on "Structure
and Context" to be held in Turku, Finland, August 21-22, 2006.

***

The symposium concentrates on the interaction of linguistic structures and
context. We invite papers addressing theoretical questions as well as papers
taking a specific (empirical) viewpoint on one (or more) particular language(s).

Every linguist working on any kind of structural description has to deal with
context, or co-text. Many phenomena are said to be context-dependent. What,
then, is the 'context' that these phenomena are related to, and how should this
relationship be described? Context is a topic that is common among linguists
from different schools of thought even if they have different ways of treating
it. The symposium offers linguists a possibility to discuss the topic from
various angles and learn from each other's views.

Problems concerning context are for instance the following:

   * What is a sufficient context?
   * What belongs / does not belong in the context?
   * What is the proper description of context for different linguistic
     phenomena?
   * Should the theoretical description distinguish between the
     structure and the context?
   * What does context-dependency mean for particular linguistic
     phenomena?

We encourage contributions broadly from diverse areas of linguistics, including
traditional theoretical linguistics, experimental psycholinguistics, linguist
working on spoken language, historical linguistics, grammar, constructions,
text, typology, etc.


       Plenary speakers

   * Arvi Hurskainen (University of Helsinki)
   * Anna Siewierska (University of Lancaster)
   * Tuija Virtanen-Ulfhielm (Åbo Akademi University)


       Activities

   * lectures by plenary speakers
   * presentations by other participants (20 min + 10 min for discussion)
   * posters


       Symposium venue

The Åbo Akademi University, Humanities building (Arken), Tehtaankatu 2, Turku,
Finland. For further information on the location, see the Åbo Akademi University
web site: http://www.abo.fi


       Abstracts

The deadline for the submission of abstracts (in English; max 500 words) is
March 31st, 2006. Please submit your abstract by e-mail to the following
address: context-organizers (at) ling.helsinki.fi

The abstract should be included in the body of the message. (However, if it
includes special symbols, we would appreciate a pdf-attachment.) Please indicate
clearly whether your abstract is intended as a poster or a section paper.
Participants will be notified about acceptance by April 28th 2006.

The abstracts will be published on the web pages of the symposium at
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/tapahtumat/context/context.shtml


       Registration

Registration fees:

   * general: EUR 50
   * members of the association: EUR 25
   * undergraduate students free

Participants from abroad are requested to pay in cash upon arrival.
Participants from Finland may send the registration fee by giro account no
800013-1424850 to The Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY) / Symposium or pay
in cash upon arrival.

In case you have further questions please email context-organizers (at)
ling.helsinki.fi. Check for information updates at the symposium website:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/tapahtumat/context/context.shtml


       Organizing committee:

Joanna Anckar
Marja Etelämäki
Pentti Haddington
Emmi Hynönen
Mikko Laitinen
Urpo Nikanne
Heli Paulasto
Geda Paulsen
Oksana Petrova
Helena Pirttisaari
Kaius Sinnemäki

E-mail:  <context-organizers (at) ling.helsinki.fi>


From tono at ualberta.ca  Wed Feb  8 08:57:48 2006
From: tono at ualberta.ca (T Ono)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 01:57:48 -0700
Subject: JK16 Announcement
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.015748.0700.TONO@UALBERTA.CA>

Call for Papers: 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference

The 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference will be held October 7-9, 2006, 
on the campus of Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. This conference aims to 
provide a forum for presenting research in Japanese and Korean linguistics, 
thereby facilitating efforts to deepen our understanding of these two 
languages, which have striking typological similarities. Papers in all 
sub-areas of Japanese and Korean linguistics are invited. Presentations, except 
for those by the keynote speakers, will be 20 minutes long and will be followed 
by a 10-minute question and answer period.

Please submit abstracts (one page, 500 words maximum) as a PDF file attached to 
an email message to [jk16 at ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp] by May 20, 2006. You may use 
a second page for references and/or example sentences. The first line of your 
abstract should indicate the category (Formal or Functional), followed by the 
sub-field (e.g., Formal/Syntax, Functional/Discourse, etc.). The second line 
should be the paper title. Omit your name and affiliation from the abstract. In 
the body of your email message, include name(s) and affiliation(s), address, 
phone number, and email address. Use the following subject header for your 
email: "JK16, Last name, First Initial." Please note that only one abstract 
from each individual can be considered for acceptance. One individual abstract 
or one jointly authored abstract may be submitted.

All the necessary information about the conference will appear on our 
conference website in the coming weeks. Go to 
[http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/langlogic/index.html]. Please direct any 
inquiries to jk16 at ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Attn: Kayo Nagai)


From vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk  Wed Feb  8 14:32:07 2006
From: vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk (Vyv Evans)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:32:07 +0000
Subject: THE STRUCTURE OF TIME: new in paperback
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.143207.0000.VYV.EVANS@SUSSEX.AC.UK>

********* JUST PUBLISHED IN PAPERBACK **********

THE STRUCTURE OF TIME
Language, meaning and temporal cognition

by Vyvyan Evans
University of Sussex

Published by John Benjamins Publishing Company
www.benjamins.com
Paperback: EUR 36.00/USD 42.95
ISBN: 902722367X

Sample chapter and further details available from author's website:
www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/vyv/

One of the most enigmatic aspects of experience concerns time. Since 
pre-Socratic times scholars have speculated about the nature of time, 
asking questions such as: What is time? Where does it come from? Where does 
it go? The central proposal of 'The Structure of Time' is that time, at 
base, constitutes a phenomenologically real experience. Drawing on findings 
in psychology and neuroscience, and utilising the perspective of cognitive 
linguistics, this work argues that our experience of time may ultimately 
derive from perceptual processes, which in turn enable us to perceive 
events. As such, temporal experience is a pre-requisite for abilities such 
as event perception and comparison, rather than an abstraction based on 
such phenomena. The book represents an examination of the nature of 
temporal cognition, with two foci: (i) an investigation
into(pre-conceptual) temporal experience, and (ii) an analysis of temporal 
structure at the conceptual level (which derives from temporal experience).

Quotes:
"Time belongs to the bedrock of human cognition. Beginning before birth and 
remaining for the most part below the horizon of consciousness, temporal 
cognition is a mystery not easily penetrated. The Structure of Time is an 
indispensable investigation, rich in theory and examples, into the 
phenomenology and the linguistics of the way we think about time."
Mark Turner, Institute Professor, Case Western Reserve University

"With this work, Cognitive Linguistics finally turns its attention from 
Space to Time."
Jordan Zlatev, Lund University, Sweden

"This work is interesting, creative, thought provoking, and timely (no pun 
intended)."
Wallace Chafe, University of California at Santa Barbara

Table of contents:
Acknowledgements
I. Orientation
1. The problem of time
2. The phenomenology of time
3. The elaboration of temporal concepts
4. The nature of meaning
5. The conceptual metaphor approach to time
6. A theory of word-meaning: Principled polysemy
II. Concepts for time
7. The Duration Sense
8. The Moment Sense
9. The Instance Sense
10.The Event Sense
11.The Matrix Sense
12.The Agentive Sense
13.The Measurement-system Sense
14.The Commodity Sense
15.The Present, Past and Future
III. Models for time
16. Time, motion and agency
17. Two complex cognitive models of temporality
18. A third complex model of temporality
19. Time in modern physics
20. The structure of time
Notes
References
Index

********* JUST PUBLISHED IN PAPERBACK ************


From a.m.koskela at sussex.ac.uk  Fri Feb 10 12:40:08 2006
From: a.m.koskela at sussex.ac.uk (Anu Koskela)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:40:08 +0000
Subject: Call for papers: PG Conference in Cognitive Linguistics
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.124008.0000.A.M.KOSKELA@SUSSEX.AC.UK>

CALL FOR PAPERS: The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive 
Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and English Language,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

We are delighted to announce the first UK Postgraduate Conference in 
Cognitive Linguistics, to take place at the University of Sussex on 
Saturday, 27th May 2006.

This is the first conference in the UK aimed specifically for postgraduates 
working in the field of Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics is a 
relatively new, interdisciplinary approach to the study of language which 
focuses on the interaction between human language, cognition and 
experience. The purpose of the conference is to provide a forum for 
postgraduate researchers in Cognitive Linguistics to exchange ideas and 
present new research.

The conference will also feature plenary talks and workshops by the 
following invited speakers:

Dr Vyvyan Evans (University of Sussex): keynote lecture on "The Cognitive 
Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview"

Prof. Gilles Fauconnier (University of California San Diego): a workshop on 
conceptual blending theory

Prof. Chris Sinha (University of Portsmouth): a keynote lecture on 
"Language as a biocultural niche"

Abstract submissions:

We invite submissions of abstracts for 20 minute presentations (followed by 
10 minutes of discussion) on research pertaining to any area of Cognitive 
Linguistics.

Deadline for abstracts: 24th March
Notification of acceptance: 24th April

Abstract format:
- Only electronic submissions are accepted.
- The abstracts should be submitted to the email address 
abstracts at cogling.org.uk, with the email subject "First PG Conference in 
Cognitive Linguistics"
- The abstract should be sent as an attachment to an email message, in 
either MS Word (.doc), Rich Text Format (.rtf) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf ) 
format
- The length of the submissions is a maximum of 500 words or 1 A4 side. The 
abstract should clearly indicate the title of the talk, and may include 
references, but the total word count should not exceed 500 words.
- The abstracts will be subject to anonymous review, so the abstract should 
not include the name(s) of the author(s)
- The body of the email message should contain the following information: 
The author's name, affiliation, title of the paper and contact details 
(postal and email address)

For further details about the conference, please visit www.cogling.org.uk 
and click on the link for Conferences and then PGCCL.

The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics is associated 
with the Portsmouth-Sussex Symposium on Language and Cognition, which takes 
place at the Universities of Sussex and Portsmouth on the two days 
preceding the First Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics - 
25-26th May 2006. Links to further information about the Portsmouth-Sussex 
Symposium on Language and Cognition can be found under Conferences at 
www.cogling.org.uk.

We look forward to receiving your abstract(s) and seeing you at Sussex at 
The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics!

Anu Koskela
Chair of the Organising Committee for the First UK Postgraduate Conference 
in Cognitive Linguistics


Anu Koskela
DPhil Candidate
Dept. of Linguistics and English Language/
Centre for Research in Cognitive Science
University of Sussex
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN
UK


From vanvalin at buffalo.edu  Wed Feb 15 11:32:50 2006
From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:32:50 +0100
Subject: RRG 2006-Call for Papers
Message-ID: <WED.15.FEB.2006.123250.0100.VANVALIN@BUFFALO.EDU>

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, University of Manchester
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/




*********************************
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
Professor of Linguistics
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU

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 tom at uniss.it  Wed Feb 15 18:28:05 2006
From: tom at uniss.it (Prof. Vittorio Tomelleri)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:28:05 +0100
Subject: Change in your subscription options for the FUNKNET list
Message-ID: <WED.15.FEB.2006.192805.0100.TOM@UNISS.IT>

--
C.E.D. e-m at il - Università degli Studi di Sassari (http://ced.uniss.it)
--
Could you replace, please, the following address "tom at uniss.it" with 
my new
one: s.tomelleri at unimc.it?

Thank You in advance

Vittorio S. Tomelleri


From fjn at u.washington.edu  Thu Feb 16 21:13:01 2006
From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:13:01 -0800
Subject: text counts of semantic subclasses of lexical categories
Message-ID: <THU.16.FEB.2006.131301.0800.FJN@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

Dear Funknetters,

I am interested in seeing text counts drawn from conversation (and 
other genres as well) of semantic subclasses of nouns, verbs, and 
adjectives. That is, I'm interested in seeing nouns broken down into 
concretes and abstracts; verbs broken down into actives and 
statives; adjectives broken down into properties and relations; etc., 
and the relative frequency of each subclass in texts. Can anybody 
point me to what I am looking for?

Thanks!

--fritz

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Howard and Frances Nostrand Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-4340 USA
Home page: http://depts.washington.edu/lingweb/people/
fjned.html


From lguerrero at capomo.uson.mx  Tue Feb 21 00:03:08 2006
From: lguerrero at capomo.uson.mx (Lili=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E1n?= Guerrero)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:03:08 +0000
Subject: Call for papers: IX Encuentro Internacional de Linguistica en el
 Noroeste
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.000308.0000.>

Second Call for Papers
 
The “IX  Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste” will take place at the Universidad de Sonora, in Hermosillo, Sonora, México, November 15, 16 y 17, 2006.


INVITED SPEAKERS:
 
MARINA FERNÁNDEZ LAGUNILLA      LUIS FERNANDO LARA RAMOS
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid                 El Colegio de México 
 
MARIANNE MITHUN                                CARMEN SILVA-CORVALÁN       
University of Califonia, Santa Barbara                      University of Southern California
 
Papers in all the areas of Linguistics (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, discourse, lexicography, language acquisition, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, etc.) will be considered.  Speakers may propose particular sessions; please, contact the Committee during the reception of the abstracts.
 
Submission Guidelines:
Deadline for abstract submission: May 1, 2006
 
1. Abstract must be anonymous and can be presented in Spanish and English.
2. Submissions are limited to 1 individual and one joint abstract per author. 
3. Particular sessions will be accepted if they include a minimum of three speakers and a maximum of eight.
4. Abstracts must be submitted electronically as an e-mail attachment in Word  or RTF format.
5. Abstracts may not exceed 500 words, single space, 12 points Garamond. 
6. The abstract must contain the following information:
 
a) Title of the paper
b) Description of the topic to be analized
c) Mention of the goals and/or arguments that will be presented
d) Examples
e) No more than five references 
 
7. On a separate page (body message), provide the following information:
Title of the paper
Name(s) of the author(s)
Affiliation
Country 
Email
Telephone/fax
Linguistic subfields (2-3 areas)
Academic status (faculty/grad student/undergrad student)
Institutional and personal address 
Audio-visual and/or electronic devices needed 
 
8. Abstracts and personal information must be emailed to: encuentro at guaymas.uson.mx
9. If  the abstract include any special fonts, please specify them or send a hard copy of your abstract to the Fax number: 00-52-(662)-212-55-29
 
Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent by August 15, 2006.
 
REGISTRATION:
$85 dlls. Faculty and other (non-students)
$50 dlls. PhD students
$10 dlls. Other students 
 
For updates, questions, and hotel information, please check our webpage: www.encuentrolinguistica.uson.mx, or contact the committee members at encuentro at guaymas.uson.mx.


 

From jcclemen at unm.edu  Wed Feb 22 22:41:13 2006
From: jcclemen at unm.edu (J. Clancy Clements)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:41:13 -0700
Subject: New book: Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax
In-Reply-To: <web-7097126@sabik.unm.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.154113.0700.JCCLEMEN@UNM.EDU>

Title: Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax
Subtitle: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity
Publication Year: 2005
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com)

http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=1403994064
  
Editor: J. Clancy Clements, Indiana University, 
Bloomington
Editor: Jiyoung Yoon, University of North Texas, Denton

Hardback: ISBN: 1403994064 Pages:  Price: U.K. £ 55.00
(The U.S. edition will appear soon.)
  
Abstract:
The first usage-based approach of its kind, this volume 
contains twelve studies on key issues in Spanish syntax: 
word order, null arguments, grammatical-relation marking, 
inalienable possession, ser and estar, adjective 
placement, small clauses and causatives studies, within a 
broad functionalist perspective. These studies strengthen 
the view that components of grammar intricately interact 
and that a usage-based approach to analyzing them offers 
new and insightful perspectives on some stubborn problems.
  
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Subject Language(s): Spanish (spa)
Written In: English  (eng)
See this book announcement on our website:
http://linguistlist.org/get-book.html?BookID=18435


From mg246 at cornell.edu  Fri Feb 24 04:51:08 2006
From: mg246 at cornell.edu (monica gonzalez-marquez)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:51:08 -0500
Subject: CFP: EMCL 3: Developing an experiment: from conception to
 implementation
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.235108.0500.MG246@CORNELL.EDU>

EMCL 3: Developing an experiment: from conception to implementation

Date: October 17-18 , 2006
Place: University of Murcia (Spain)

To precede the conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics 
Association
(AELCO-SCOLA) as a satellite event.

http://www.um.es/lincoing/aelco2006/


*******Application deadline: July 1, 2006*******


The last few years have yielded promising experimental evidence for an
embodied view of language. The work of researchers such as Bergen,
Boroditsky, Matlock, Santiago, and Richardson, among others, has 
provided
glimpses of the intricate cross-buttressing between language and other
cognitive processes. In order for the promise of these findings to come 
to
fruition, many more researchers will have to join the ranks of the 
field’s
leaders. The interdisciplinary training required to advance Experimental
Cognitive Linguistics remains, unfortunately, scarce at most 
universities.
As such, the focus for ‘EMCL III’ will be ‘Developing an experiment: 
from
conception to implementation.’ The goal will be to unite gifted 
cognitive
linguists lacking experimental training, with experienced researchers 
who
will guide them in the development and implementation of an experiment.


Intended Audience:

This workshop is aimed specifically at scholars with sound theoretical
knowledge in their field though lacking in experimental training.
Participants are not expected to have any background at all in
experimentation. The ideal candidate will be in their 3rd or 4th year of
graduate school in a theoretical linguistics program that endorses
embodiment, possibly with some experience in corpus or discourse 
analysis,
will have given much thought to a research question, and have concluded
that experimentation might be a productive way to address it. Graduate
students (post-grads, pre-doctoral, etc.), as well as post-doctoral
researchers and junior faculty are also invited to apply. The only real
prerequisite is a background in embodiment and language, and no
experimental experience.

Please note: Unlike at previous EMCL workshops, attendance to this 
session
will be strictly limited to the invited participants. No exceptions will
be made so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop.

Format:

A selected group of students (max.20) will be invited to participate.
Students will be divided into four groups; each group will work with a
researcher who will guide the group in selecting an idea, structuring 
and
organizing an experiment, and carrying it out. The session will end with
the presentation of findings and a general discussion.


Topics to be covered include:

-	Deciding on a research topic
-	Transforming the research topic into a research question
-	Developing experimental hypotheses and designing an experiment
-	Data collection
-	Statistical analysis and interpretation
-	Presentation of findings to an audience



Cost: 120 Euros

Accommodation: (to be announced)

Application:

To apply, please send the following by July 1, 2006. All materials must 
be
submitted electronically to Monica Gonzalez-Marquez at mg246 at
cornell.edu. Accepted applicants will be notified by August 1, 2006.


1. A two (2) page (1000 words maximum) statement describing
- your background,
- your reasons for wanting to participate,
- the researcher you would like to work with and why
- a description of at least one specific research question you want to
explore.

2. A copy of your curriculum vitae.

3. One letter of recommendation from someone who knows your research,
preferably your advisor. Have this person submit the letter directly to
mg246 at cornell.edu


Faculty:

Benjamin Bergen (University of Manoa at Hawai)
Asifa Majid (Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen, Holland)
Julio Santiago (University of Barcelona)
(Additional faculty member to be announced)

Faculty interests to be posted shortly on the website:

http://www.um.es/lincoing/aelco2006/


Organizing committee:

Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Cornell University
Javier Valenzuela, University of Murcia

-------------------
_________________________________________

So that the form takes as many risks as the content --
  					         "Ava" by Carole Maso

Mónica González-Márquez
Psychology Department
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

mg246 at cornell.edu

_________________________________________

So that the form takes as many risks as the content --
  					         "Ava" by Carole Maso

Mónica González-Márquez
Psychology Department
Cornell University
B96b Uris Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853

mg246 at cornell.edu (607) 255-6397


From hilpert at rice.edu  Sat Feb 25 18:11:47 2006
From: hilpert at rice.edu (Martin Hilpert)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:11:47 -0000
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.181147.0000.>

Dear Funknetters,

I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two 
theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:

1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for 
functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span 
centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only 
have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to 
Janda 2001.)

2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently 
existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory power 
to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)

Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated. 


Thanks, --Martin


------------------------------
Martin Hilpert
Rice University
Department of Linguistics MS 23
6100 Main Street
77005-1892 Houston TX
Tel (001) 713 3482822
Fax (001) 713 3484718
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert


From jbybee at unm.edu  Sat Feb 25 20:48:25 2006
From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:25 -0700
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.134825.0700.>

Dear Martin,

Point 1 is only a problem if you assume that language change takes place in 
language acquisition. If you assume that grammaticization is driven by 
processes that occur as language is used, by everyone all the time, then 
unidirectionality is what you would expect.

Point 2: of course it's an epiphenomenon! All of grammar is epiphenomenal.

Joan

--On Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:11 PM +0000 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:

> Dear Funknetters,
>
> I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two
> theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:
>
> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one
> to  Janda 2001.)
>
> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory
> power  to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)
>
> Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks, --Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Martin Hilpert
> Rice University
> Department of Linguistics MS 23
> 6100 Main Street
> 77005-1892 Houston TX
> Tel (001) 713 3482822
> Fax (001) 713 3484718
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert
>
>


From delancey at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 00:52:00 2006
From: delancey at uoregon.edu (Scott DeLancey)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:52:00 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.165200.0800.DELANCEY@UOREGON.EDU>

> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory
power
> to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)

"Evolution" should really be decomposed into its independently existing
component processes.  We understand inheritance with variation, we
understand natural selection and ecological adaptation.  What does the
word evolution add to our understanding?  There's no point in granting
explanatory power to an ephiphenomenon.


Scott DeLancey
Department of Linguistics
1290 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA

delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html


From kemmer at rice.edu  Sun Feb 26 01:53:24 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:53:24 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.195324.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental byproduct 
of truly significant processes.
A useful term of opprobrium applied to certain phenomena by members of 
a dominant paradigm whose basic assumptions make it
difficult or impossible to account for such phenomena (without doing 
stated or unstated damage to the assumptions or the theory itself).
Usually dragged into service whenever fruitful generalizations and 
deeper understanding of the phenomena in a new paradigm
can no longer be ignored.

--Suzanne's Dictionary of Linguistic Codewords


From delancey at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 01:56:55 2006
From: delancey at uoregon.edu (Scott DeLancey)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:56:55 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.175655.0800.DELANCEY@UOREGON.EDU>

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:

> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to
> Janda 2001.)

So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
down the road to see the culmination of the process?

Scott DeLancey
Department of Linguistics
1290 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA

delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html


From tgivon at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 04:48:46 2006
From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:48:46 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602251755190.17150@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.204846.0800.>

The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based, 
adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena', 
because they are the product of interaction between serendipity (random 
mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological behavior of 
organisms during selection). Does that mean that evolutionary biology 
has not come up with explanatory principles that account for why 
synchronic forms are the way they are? No serious biologist would agree 
with that. Does it mean that evolutionary biology has succeeded in 
explaining everytring? No serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim 
that. Science is gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn 
would have us believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new 
theory. Not even Einstein did.

Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to 
bio-evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov & 
Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to do is 
study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both begin with 
rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may engender rather 
global, often strartling consequences. Both begin with *functional 
extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of an existing structure 
(or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni-directional. In both, the 
directionality (and its governing motivating principles) are *never 
100%*, but is nonetheless  quite robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what 
distinguishes biology from physics/math/logic  is precisely 
that--less-than-100% generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And 
finally, in both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the 
same: *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the 
availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8 major 
ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the 'passive' 
function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause fiunction.  And  indeed 
quite often this multiplicity of courses ius found in a single language, 
so that multiple alternative solutions (constructions) *compete* for the 
same (or rather similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is 
chosen over the others to be statistically dominant depends on those 
multiple other factors.

 Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the very  
same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ towards 
different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the 
gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is, 
*one-to-many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both 
grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of 
grammatical-typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much 
less less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic 
pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen-burning 
organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way different organs may 
be recruited for doing respiration in different phila).

One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has to do 
with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have no real 
equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho-syntax gets 
forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But everyday 
communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee says) in a way 
apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing--in the communal 
pool--multiple variants that then compete for selection. Conversely, the 
'*selection*' part of diachronic change is much more socially dependent 
than selection in biology; although in many social species there begins 
to be an element of *social transmission* of individual innovative 
behavior, which becomes part of the overall mechanism of selection.

Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda 
have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing 
grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre 
artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and parcel 
of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that is, viewing 
language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to selective 
pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into evolution--of 
'recursivity').

I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.

Best,  TG

=========================

  Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same 
source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize

>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
>>functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
>>centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
>>have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to
>>Janda 2001.)
>>    
>>
>
>So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
>not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
>would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
>down the road to see the culmination of the process?
>
>Scott DeLancey
>Department of Linguistics
>1290 University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
>
>delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
>http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
>  
>


From daniel.everett at uol.com.br  Sun Feb 26 05:48:05 2006
From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (D.L. Everett)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:48:05 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.064805.0100.DANIEL.EVERETT@UOL.COM.BR>

I certainly agree that language change is reminiscent of bio-evolution.

In my current work (see Science News Dec. 10, 2005 or New Scientist,  
March 08, 2006, or Anthropology News, for popular summaries) I am  
arguing that language evolution is on-going, that languages do not  
all have the same expressive power, and that individual languages can  
undergo pressure to fit particular cultural niches.  Some of this is  
anticipated in other works, of course. But to argue convincingly for  
such claims one needs in-depth studies of individual languages  
alongside broad surveys.

Grammaticalization has a role to play in this, but convincing cases  
for evolution of individual languages in the sense that I find most  
interesting, i.e. languages fitting cultural niches,  will link  
grammatical structures to cultural values.

Dan Everett




On 26 Feb 2006, at 05:48, Tom Givon wrote:

>
>
>
> The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based,  
> adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena',  
> because they are the product of interaction between serendipity  
> (random mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological  
> behavior of organisms during selection). Does that mean that  
> evolutionary biology has not come up with explanatory principles  
> that account for why synchronic forms are the way they are? No  
> serious biologist would agree with that. Does it mean that  
> evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining everytring? No  
> serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim that. Science is  
> gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn would have us  
> believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new theory. Not  
> even Einstein did.
>
> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to bio- 
> evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov &  
> Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to  
> do is study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both  
> begin with rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may  
> engender rather global, often strartling consequences. Both begin  
> with *functional extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of  
> an existing structure (or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni- 
> directional. In both, the directionality (and its governing  
> motivating principles) are *never 100%*, but is nonetheless  quite  
> robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what distinguishes biology from  
> physics/math/logic  is precisely that--less-than-100%  
> generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And finally, in  
> both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the same:  
> *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the  
> availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8  
> major ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the  
> 'passive' function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause  
> fiunction.  And  indeed quite often this multiplicity of courses  
> ius found in a single language, so that multiple alternative  
> solutions (constructions) *compete* for the same (or rather  
> similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is chosen over  
> the others to be statistically dominant depends on those multiple  
> other factors.
>
> Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the  
> very  same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ  
> towards different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the  
> gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is, *one-to- 
> many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both  
> grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of grammatical- 
> typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much less  
> less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic  
> pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen- 
> burning organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way  
> different organs may be recruited for doing respiration in  
> different phila).
>
> One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has  
> to do with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have  
> no real equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho- 
> syntax gets forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But  
> everyday communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee  
> says) in a way apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing-- 
> in the communal pool--multiple variants that then compete for  
> selection. Conversely, the '*selection*' part of diachronic change  
> is much more socially dependent than selection in biology; although  
> in many social species there begins to be an element of *social  
> transmission* of individual innovative behavior, which becomes part  
> of the overall mechanism of selection.
>
> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and  
> Janda have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing  
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre  
> artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and  
> parcel of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that  
> is, viewing language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to  
> selective pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into  
> evolution--of 'recursivity').
>
> I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.
>
> Best,  TG
>
> =========================
>
>  Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same  
> source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize
>
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
>>> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that  
>>> span
>>> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers,  
>>> who only
>>> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute  
>>> this one to
>>> Janda 2001.)
>>>
>>
>> So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye  
>> could
>> not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
>> would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
>> down the road to see the culmination of the process?
>>
>> Scott DeLancey
>> Department of Linguistics
>> 1290 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
>>
>> delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
>> http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
>>
>


From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de  Sun Feb 26 08:30:04 2006
From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:30:04 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <df68b0695a53ea0538c66c80cc9ed1d1@rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.093004.0100.>

                                         Caminante, no hay camino / se 
hace camino al andar (...) Caminante, no hay camino / sino estelas en el 
mar  (Antonio Machada)

Dear Colleagues,
Maybe that Suzanne's quote, namley:

> Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental 
> byproduct of truly significant processes. 

reflects the actual use of the term epiphenomenon in very many 
instances. However, I think, we can break down the term to a more 
specific notion (as I try to do in my Cognitive Typology /Radical 
Experientialism framework). Accordingly we should start from the term 
'phenomenon' itself. In many pholosophical traditions (from which the 
term is taken), a phenomenon  is opposed to something 'really being', 
compare the Old Greek dictum 'kai ontes kai phainomenoi' (those which 
are and which appear to be [in a free translation]). Hence an 'object' 
said to be a phenomenon does not have properties itself (reflected in 
the qualification of the phenomenon), but it acquaires its properties 
through perception (and cognitive construction). A phenomenon thus 
presupposes the relation between an 'object' and its perceiver. Now, it 
seems out of the question that linguistic structures (in the broadest 
sense) are phenomena, perceived differently in space and time etc. In 
fact, Linguistics turns out to be a phenomenology rather than a 
scientific technique to describe the ontological status of language 
itself, even though the ultimate goal of Linguistics should always aim 
at unveiling the ontology of language lying 'behind' the 
phenomenological layer. The epistemological dilemma of Linguistics (we 
use language to describe Language), however, renders it doubtful that we 
will ever reach this goal (even if we try to substitute (!) the 
descriptive layer by a formal apparatus taken from say Natural 
Sciences). Perhaps it is more important to analyze the way the 
(possible) 'object' of Language is perceived and construed in terms of 
phenomena by both speakers and scientists (then turning linguistic data 
into some kind of meta-phenomenology).

An EPIphenomenon naturally relates to the same processes of perception. 
If we again start from the Greek term (epi-phainomai, again the 
passive), we get the notion of 'showing up as' etc. The epi-segment 
suggests that this type of phenomenon presupposes the existence 
(construal) of another phenomenon, without which the epiphenomenon would 
not have come into existence (would not be constructed). Now, if 
Language is an epiphenomenon (sharing its basic features with 
phenomena), the phenomenological substrate should be given in just that 
entity that enables Language, that is Cognition. In other words: 
Cognition (as a phenomenon) supervenes Language (as an epiphenomenon). 
If we observe changes in Language, this should be related to changes in 
the cognitive (functional!) apparatus. Likewise, variations in the 
synchronic 'substance' of languages(s) illustrate nothing but variations 
in (habitualized) experiential strategies to construe 'objects' in terms 
of phenomena (in a communicative perspective). The main point, however, 
is that human beings (better: cognitions) always try to make sense of 
the cognitive processes they 'live by'. In this sense, (epi)phenomena 
are turned into 'real objects' and manipulated/interpreted  accordingly. 
As a matter of fact it is crucial in linguistic analysis to decide 
whether a given process is related to the experience of language as an 
'object' or to the underlying (epi)phenomenology of language.

In this sense, we should distinguish at least two types of 
grammaticalization: a) processes that originate in cognition-driven 
changes in the mode to communicative experience (on a phenomenological 
level) and b) processes "that occur as language is used", as Joan has 
put it. Admittedly, it is not always easy to clearly distinguish these 
two types, but that problem may be conditioned by our yet unsufficient 
tools to identify all the (epi)phenomenologcal layers of language.

Personally, I would not go so far to relate grammaticalization processes 
to evolution (be it in a metaphorical sense). We do not have any 
evidence that would reveal to us the 'dark age' of language, that is the 
gap between language evolution and the earliest reconstructable layers 
of language (in a conservative estimate, the 'dark age' covers at least 
50.000 years or so, more likely much more than 100.000 years). Whenever 
we reconstruct earlier layers of language, we get just what we have, but 
in another phenomenology (perhaps this is also true because we cannot 
reconstruct by comparison but a variant of what we start from in our 
comparison). In this sense, grammaticalization is nothing but a repeated 
shift in the relation of concept and (articulatory) symbolization. For 
instance, the emergence of a 'near future' or present inchoative through 
the grammaticalization of GO verbs does not necessarily mean that on the 
conceptual layer, the notion of near futureness hasn't prior been 
existent. The only question is, to which degree this concept had been 
symbolized before. What we must not do is to infer from the 
non-existence of a grammatical 'form' (symbol/sign) to the non-existence 
of the 'corresponding' phenomenon on the conceptual layer. So it may 
well be that grammaticalization is unidirectional on the 'linguistic' 
layer, but surely not on the conceptual layer.

Naturally, the question remains whether grammaticalization itself is a 
phenomenon shaped in cognition. Personally, I would claim that 
grammaticalization again is an epiphenomenon that takes shape in 
language. it is supervened by cognitive processes that by themselves 
have nothing to do with grammaticalization, but with more general 
procedures of varying patterns of communicative perception and 
experience (e.g. Di(h)airesis, Zipf, the so-called Perception 
Action/Information Cycle, memory routines, metaphorization/metonymy, 
blending etc.). In addition, communicative (pragmatic) routines stemming 
from the layer of language objectification' mentioned above supply these 
processes.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang 

#############################
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut für Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft  (IATS)
[General Linguistics and Language Typology]
Department für Kommunikation und Sprachen / F 13.14
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 München
Tel.:     ++49-(0)89-2180 2486 (secretary)
             ++49-(0)89-2180 5343 (office)
Fax:     ++49-(0)89-2180 5345
E-mail: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 26 16:12:18 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:12:18 -0500
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.111218.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

As one might also say of DNA, great thread!

'Mutation' is a pretty squishy notion- all the really interesting (from the evolutionary standpoint) alterations happen at higher levels than classical point mutations in DNA- involving rearrangements of blocks of materials, sometimes coding for protein or intervening segments which are then edited out (introns and exons), regulatory elements which direct replication or transcription, re-emplacements of entire sections of chromosomes (with same or inverted orientation), or even splits and fusions of entire chromosomes, not to mention deletions or multiplications at every level (including entire genomes).

Most point mutations are either rather neutral in effect, or relatively deleterious (even fatal) (so black and white), but these higher level rearrangements often produce viable results due to backup plans (systemic degeneracy?) that can pick up slack (grays). The bigger the system chunk, the more plastic its responses, in many cases.

Years ago I pointed to higher level parallelisms between genes and language on LINGUIST- flexibly edited split genes in eukaryotes versus analytical/isolating type, appositional bacterial genes resembling agglutinating languages, and rigidly maintained overlapping genes in smaller viruses as against certain polysynthetic systems.

In the analytical genetic/linguistic type one sees a lot of external modification of the stored information depending on context (thus pragmatically organized). Duplications and deletions are used extensively. Lots of many to one and one to many mappings for gene parts. Combinatoric heaven. Eukaryotes are the result of organismal fusions, so a little like cosmopolitan empires. The regulatory/transcriptional machinery has to be generalized to deal with all comers and all situations. Somewhat like similar linguistic environments. The 'ecology' becomes internalized.

At the other end of the continuum, the overlapping/polysynthetic genetic/linguistic type seems more characterized by overall system architectural loss, increased dependency on fuller systems elsewhere, and idiosyncratic (i.e. specialized) behavioral rigidification (given less material to play with, in more automatic and fixed combinations). This is the inverse of the analytical 'type'

Just as linguistic systems can evolve between types, so can genetic ones. Many parasitic organisms have been demonstrated to have simplified genetically, which is alright given that they just let their host carry out functions the lost genes would otherwise cover. The process can become extreme, even nearly total, but by that time such 'parasites' have become nearly completely integrated with their hosts (such as in organelles, or certain viral elements now known to aid in element movement within the genome).

Thus we have the makings of a genetic cycle similar to the linguistic one (which is usually thought of out of the social/historical/areal context).

Grammaticalization/grammaticization (the geneticists have their own version of this- eucaryote/eukaryote) should probably be seen as part of this bigger overall picture in a complex systems perspective- opposing poles of behavioral flexibility versus rigidity (or automatization) reflecting environmental flux as against predictability needing to be responded to.

Given creeping loss of lexical resources as one moves towards polysynthesis (Michael Fortescue has suggested that the root inventory is reduced), one might expect a certain narrowing of possibilities for grammaticalization along the line (and perhaps longer staying power for existing grams as one 'fills in the dots'). Reminds one a little also of tissue specialization in multicellular organisms. Fewer degrees of variational freedom.

Anyway, just a couple of slightly off-focus thoughts for a very interesting discussion.

Jess Tauber


From Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu  Sun Feb 26 20:39:27 2006
From: Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu (Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:39:27 -0700
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.133927.0700.DIANE.LESLEYNEUMAN@COLORADO.EDU>

Dr. Givon,
I think that you are misrepresenting Kuhn's ideas here.  If you reread Kuhn,
you might see the gradual nature of the paradigm shift--he even points out how
evidence contradicting the prevailing paradigm is ignored and explained away
for a period of time until more evidence accumulates for the paradigm shift to
take place.  What Kuhn actually says contradicts the myth of the orderly
progress of the paradigm shifts, but also mythically revolutionary nature of
the so-called "revolutions". He does not contradict the accumulation of
information that produces it. He used the principles of historical
investigation to get more accurate time frames of who was doing what, and who
was communicating with whom to present a real picture of how the basic
discoveries in physics and chemistry were made.
  Also, let us keep in mind that the fields of science have become more orderly
and systematic over the years. The first years of science may have been a
little messy. We communicate with one another more, and are constantly
improving our methods.  Nevertheless, many discoveries are still accidental--
found in pursuit of solutions to other problems.
  I use Kuhn to understand what is happening in the debates over phonological
theory.  If we can take OT as an attempt at a paradigm shift, and study the the
history and the evidence, one can navigate the waters of the phonology wars
with a great deal more equilibrium and tranquility. The tableau was drawn on a
napkin in a cafe in Tucson, AZ. Or so they tell me.
--
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Linguistics Department
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder


Quoting Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>:

>
>
>
> The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based,
> adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena',
> because they are the product of interaction between serendipity (random
> mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological behavior of
> organisms during selection). Does that mean that evolutionary biology
> has not come up with explanatory principles that account for why
> synchronic forms are the way they are? No serious biologist would agree
> with that. Does it mean that evolutionary biology has succeeded in
> explaining everytring? No serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim
> that. Science is gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn
> would have us believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new
> theory. Not even Einstein did.
>
> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to
> bio-evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov &
> Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to do is
> study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both begin with
> rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may engender rather
> global, often strartling consequences. Both begin with *functional
> extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of an existing structure
> (or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni-directional. In both, the
> directionality (and its governing motivating principles) are *never
> 100%*, but is nonetheless  quite robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what
> distinguishes biology from physics/math/logic  is precisely
> that--less-than-100% generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And
> finally, in both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the
> same: *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the
> availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8 major
> ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the 'passive'
> function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause fiunction.  And  indeed
> quite often this multiplicity of courses ius found in a single language,
> so that multiple alternative solutions (constructions) *compete* for the
> same (or rather similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is
> chosen over the others to be statistically dominant depends on those
> multiple other factors.
>
>  Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the very
> same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ towards
> different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the
> gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is,
> *one-to-many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both
> grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of
> grammatical-typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much
> less less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic
> pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen-burning
> organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way different organs may
> be recruited for doing respiration in different phila).
>
> One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has to do
> with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have no real
> equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho-syntax gets
> forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But everyday
> communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee says) in a way
> apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing--in the communal
> pool--multiple variants that then compete for selection. Conversely, the
> '*selection*' part of diachronic change is much more socially dependent
> than selection in biology; although in many social species there begins
> to be an element of *social transmission* of individual innovative
> behavior, which becomes part of the overall mechanism of selection.
>
> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda
> have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre
> artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and parcel
> of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that is, viewing
> language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to selective
> pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into evolution--of
> 'recursivity').
>
> I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.
>
> Best,  TG
>
> =========================
>
>   Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same
> source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize
>
> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> >>functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> >>centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> >>have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one
> to
> >>Janda 2001.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
> >not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
> >would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
> >down the road to see the culmination of the process?
> >
> >Scott DeLancey
> >Department of Linguistics
> >1290 University of Oregon
> >Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
> >
> >delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
> >http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
> >
> >
>


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 26 21:56:23 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:56:23 -0500
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.165623.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was not only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly right in the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of what happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and humanities.

Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.

Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to stresses/strains which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or because someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough and far enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn your own work on its head.

As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school. But it isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother to find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation, rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time and resources for anything else?

But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics at earthlink.net


From Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu  Sun Feb 26 22:08:01 2006
From: Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu (Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:08:01 -0700
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <19253239.1140990983590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.150801.0700.DIANE.LESLEYNEUMAN@COLORADO.EDU>

I think that in linguistics and in phonology this is a big problem. I used to
get a lot of pressure not to read--just get in there and crack phonemes.  It is
part of the crisis of linguistics as a science--which I find to be quite
Balkanized, and waters are tricky to navigate.  When that hurdle is overcome
there is the aspect of competition and professional jealousy--a minefield for a
newcomer in the field.
--
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Linguistics Department
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder


Quoting jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:

> I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was not
> only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and
> extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly right in
> the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of what
> happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and humanities.
>
> Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.
>
> Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone
> popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to stresses/strains
> which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or because
> someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough and far
> enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn your
> own work on its head.
>
> As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school. But it
> isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of
> someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother to
> find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation,
> rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or
> perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time and
> resources for anything else?
>
> But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.
>
> Jess Tauber
> phonosemantics at earthlink.net
>
>


From w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk  Mon Feb 27 09:10:15 2006
From: w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk (Hollmann, Willem)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:10:15 -0000
Subject: PhD studentships at Lancaster University
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.091015.0000.W.HOLLMANN@LANCASTER.AC.UK>

The attached PDF file conrtains information about ESRC PhD studentship
opportunities in the Dept of Linguistics and English Language at
Lancaster University. Please feel free to distribute among eligible
students.

WBH


 <<ESRC_studentships_06.pdf>> 
**********************************************************
Willem Hollmann
Dept of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YT
Tel: +44 (0)1524 594644
Fax: +44 (0)1524 843085
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/willem/willem.htm 
**********************************************************  


From w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk  Mon Feb 27 09:16:16 2006
From: w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk (Hollmann, Willem)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:16:16 -0000
Subject: PhD studentships at Lancaster University
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.091616.0000.W.HOLLMANN@LANCASTER.AC.UK>

Apologies for the previous message -- here's the second attempt, without
attachment.

Please feel free to distribute this e-mail among eligible students.

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


ESRC Quota Studentships in Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster

The Department of Linguistics and English Language has been awarded 6
quota studentships for its PhD programmes, which have received 1+3 and
+3 recognition, part time and full time. We welcome applicants from the
UK and the EU in all ESRC-relevant areas of linguistics and applied
linguistics, including:

*	sociolinguistics (especially language variation, bilingualism,
language and gender, language policy)
*	(critical) discourse analysis
*	literacy studies
*	applied linguistics (language teaching, language testing)
*	corpus linguistics (with a sociolinguistic and/or typological
approach)

For a +3 award applicants should hold an ESRC-recognised Masters in
Linguistics or Applied Linguistics.

A 1+3 award is available for those applying for the PhD by Thesis and
Coursework.

Closing date for applications to Department: 15th March 2006.

The Department is the largest of its kind in England, with a full-time
lecturing staff of 28, some 25 Research Associates, and 150 PhD
students. It has library holdings and a thriving research environment,
organised around 4 Research Centres and 15 Research Groups. See
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/research/index.htm for details.

In the first instance please contact Mrs Marjorie Wood
(m.f.wood at lancaster.ac.uk) for further details. 



**********************************************************
Willem Hollmann
Dept of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YT
Tel: +44 (0)1524 594644
Fax: +44 (0)1524 843085
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/willem/willem.htm 
**********************************************************  


From lists at chaoticlanguage.com  Mon Feb 27 09:40:59 2006
From: lists at chaoticlanguage.com (Rob Freeman)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:40:59 +1300
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.224059.1300.LISTS@CHAOTICLANGUAGE.COM>

Everybody,

An aside: must we constantly equate epiphenomena with evolution? The results 
of some kinds of evolution may be epiphenomena, but the two are not the same.

Take a classic demonstration of an epiphenomenon in Conway's 
"Life" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life). The "glider" 
moves across the screen. This movement is an epiphenomenon, but it is not 
evolutionary.

This distinction is important. For instance I believe grammar to be an 
epiphenomenon of corpus generalization. Most people confuse this with the 
gradual evolution of grammar, and so miss my argument completely.

I think the association of Paul Hopper's emergent grammar with 
grammaticalization is an error of the same kind, perhaps one largely shared 
by Paul himself.

Anyway, back to the point. What were Newmeyer etc's arguments against the 
explanatory power of an epiphenomenon, Martin?

-Rob


From ar at phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de  Mon Feb 27 14:03:41 2006
From: ar at phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de (Anette Rosenbach)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:03:41 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.150341.0100.AR@PHILFAK.UNIDUESSELDORF.DE>

Dear Martin,

In a recent paper Gerhard Jäger and I try to show that an account of 
unidirectionality and a speaker/usage-based approach to language change do 
not exclude each other, quite the opposite. We argue that at least two cases 
of unidirectional change (the pathway from spatial to temporal expressions 
and phonological reduction) may be connected to evidence for asymmetric 
priming reported in the (psycho-)linguistic literature. We suggest that 
unidirectionality is ultimately decomposable into atomic steps of asymmetric 
priming in language change. That is, in our account, unidirectionality quite 
neatly falls out from language usage, which is, I think, in line with what 
Joan Bybee said in her reply.

Ultimately, we also want to incorporate these ideas into an evolutionary 
approach to language change. The paper contains some first suggestions in 
this direction; for those interested, it is availabe on Gerhard Jäger's 
website: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/gjaeger/.

Anette Rosenbach

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <hilpert at rice.edu>
To: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: [FUNKNET] criticisms of grammaticalization


> Dear Funknetters,
>
> I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two
> theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:
>
> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one 
> to
> Janda 2001.)
>
> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory 
> power
> to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)
>
> Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks, --Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Martin Hilpert
> Rice University
> Department of Linguistics MS 23
> 6100 Main Street
> 77005-1892 Houston TX
> Tel (001) 713 3482822
> Fax (001) 713 3484718
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert
>
> 


From mark at polymathix.com  Mon Feb 27 17:39:32 2006
From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:39:32 -0600
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <1140991681.440226c1e4cc0@webmail.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.113932.0600.MARK@POLYMATHIX.COM>

Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> I think that in linguistics and in phonology this is a big problem. I
> used to get a lot of pressure not to read--just get in there and crack
> phonemes. It is part of the crisis of linguistics as a science--which I
> find to be quite Balkanized, and waters are tricky to navigate.  When
> that hurdle is overcome there is the aspect of competition and
> professional jealousy--a minefield for a newcomer in the field.

I think that the apparent crisis of linguistics as a science looks a lot
less dangerous if we realize that not all linguists are actually
practicing science, nor even want to practice science -- even if some of
them may think and say otherwise.

If those linguists who *are* practicing science are in crisis (I don't
think so), then that's one thing. But if it's merely the fact that some
linguists are actually practicing philosophy of language (at best) or
armchair casuistry (at worst) but not science, then there's not really any
crisis as far as the science is concerned -- just the historical
happenstance that the community of science-practicing linguists is a
smallish subset of the academic discipline overall.

If we ignore academic turf boundaries (what a concept) and consider the
community of all researchers studying human language by means of the
scientific method (i.e. regardless of whether they consider themselves
linguists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists or
whatever), then that community is obviously quite large -- and still not
particularly in crisis, as far as I can see.

So the short version of this is that it's the turf that is in crisis, not
the science. That, in my opinion, is as it should be.


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX



> --
> Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
> Linguistics Department
> Institute for Cognitive Science
> University of Colorado at Boulder
>
>
> Quoting jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:
>
>> I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was
>> not
>> only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and
>> extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly
>> right in
>> the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of
>> what
>> happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and
>> humanities.
>>
>> Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.
>>
>> Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone
>> popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to
>> stresses/strains
>> which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or
>> because
>> someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough
>> and far
>> enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn
>> your
>> own work on its head.
>>
>> As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school.
>> But it
>> isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of
>> someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother
>> to
>> find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation,
>> rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or
>> perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time
>> and
>> resources for anything else?
>>
>> But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.
>>
>> Jess Tauber
>> phonosemantics at earthlink.net


From daniel.everett at uol.com.br  Mon Feb 27 19:56:35 2006
From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (D.L. Everett)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:56:35 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <c594a9d1c9e6e99390aa934b98d00ead@calpoly.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.205635.0100.DANIEL.EVERETT@UOL.COM.BR>

It is perhaps true that all minds have the same capacity for  
expressive power in some non-pathological biological sense. But that  
is all the statement below about 'potential' expressive power  
addresses, not languages.

The EU is investing several hundred thousand euros in the study of  
Piraha over the next three years, with several psycholinguists and  
linguists visiting the Pirahas to conduct follow-up experiments on my  
claims. So we shall have the evidence requested below over the next  
year or three.

Dan


On 27 Feb 2006, at 20:45, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> With regard to Dan Everett's statement "that languages do not all  
> have the same expressive power", I would suggest a reminder that  
> all languages do have the same _potential_ for expressive power.  
> Mechanisms such as metaphor, metonymy, blending, word formation  
> techniques such as compounding, zero derivation, etc. are always  
> available to the human mind. Grammaticalization itself is such an  
> extension technique (think of the ways that words like "done" can  
> acquire aspectual nuances in creoles, or the development of the  
> Germanic words for "body" into adverbial/adjectival suffixes such  
> as German "-lich" and English "-ly", acquiring, as the OED says, "a  
> much wider application".)
>
> I'm fascinated by Dan's work with Pirahã because of its assertion  
> of such a global shaping of language by culture. (Though I can't  
> buy it entirely until other linguists verify it by studying Pirahã  
> and finding such extensive shaping in other languages.) It's  
> trivial that a language will develop words for culturally important  
> artifacts/concepts, and expand the vocabulary when new ones come  
> in, or that languages develop classifier systems based on cultural  
> categories. The idea that a group will deliberately _limit_ its  
> language's  expressive power because of the ideology of the culture  
> is a new twist (perhaps, or perhaps the obverse of Whorf?)
>
> 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 fjn at u.washington.edu  Mon Feb 27 22:57:19 2006
From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:57:19 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.145719.0800.FJN@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Tom Givon wrote:

> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather 
> similar to bio-evolution. Both are ultimately 
> adaptively-driven, thus (Labov & Newmeyer 
> notwithstanding) functionally motivated. 

If you think that I reject the idea that language 
change is to a large extent functionally motivated, 
Talmy, could you please support your charge with a 
quote from something I have written in the past 20 
years? In fact, my position on this issue is clear:

"... one can indeed make the case that many 
innovations [in language change] are motivated by user-based 
external functions. This is particularly true for those that 
arise language-internally." (Newmeyer 2005: 188)

> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 
> Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda have been fighting 
> the same old rear-guard war agains viewing 
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, 
> rather than a bizarre artifact 
> ('epiphenomenon'). 

Since when are 'natural phenomena' and 
'epiphenomena' counterposed notions? Any 
epiphenomenon that results from the interplay of 
natural forces (as does grammaticalization) is ipso 
facto 'natural'. Do you disagree, as you seem to, 
with Joan Bybee's comment that 'all of grammar is 
epiphenomenal'?

> And of course, their work is part and parcel of 
> what Chomsky has been trying to do over a 
> lifetime; that is, viewing language as a unique 
> phenomenon that is not subject to selective 
> pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, 
> foray into evolution--of 'recursivity').

How could I (or anybody else) believe that grammaticalization is 
epiphenomenal and at the same time believe that it is 'a unique 
phenomenon'? The two notions are contradictory.

Fritz

REFERENCE: Newmeyer, Frederick  J. 2005. Possible and Probable 
Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic 
Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Howard and Frances Nostrand Professor of 
Linguistics
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-4340 USA
Home page: 
http://depts.washington.edu/lingweb/people/
fjned.html


From jcxvjh732973 at yahoo.com.sg  Tue Feb 28 14:10:39 2006
From: jcxvjh732973 at yahoo.com.sg (Debra Ziegeler)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:10:39 +0800
Subject: epiphenomenological grammaticalisation
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.221039.0800.>

Suzanne Kemmer wrote:
   
  "Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental byproduct 
of truly significant processes."

   
  Wolfgang Schulze wrote:
   
  "In this sense, grammaticalization is nothing but a 
repeated 
shift in the relation of concept and (articulatory) symbolization. For 
instance, the emergence of a 'near future' or present inchoative 
through 
the grammaticalization of GO verbs does not necessarily mean that on 
the 
conceptual layer, the notion of near futureness hasn't prior been 
existent. The only question is, to which degree this concept had been 
symbolized before. What we must not do is to infer from the 
non-existence of a grammatical 'form' (symbol/sign) to the 
non-existence 
of the 'corresponding' phenomenon on the conceptual layer. So it may 
well be that grammaticalization is unidirectional on the 'linguistic' 
layer, but surely not on the conceptual layer.

Naturally, the question remains whether grammaticalization itself is a 
phenomenon shaped in cognition. Personally, I would claim that 
grammaticalization again is an epiphenomenon that takes shape in 
language. it is supervened by cognitive processes that by themselves 
have nothing to do with grammaticalization, but with more general 
procedures of varying patterns of communicative perception and 
experience (e.g. Di(h)airesis, Zipf, the so-called Perception 
Action/Information Cycle, memory routines, metaphorization/metonymy, 
blending etc.). In addition, communicative (pragmatic) routines 
stemming 
from the layer of language objectification' mentioned above supply 
these 
processes."

   
  A question which may arise from these comments is to determine how a by-product of truly significant processes can get disentangled from the processes themselves. It would seem impossible to describe grammaticalisation (particularly with reference to Wolfgang's definitions) without reference to such processes themselves. So perhaps the trivial and accidental by-product is simply just a collective and convenient term for all of this (as well as the processes outlined in Newmeyer's (1998) interlocking circles)? If not, it remains to describe the by-product as a separate entity without reference to the truly significant processes themselves, which, in my opinion, comprise the principle, perceptible characteristics of grammaticalisation.
   
  It has also been shown that unidirectionality is possible on the conceptual layer, and perhaps more justifiably than on the 'linguistic' layer (as I discussed in a paper published in FLH XXIV, and as also noted by Traugott and Dasher 2002: 87). Examples shown in these studies reveal that although there may be structural counter-evidence to unidirectionality, semantic unidrectionality has not been shown to be violated.
   
  The crisis, I believe, that is facing grammaticalisation studies at the moment, is not how to describe what went on in the past, but how to derive enough of a theoretical position from the past to be able to predict what will happen in the future (Bernd Heine (p.c.) raised a similar stance on unidirectionality) . Only then can it resist counter-attack from other forces.
   
  Debra Ziegeler
   
  References:
   
  Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   
  Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   
  Ziegeler, Debra. 2003. 'Redefining unidirectionality: insights from demodalisation'. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIV/1-2: 225-266.



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Movies - Search movie info and celeb profiles and photos.


From w.spooren at let.vu.nl  Tue Feb 28 14:28:16 2006
From: w.spooren at let.vu.nl (Wilbert Spooren)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:28:16 +0100
Subject: Job opening at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.152816.0100.W.SPOOREN@LET.VU.NL>

Assistant professor position at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Rank: Assistant Professor
Linguistic Field: Discourse studies/written communication
Application deadline: March 10, 2006
Date posted: February 28, 2006
Job description:
The department of Language & Communication at the Vrije Universiteit 
Amsterdam is looking for an energetic, innovative person to teach and to 
carry our research in the field of discourse studies, with an emphasis 
on the Dutch language (part-time, 70 %). You will be teaching both at 
the BA-level (in the Dutch and Communication & Information Studies 
program) and the MA-level (in the Dutch, Communication & Information 
Studies and Journalism program).

Your research interests should fit in with the group's research 
expertise on the efficacy and optimisation of communication in 
institutional settings. Within that framework your research will focus 
on the role of written communication. There is a preference for 
candidates with a demonstrable expertise in journalistic language (e.g., 
news genres). A relevant PhD from an accredited institution is required. 
Excellent command of Dutch is essential.

Salary is ranked according to the university pay scale at rank 11 (UD2) 
(maximum payment EUR 4,049 per month, full-time). A positive evaluation 
of the successful candidate’s performance after one year will lead to a 
tenured position. Full-time assistant professors at the Vrije 
Universiteit Amsterdam have a teaching load of two to three courses per 
semester. Additional information on the position and on the profile of 
the research group can be obtained from the contact address given below.

Application address:
Dr B. Weltens
Managing Director
Faculty of Arts
Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1105

or by email: vacature at let.vu.nl

Please add the vacancy number: 1.2006.00027 at the top of your letter 
and (if applicable) on the top left of the envelope.

Contact information:
Prof. dr. Wilbert Spooren
email: w.spooren at let.vu.nl
tel.: +31.20.5986572

-- 
**************************
Wilbert Spooren
Afdeling Taal & Communicatie/Dpt. of Language & Communication
FdL VU / Faculty of Arts, Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1105 NL-1081 HV Amsterdam
Tel. +31.20.598.6572
Fax. +31.20.598.6500

http://www.let.vu.nl/staf/w.spooren/
http://www.let.vu.nl/organisatie/leerstoelen/taalencommunicatie/index.html
**************************


From kemmer at rice.edu  Tue Feb 28 15:02:57 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:02:57 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0602271457190.26368@hymn06.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.090257.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

I think an appropriate response from any scientist told
that grammaticalization (or grammar, or sociolinguistic variation,
or any other patterns of language use) is an epiphenomenon would be,
"then what are you studying it for?"

Evolution (in the sense of the patterns observed and explained in terms 
of
the overarching conceptual theory) is like grammaticalization and all of
those other things: an emergent phenomenon. Biologists don't usually 
call evolution,
or any of its describable subpatterns, epiphenomenal.

The operative term is "emergent".  I don't think functional linguists 
should
buy into the 'epiphenomenon' label for what they study, since it has, 
in its scientific sense,
an intrinsic value judgement about significance and relation to causal 
factors .

It's bad enough that the word has already acquired a special sense in 
linguistics, which
is as (as Tom said) a dismissive epithet:
'you may see patterns there, but they're not really important'.

Suzanne




On Feb 27, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:

> Since when are 'natural phenomena' and
> 'epiphenomena' counterposed notions? Any
> epiphenomenon that results from the interplay of
> natural forces (as does grammaticalization) is ipso
> facto 'natural'. Do you disagree, as you seem to,
> with Joan Bybee's comment that 'all of grammar is
> epiphenomenal'?


From Salinas17 at aol.com  Tue Feb 28 15:47:40 2006
From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:47:40 EST
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.104740.EST.>

In a message dated 2/26/06 11:12:55 AM, phonosemantics at earthlink.net writes:
<< 'Mutation' is a pretty squishy notion- all the really interesting (from 
the evolutionary standpoint) alterations happen at higher levels than classical 
point mutations in DNA- involving rearrangements of blocks of materials,...>>

Mutation may be squishy, but the randomness element is not.  As much as a 
progressive or goal-oriented tone has snuck into current evolutionary 
terminology, there's still no reason to assume any Lamarckian "striving" in biological 
evolution.   The degree of complexity comes out of the degree of diversity.  We 
have no reason to assume otherwise.  

Dawkins criticism of Gould -- that he did not recognize the "cumulative" 
effect of biological evolution -- is off the point.  The accumulation of traits or 
mechanisms -- no matter how complex or plastic they may become -- is still 
generated by randomness.  And all that accumulation of adaptive strategies is 
totally dependent on the environment for its survival.  An organism that is 
plastic or complex enough to adapt to many different environments has a survival 
advantage.   But that kind of organism comes from the same place that 
specialized organisms come from -- randomness in the evolutionary process.

Grammaticalization -- at some important level -- involves intentionality.  No 
matter what the two processes share in structure, that makes 
grammaticalization different from evolution.  Grammar grows not just because of diversity, but 
because of some common human objectives guiding it.

Once again, repeated in this thread is the idea that the "functionality" of 
language somehow equals cognition.  Then let me ask the question, what is the 
function driving cognition?  Or, better, what master do both cognition and 
language serve?  Answer that and you may have a better idea of how language and 
evolution are alike.

Regards, 
Steve Long


From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de  Tue Feb 28 15:51:47 2006
From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:51:47 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4b3e31fa80fb2809758a5d66d3dacd1b@rice.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.165147.0100.HASPELMATH@EVA.MPG.DE>

I think the label "epiphenomenon" for grammaticalization theory arose 
when generative linguists looking at what grammaticalization theorists 
said could not find a theory easily comparable to their familiar 
"binding theory" or "X-bar theory". In the generative world view, 
binding facts and phrase structure facts are epiphenomena falling out 
from the respective theories, but grammaticalization phenomena do not 
fall out so easily from grammaticalization theory.

But grammaticalization theory is a very different sort of theory from 
X-bar theory, as every proponent will readily admit. Newmeyer 
(1998:233-4) suggests that the literature on grammaticalization portrays 
it as “an encapsulated phenomenon”, “driven by a distinct set of 
principles governing the phenomenon alone”.

This is not really true (see Haspelmath 2000:§6 and 2004:§3.2.3 for more 
discussion), but it is also the case that there is rather little direct 
general discussion of the key question of why grammaticalization 
exhibits the properties it does (especially unidirectionality, see 
Haspelmath 1999). Maybe it's OK that most grammaticalization research 
focuses on specific language-particular facts, because the most general 
why-questions are also the hardest, and it's not easy to tell whether we 
are making any progress.

Martin

*****
References

Haspelmath, M. 2004. "On directionality in language change with 
particular reference to grammaticalization." In: Olga Fischer, Muriel 
Norde and Harry Perridon (eds). Up and down the cline: /The nature of 
grammaticalization/. (Typological Studies in Language, 59.) Amsterdam: 
Benjamins, 17-44.

Haspelmath, M. 2000. “Why can’t we talk to each other? A review article 
of [Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. 
Cambridge: MIT Press.] /Lingua/ 110.4: 235-55.

Haspelmath, M. 1999. "Why is grammaticalization irreversible?" 
/Linguistics/ 37.6: 1043-68.

(see http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/publist.html)

-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6	
D-04103 Leipzig      
Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616


From kemmer at rice.edu  Tue Feb 28 17:17:47 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:17:47 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.111747.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

I take Martin's points in general, but his historical comment below  
makes no sense to me.

If in the generative world view, syntactic patterns are epiphenomena
that fall out of their theories,  then why would generative linguists  
refer to
observations about grammaticalization as epiphenomena, since they
can't see how these observations fall out of any theory of  
grammaticalization?

Perhaps there is already a dual usage in Linguistics : 'epiphenomena'  
is being used to mean 'complex surface patterns originated by deep  
underlying principles (and such patterns are worth studying because  
they reveal the deep principles)'; vs. 'trivial surface patterns that  
cannot reveal anything meaningful about deep underlying causes'.   
It's the latter sense that I am most familiar with in the form of  
remarks at conferences and in reviews of functional work.

I hope this word falls out of fashion in linguistics sooner rather  
than later.
--Suzanne

Martin Haspelmath wrote:
I think the label "epiphenomenon" for grammaticalization theory arose  
when generative linguists looking at what grammaticalization  
theorists said could not find a theory easily comparable to their  
familiar "binding theory" or "X-bar theory". In the generative world  
view, binding facts and phrase structure facts are epiphenomena  
falling out from the respective theories, but grammaticalization  
phenomena do not fall out so easily from grammaticalization theory.


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 28 18:18:52 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:18:52 -0500
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.131852.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

Things aren't as random as all that- each new generation takes its cue from the prior one, however imperfectly. This means there is already a 'memory' of prior selection. The historical dimension must be taken into account for both linguistics and genetics.

An example of genetic order recently announced on the science feeds- apparently genes that share common activation are spaced, on DNA, in a periodic fashion over VERY long stretches of nucleotides, with intervening genes that don't share in that particular pattern. This would imply that all one has to do is shift the activation up or downstream a notch to change the 'phase'. Many genes in higher eukaryotes exist in chains of differentiated forms, for instance hemoglobin, which has embryonic, fetal, and other forms for later parts of the human life cycle. My guess would be that many of the 'early' forms of expressed genes for young organisms would pattern together. So one might regulate the entire system temporally just by shifting the packaging (and thus inactivation/activation) on histones and other proteins.

It was already known that the genes which control the layout and development of the metazoan body plan were laid out in linear fashion parallel to that of the body segments.

It has also been recently discussed that chromosomal rearrangements are also not as random as previously believed. Obviously real errors do occur, but when things work smoothly such rearrangements, in the long term, may be more like the shuffling of decks of cards. Given that the linear orders which govern temporal and spatial developments (as laid out above) must needs be maintained for the organism to be viable, one wonders then whether the entire system, as it operates inter- and intra-generationally, in the short and long term, and over short and long space (cells, organs, bodies, families, populations) has been optimized for just such a task.

As mentioned in my first post, genes can be split, appositional, or overlapping. The former have the greatest flexibility, due to higher level editing processes and regulation. You can do a lot to such genes and still have enough play to make a usable product in the end. The overlapping viral genes are 'trapped' by their own efficiency of use of space on nucleic acid chains- one little change in sequence and its all over.

If we look at the linguistic parallels, one sees that the split gene analog, analytic/isolating languages, can vary wildly in the particulars of their lexicons (just take a look for instance at Tibeto-Burman cognate roots, compounds, etc.). 
Such languages are very context-dependent (as are genes in the cells of eukaryotes).

My point is that it may not be one-size-fits-all with regards to 'random' 'mutation'- the multilevel, cosmopolitan system is very robust, with many redundancies constituting 'plans b, c...', etc. If you ignore the tweaking that goes on at higher level, it might look like chaos. But its organized chaos. The simple systems on the other hand are more likely to show nice clear form/function mappings at what in the bigger systems would consitute the lowest hierarchical levels, with little or no tweaking necessary. Tab A fits slot B. End of story. The most flexible systems can create and modify slots and tabs as necessary. But this requires higher level system memory (such as eukaryotic cells have). Some of this isn't even genetic at all (for instance flagellar orientation in the pellicle of various Paramecia, shapes of those pellicles, etc.- these change with direct damage to the pellicle, and are heritable.).

As you may know, my decades long obsession with form/meaning mapping nonarbitrariness (whether sound symbolism, syntactic iconicity, etc.) tends to make me somewhat wary of blanket application of terms like 'random'. When it comes to order, absence of evidence does not necessarily constitute evidence of absence. 

But perhaps that's just me.

Jess Tauber 


From oesten at ling.su.se  Tue Feb 28 19:48:47 2006
From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:48:47 +0100
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <28970764.1141150732827.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.204847.0100.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

For those who are interested in the term "epiphenomenon", its history and
various uses I recommend reading Daniel Dennett's discussion in "Consciousness
explained", pp. 401-404. As will be clear from the following quote, it's not
only in linguistics that the term is problematic: 

"The term "epiphenomena" is in common use today by both philosophers and
psychologists (and other cognitive scientists). It is used with the presumption
that its meaning is familiar and agreed upon, when in fact, philosophers and
cognitive scientists use the term with *entirely* different meanings -- a
strange fact made even stranger to me by the fact that although I have pointed
this out time and again, no one seems to care."

(The two meanings are "a nonfunctional property or byproduct" and "an effect
which by itself has no effects in the physical world whatever".)

The term "emergence", by the way, is arguably even more ambiguously used by
linguists and others. I discuss the two terms "emergence" and "epiphenomena" in
my book "The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity", Benjamins 2004.  

-- Östen Dahl


From andrea.schalley at une.edu.au  Mon Feb  6 01:02:25 2006
From: andrea.schalley at une.edu.au (Andrea Schalley)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:02:25 +1100
Subject: Australian Linguistics Institute - ALI 2006
Message-ID: <MON.6.FEB.2006.120225.1100.ANDREA.SCHALLEY@UNE.EDU.AU>

*******************************************************************
First Call for Participation

AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE 2006
ALI 2006

<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/>

DATES:		Monday-Friday, 10-14 JULY 2006
LOCATION: 	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

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

ALI 2006 is a selection of 12 intensive courses presented by world 
experts in their fields. It's a unique opportunity for graduate 
students, advanced undergraduates, professional linguists, and language 
professionals to upgrade their knowledge and skills in key areas of 
linguistics.


- COURSES -

Many courses in ALI 2006 are on the theme 'Language and Cognition', 
while others focus on language typology, acquisition, and aspects of 
linguistic theory.
	
Each course consists of five 90 minute sessions, running Monday through 
Friday. Three sets of courses will be running in parallel, so 
participants can attend a maximum of four courses. Confirmed topics and 
presenters are as follows.

     * Cognitive linguistics
       John Taylor (University of Otago)
     * Combinatory grammar and natural cognition
       Mark Steedman (University of Edinburgh)
     * L2 syntax: Age dependent effects
       Bonnie Schwartz (University of Hawai'i)
     * Language and genetics
       Brian Byrne (University of New England)
     * Language and thought
       Lera Boroditsky (Stanford University)
     * Logic in child language acquisition
       Stephen Crain (Macquarie University Centre for Cognitive Science)
     * Morphology and lexical representations
       Andrew Spencer (University of Essex)
     * NonPamaNyungan languages of Northern Australia
       Nicholas Evans (Melbourne University)
     * Papuan languages
       William Foley (University of Sydney)
     * Semantics masterclass
       Anna Wierzbicka (Australian National University)
     * Understanding typological distribution
       Balthasar Bickel (University of Leipzig)

We are also working on the inclusion of a course on the topic 
'Bilingualism: cognitive aspects'. The presenter for this topic will be 
announced shortly.


- REGISTRATION -

DEADLINE: 	Early Bird: 26 May 2006
			General: tba

FEES:		  	 			
Early Bird (up to 26 May 2006)
  		Regular 	 			AU$ 400
  		Postgraduate Students 	AU$ 300
  		Undergraduate Students 	AU$ 200

General (from 26 May 2006)
		Regular 	 			AU$ 450
   		Postgraduate Students 	AU$ 350
		Undergraduate Students 	AU$ 250

Information on *how* to register will be available at 
<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/registration.php> at a later time.


- CONTACTS -

Website:	<http://www.ali2006.une.edu.au/>
Email:	Prof. Cliff Goddard,	<cgoddard at une.edu.au>, or
		Dr Andrea Schalley,	<andrea.schalley at une.edu.au>


- ORGANISERS AND SPONSORS -

ALI 2006 is organised by the Language and Cognition Research Centre of 
the University of New England (<http://www.une.edu.au/arts/LangCog/>). 
It is supported by the Australian Linguistic Society 
(<http://www.als.asn.au/>).


- LINQ 2006 -

ALI 2006 is part of LinQ 2006 'Linguistics in Queensland', a series of 
five high-profile linguistic events to be held in July 2006 at the 
University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. For more information, 
cf. <http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/>.


From andrea.schalley at une.edu.au  Mon Feb  6 01:03:13 2006
From: andrea.schalley at une.edu.au (Andrea Schalley)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 12:03:13 +1100
Subject: LinQ 2006 - Linguistics in Queensland
Message-ID: <MON.6.FEB.2006.120313.1100.ANDREA.SCHALLEY@UNE.EDU.AU>

*******************************************************************
First Call

LINGUISTICS IN QUEENSLAND 2006
LINQ 2006

<http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/>

DATES:		4-14 JULY 2006
LOCATION: 	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

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

LinQ 2006 is a series of five high-profile linguistic events to be held 
in July 2006 at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia.
LinQ 2006 is a collaboration between Griffith University, the 
University of New England, and the University of Queensland.

- EVENTS -

** PacSLRF 2006 **
THE 5TH PACIFIC SECOND LANGUAGE RESEARCH FORUM
Dates: 		July 4-6, 2006
Webpage: 	http://www.emsah.uq.edu.au/pacslrf2006/

PacSLRF is a venue for data-based and theoretical papers on areas of 
basic research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Topics include, 
but are not limited to, SLA in instructed and naturalistic settings; 
the effects of second language (L2) instruction on the rate and route 
of L2 development; the role of individual differences (in e.g., 
aptitude, age, personality, motivation) in SLA; competing models of SLA 
processes; SLA theory construction; the acquisition of L2 pragmatics; 
bilingualism; the influence of cognitive variables (e.g., memory and 
attention) on L2 learning and use; the assessment of L2 use and 
development; methodological issues in research into L2 acquisition.

** AUSTRALEX 2006 **
AUSTRALASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR LEXICOGRAPHY CONFERENCE
Date: 		July 6, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.australex.org/a06.htm>

The theme for Australex 2006 is "Dictionaries: Uses and Users". Topics 
will include: dictionaries as the voice of authority; dictionaries to 
support specialized subjects; the use of dictionaries within language 
pedagogy; designing dictionaries for different levels of reader; 
lexicography in the Pacific region; research on dictionary users.

** ALAA 2006 **
ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE APPLIED LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
Dates:		July 6-8, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.uq.edu.au/slccs/AppliedLing/alaa06>

Papers in all areas of applied linguistics, including language 
teaching, language policy and planning, and computer-based language 
instruction.

** ALS 2006 **
ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTIC SOCIETY
Dates: 		July 7-9, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.uq.edu.au/slccs/AppliedLing/als06/>

Papers in all areas of linguistics, including syntax, phonology, 
Australian languages and sociolinguistics.

** ALI 2006 **
AUSTRALIAN LINGUISTICS INSTITUTE
Dates: 		July 10-14, 2006
Webpage: 	<http://www.ali06.une.edu.au>

ALI 2006 is a selection of 12 short intensive courses presented by 
world experts in their fields. It's a unique opportunity for graduate 
students, advanced undergraduates, professional linguists, and language 
professionals to upgrade their knowledge and skills in key areas of 
linguistics.

- REGISTRATION -
Deadline: 	Early Bird: 26 May 2006; General: tba.
Information on how to register will be available at 
<http://www.linq2006.une.edu.au/registration.php> at a later time.


From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi  Wed Feb  8 12:33:51 2006
From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (Kaius Sinnemaki)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:33:51 +0200
Subject: CFP: Structure and Context
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.143351.0200.>

<<<Apologies for cross-posting>>>

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


     CALL FOR PAPERS


The Linguistic Association of Finland is organizing a symposium on "Structure
and Context" to be held in Turku, Finland, August 21-22, 2006.

***

The symposium concentrates on the interaction of linguistic structures and
context. We invite papers addressing theoretical questions as well as papers
taking a specific (empirical) viewpoint on one (or more) particular language(s).

Every linguist working on any kind of structural description has to deal with
context, or co-text. Many phenomena are said to be context-dependent. What,
then, is the 'context' that these phenomena are related to, and how should this
relationship be described? Context is a topic that is common among linguists
from different schools of thought even if they have different ways of treating
it. The symposium offers linguists a possibility to discuss the topic from
various angles and learn from each other's views.

Problems concerning context are for instance the following:

   * What is a sufficient context?
   * What belongs / does not belong in the context?
   * What is the proper description of context for different linguistic
     phenomena?
   * Should the theoretical description distinguish between the
     structure and the context?
   * What does context-dependency mean for particular linguistic
     phenomena?

We encourage contributions broadly from diverse areas of linguistics, including
traditional theoretical linguistics, experimental psycholinguistics, linguist
working on spoken language, historical linguistics, grammar, constructions,
text, typology, etc.


       Plenary speakers

   * Arvi Hurskainen (University of Helsinki)
   * Anna Siewierska (University of Lancaster)
   * Tuija Virtanen-Ulfhielm (?bo Akademi University)


       Activities

   * lectures by plenary speakers
   * presentations by other participants (20 min + 10 min for discussion)
   * posters


       Symposium venue

The ?bo Akademi University, Humanities building (Arken), Tehtaankatu 2, Turku,
Finland. For further information on the location, see the ?bo Akademi University
web site: http://www.abo.fi


       Abstracts

The deadline for the submission of abstracts (in English; max 500 words) is
March 31st, 2006. Please submit your abstract by e-mail to the following
address: context-organizers (at) ling.helsinki.fi

The abstract should be included in the body of the message. (However, if it
includes special symbols, we would appreciate a pdf-attachment.) Please indicate
clearly whether your abstract is intended as a poster or a section paper.
Participants will be notified about acceptance by April 28th 2006.

The abstracts will be published on the web pages of the symposium at
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/tapahtumat/context/context.shtml


       Registration

Registration fees:

   * general: EUR 50
   * members of the association: EUR 25
   * undergraduate students free

Participants from abroad are requested to pay in cash upon arrival.
Participants from Finland may send the registration fee by giro account no
800013-1424850 to The Linguistic Association of Finland (SKY) / Symposium or pay
in cash upon arrival.

In case you have further questions please email context-organizers (at)
ling.helsinki.fi. Check for information updates at the symposium website:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/tapahtumat/context/context.shtml


       Organizing committee:

Joanna Anckar
Marja Etel?m?ki
Pentti Haddington
Emmi Hyn?nen
Mikko Laitinen
Urpo Nikanne
Heli Paulasto
Geda Paulsen
Oksana Petrova
Helena Pirttisaari
Kaius Sinnem?ki

E-mail:  <context-organizers (at) ling.helsinki.fi>


From tono at ualberta.ca  Wed Feb  8 08:57:48 2006
From: tono at ualberta.ca (T Ono)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 01:57:48 -0700
Subject: JK16 Announcement
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.015748.0700.TONO@UALBERTA.CA>

Call for Papers: 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference

The 16th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference will be held October 7-9, 2006, 
on the campus of Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. This conference aims to 
provide a forum for presenting research in Japanese and Korean linguistics, 
thereby facilitating efforts to deepen our understanding of these two 
languages, which have striking typological similarities. Papers in all 
sub-areas of Japanese and Korean linguistics are invited. Presentations, except 
for those by the keynote speakers, will be 20 minutes long and will be followed 
by a 10-minute question and answer period.

Please submit abstracts (one page, 500 words maximum) as a PDF file attached to 
an email message to [jk16 at ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp] by May 20, 2006. You may use 
a second page for references and/or example sentences. The first line of your 
abstract should indicate the category (Formal or Functional), followed by the 
sub-field (e.g., Formal/Syntax, Functional/Discourse, etc.). The second line 
should be the paper title. Omit your name and affiliation from the abstract. In 
the body of your email message, include name(s) and affiliation(s), address, 
phone number, and email address. Use the following subject header for your 
email: "JK16, Last name, First Initial." Please note that only one abstract 
from each individual can be considered for acceptance. One individual abstract 
or one jointly authored abstract may be submitted.

All the necessary information about the conference will appear on our 
conference website in the coming weeks. Go to 
[http://www.hmn.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/langlogic/index.html]. Please direct any 
inquiries to jk16 at ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Attn: Kayo Nagai)


From vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk  Wed Feb  8 14:32:07 2006
From: vyv.evans at sussex.ac.uk (Vyv Evans)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:32:07 +0000
Subject: THE STRUCTURE OF TIME: new in paperback
Message-ID: <WED.8.FEB.2006.143207.0000.VYV.EVANS@SUSSEX.AC.UK>

********* JUST PUBLISHED IN PAPERBACK **********

THE STRUCTURE OF TIME
Language, meaning and temporal cognition

by Vyvyan Evans
University of Sussex

Published by John Benjamins Publishing Company
www.benjamins.com
Paperback: EUR 36.00/USD 42.95
ISBN: 902722367X

Sample chapter and further details available from author's website:
www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/vyv/

One of the most enigmatic aspects of experience concerns time. Since 
pre-Socratic times scholars have speculated about the nature of time, 
asking questions such as: What is time? Where does it come from? Where does 
it go? The central proposal of 'The Structure of Time' is that time, at 
base, constitutes a phenomenologically real experience. Drawing on findings 
in psychology and neuroscience, and utilising the perspective of cognitive 
linguistics, this work argues that our experience of time may ultimately 
derive from perceptual processes, which in turn enable us to perceive 
events. As such, temporal experience is a pre-requisite for abilities such 
as event perception and comparison, rather than an abstraction based on 
such phenomena. The book represents an examination of the nature of 
temporal cognition, with two foci: (i) an investigation
into(pre-conceptual) temporal experience, and (ii) an analysis of temporal 
structure at the conceptual level (which derives from temporal experience).

Quotes:
"Time belongs to the bedrock of human cognition. Beginning before birth and 
remaining for the most part below the horizon of consciousness, temporal 
cognition is a mystery not easily penetrated. The Structure of Time is an 
indispensable investigation, rich in theory and examples, into the 
phenomenology and the linguistics of the way we think about time."
Mark Turner, Institute Professor, Case Western Reserve University

"With this work, Cognitive Linguistics finally turns its attention from 
Space to Time."
Jordan Zlatev, Lund University, Sweden

"This work is interesting, creative, thought provoking, and timely (no pun 
intended)."
Wallace Chafe, University of California at Santa Barbara

Table of contents:
Acknowledgements
I. Orientation
1. The problem of time
2. The phenomenology of time
3. The elaboration of temporal concepts
4. The nature of meaning
5. The conceptual metaphor approach to time
6. A theory of word-meaning: Principled polysemy
II. Concepts for time
7. The Duration Sense
8. The Moment Sense
9. The Instance Sense
10.The Event Sense
11.The Matrix Sense
12.The Agentive Sense
13.The Measurement-system Sense
14.The Commodity Sense
15.The Present, Past and Future
III. Models for time
16. Time, motion and agency
17. Two complex cognitive models of temporality
18. A third complex model of temporality
19. Time in modern physics
20. The structure of time
Notes
References
Index

********* JUST PUBLISHED IN PAPERBACK ************


From a.m.koskela at sussex.ac.uk  Fri Feb 10 12:40:08 2006
From: a.m.koskela at sussex.ac.uk (Anu Koskela)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:40:08 +0000
Subject: Call for papers: PG Conference in Cognitive Linguistics
Message-ID: <FRI.10.FEB.2006.124008.0000.A.M.KOSKELA@SUSSEX.AC.UK>

CALL FOR PAPERS: The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive 
Linguistics
Department of Linguistics and English Language,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

We are delighted to announce the first UK Postgraduate Conference in 
Cognitive Linguistics, to take place at the University of Sussex on 
Saturday, 27th May 2006.

This is the first conference in the UK aimed specifically for postgraduates 
working in the field of Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics is a 
relatively new, interdisciplinary approach to the study of language which 
focuses on the interaction between human language, cognition and 
experience. The purpose of the conference is to provide a forum for 
postgraduate researchers in Cognitive Linguistics to exchange ideas and 
present new research.

The conference will also feature plenary talks and workshops by the 
following invited speakers:

Dr Vyvyan Evans (University of Sussex): keynote lecture on "The Cognitive 
Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview"

Prof. Gilles Fauconnier (University of California San Diego): a workshop on 
conceptual blending theory

Prof. Chris Sinha (University of Portsmouth): a keynote lecture on 
"Language as a biocultural niche"

Abstract submissions:

We invite submissions of abstracts for 20 minute presentations (followed by 
10 minutes of discussion) on research pertaining to any area of Cognitive 
Linguistics.

Deadline for abstracts: 24th March
Notification of acceptance: 24th April

Abstract format:
- Only electronic submissions are accepted.
- The abstracts should be submitted to the email address 
abstracts at cogling.org.uk, with the email subject "First PG Conference in 
Cognitive Linguistics"
- The abstract should be sent as an attachment to an email message, in 
either MS Word (.doc), Rich Text Format (.rtf) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf ) 
format
- The length of the submissions is a maximum of 500 words or 1 A4 side. The 
abstract should clearly indicate the title of the talk, and may include 
references, but the total word count should not exceed 500 words.
- The abstracts will be subject to anonymous review, so the abstract should 
not include the name(s) of the author(s)
- The body of the email message should contain the following information: 
The author's name, affiliation, title of the paper and contact details 
(postal and email address)

For further details about the conference, please visit www.cogling.org.uk 
and click on the link for Conferences and then PGCCL.

The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics is associated 
with the Portsmouth-Sussex Symposium on Language and Cognition, which takes 
place at the Universities of Sussex and Portsmouth on the two days 
preceding the First Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics - 
25-26th May 2006. Links to further information about the Portsmouth-Sussex 
Symposium on Language and Cognition can be found under Conferences at 
www.cogling.org.uk.

We look forward to receiving your abstract(s) and seeing you at Sussex at 
The First UK Postgraduate Conference in Cognitive Linguistics!

Anu Koskela
Chair of the Organising Committee for the First UK Postgraduate Conference 
in Cognitive Linguistics


Anu Koskela
DPhil Candidate
Dept. of Linguistics and English Language/
Centre for Research in Cognitive Science
University of Sussex
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QN
UK


From vanvalin at buffalo.edu  Wed Feb 15 11:32:50 2006
From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:32:50 +0100
Subject: RRG 2006-Call for Papers
Message-ID: <WED.15.FEB.2006.123250.0100.VANVALIN@BUFFALO.EDU>

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, University of Manchester
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/




*********************************
Robert D. Van Valin, Jr.
Professor of Linguistics
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
VANVALIN at BUFFALO.EDU

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 tom at uniss.it  Wed Feb 15 18:28:05 2006
From: tom at uniss.it (Prof. Vittorio Tomelleri)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:28:05 +0100
Subject: Change in your subscription options for the FUNKNET list
Message-ID: <WED.15.FEB.2006.192805.0100.TOM@UNISS.IT>

--
C.E.D. e-m at il - Universit? degli Studi di Sassari (http://ced.uniss.it)
--
Could you replace, please, the following address "tom at uniss.it" with 
my new
one: s.tomelleri at unimc.it?

Thank You in advance

Vittorio S. Tomelleri


From fjn at u.washington.edu  Thu Feb 16 21:13:01 2006
From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:13:01 -0800
Subject: text counts of semantic subclasses of lexical categories
Message-ID: <THU.16.FEB.2006.131301.0800.FJN@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

Dear Funknetters,

I am interested in seeing text counts drawn from conversation (and 
other genres as well) of semantic subclasses of nouns, verbs, and 
adjectives. That is, I'm interested in seeing nouns broken down into 
concretes and abstracts; verbs broken down into actives and 
statives; adjectives broken down into properties and relations; etc., 
and the relative frequency of each subclass in texts. Can anybody 
point me to what I am looking for?

Thanks!

--fritz

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Howard and Frances Nostrand Professor of Linguistics
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-4340 USA
Home page: http://depts.washington.edu/lingweb/people/
fjned.html


From lguerrero at capomo.uson.mx  Tue Feb 21 00:03:08 2006
From: lguerrero at capomo.uson.mx (Lili=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E1n?= Guerrero)
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:03:08 +0000
Subject: Call for papers: IX Encuentro Internacional de Linguistica en el
 Noroeste
Message-ID: <TUE.21.FEB.2006.000308.0000.>

Second Call for Papers
 
The ?IX  Encuentro Internacional de Ling??stica en el Noroeste? will take place at the Universidad de Sonora, in Hermosillo, Sonora, M?xico, November 15, 16 y 17, 2006.


INVITED SPEAKERS:
 
MARINA FERN?NDEZ LAGUNILLA      LUIS FERNANDO LARA RAMOS
Universidad Aut?noma de Madrid                 El Colegio de M?xico 
 
MARIANNE MITHUN                                CARMEN SILVA-CORVAL?N       
University of Califonia, Santa Barbara                      University of Southern California
 
Papers in all the areas of Linguistics (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax,
semantics, discourse, lexicography, language acquisition, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, etc.) will be considered.  Speakers may propose particular sessions; please, contact the Committee during the reception of the abstracts.
 
Submission Guidelines:
Deadline for abstract submission: May 1, 2006
 
1. Abstract must be anonymous and can be presented in Spanish and English.
2. Submissions are limited to 1 individual and one joint abstract per author. 
3. Particular sessions will be accepted if they include a minimum of three speakers and a maximum of eight.
4. Abstracts must be submitted electronically as an e-mail attachment in Word  or RTF format.
5. Abstracts may not exceed 500 words, single space, 12 points Garamond. 
6. The abstract must contain the following information:
 
a) Title of the paper
b) Description of the topic to be analized
c) Mention of the goals and/or arguments that will be presented
d) Examples
e) No more than five references 
 
7. On a separate page (body message), provide the following information:
Title of the paper
Name(s) of the author(s)
Affiliation
Country 
Email
Telephone/fax
Linguistic subfields (2-3 areas)
Academic status (faculty/grad student/undergrad student)
Institutional and personal address 
Audio-visual and/or electronic devices needed 
 
8. Abstracts and personal information must be emailed to: encuentro at guaymas.uson.mx
9. If  the abstract include any special fonts, please specify them or send a hard copy of your abstract to the Fax number: 00-52-(662)-212-55-29
 
Notification of acceptance or rejection will be sent by August 15, 2006.
 
REGISTRATION:
$85 dlls. Faculty and other (non-students)
$50 dlls. PhD students
$10 dlls. Other students 
 
For updates, questions, and hotel information, please check our webpage: www.encuentrolinguistica.uson.mx, or contact the committee members at encuentro at guaymas.uson.mx.


 

From jcclemen at unm.edu  Wed Feb 22 22:41:13 2006
From: jcclemen at unm.edu (J. Clancy Clements)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:41:13 -0700
Subject: New book: Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax
In-Reply-To: <web-7097126@sabik.unm.edu>
Message-ID: <WED.22.FEB.2006.154113.0700.JCCLEMEN@UNM.EDU>

Title: Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax
Subtitle: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity
Publication Year: 2005
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com)

http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=1403994064
  
Editor: J. Clancy Clements, Indiana University, 
Bloomington
Editor: Jiyoung Yoon, University of North Texas, Denton

Hardback: ISBN: 1403994064 Pages:  Price: U.K. ? 55.00
(The U.S. edition will appear soon.)
  
Abstract:
The first usage-based approach of its kind, this volume 
contains twelve studies on key issues in Spanish syntax: 
word order, null arguments, grammatical-relation marking, 
inalienable possession, ser and estar, adjective 
placement, small clauses and causatives studies, within a 
broad functionalist perspective. These studies strengthen 
the view that components of grammar intricately interact 
and that a usage-based approach to analyzing them offers 
new and insightful perspectives on some stubborn problems.
  
Linguistic Field(s): Syntax
Subject Language(s): Spanish (spa)
Written In: English  (eng)
See this book announcement on our website:
http://linguistlist.org/get-book.html?BookID=18435


From mg246 at cornell.edu  Fri Feb 24 04:51:08 2006
From: mg246 at cornell.edu (monica gonzalez-marquez)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 23:51:08 -0500
Subject: CFP: EMCL 3: Developing an experiment: from conception to
 implementation
Message-ID: <THU.23.FEB.2006.235108.0500.MG246@CORNELL.EDU>

EMCL 3: Developing an experiment: from conception to implementation

Date: October 17-18 , 2006
Place: University of Murcia (Spain)

To precede the conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics 
Association
(AELCO-SCOLA) as a satellite event.

http://www.um.es/lincoing/aelco2006/


*******Application deadline: July 1, 2006*******


The last few years have yielded promising experimental evidence for an
embodied view of language. The work of researchers such as Bergen,
Boroditsky, Matlock, Santiago, and Richardson, among others, has 
provided
glimpses of the intricate cross-buttressing between language and other
cognitive processes. In order for the promise of these findings to come 
to
fruition, many more researchers will have to join the ranks of the 
field?s
leaders. The interdisciplinary training required to advance Experimental
Cognitive Linguistics remains, unfortunately, scarce at most 
universities.
As such, the focus for ?EMCL III? will be ?Developing an experiment: 
from
conception to implementation.? The goal will be to unite gifted 
cognitive
linguists lacking experimental training, with experienced researchers 
who
will guide them in the development and implementation of an experiment.


Intended Audience:

This workshop is aimed specifically at scholars with sound theoretical
knowledge in their field though lacking in experimental training.
Participants are not expected to have any background at all in
experimentation. The ideal candidate will be in their 3rd or 4th year of
graduate school in a theoretical linguistics program that endorses
embodiment, possibly with some experience in corpus or discourse 
analysis,
will have given much thought to a research question, and have concluded
that experimentation might be a productive way to address it. Graduate
students (post-grads, pre-doctoral, etc.), as well as post-doctoral
researchers and junior faculty are also invited to apply. The only real
prerequisite is a background in embodiment and language, and no
experimental experience.

Please note: Unlike at previous EMCL workshops, attendance to this 
session
will be strictly limited to the invited participants. No exceptions will
be made so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop.

Format:

A selected group of students (max.20) will be invited to participate.
Students will be divided into four groups; each group will work with a
researcher who will guide the group in selecting an idea, structuring 
and
organizing an experiment, and carrying it out. The session will end with
the presentation of findings and a general discussion.


Topics to be covered include:

-	Deciding on a research topic
-	Transforming the research topic into a research question
-	Developing experimental hypotheses and designing an experiment
-	Data collection
-	Statistical analysis and interpretation
-	Presentation of findings to an audience



Cost: 120 Euros

Accommodation: (to be announced)

Application:

To apply, please send the following by July 1, 2006. All materials must 
be
submitted electronically to Monica Gonzalez-Marquez at mg246 at
cornell.edu. Accepted applicants will be notified by August 1, 2006.


1. A two (2) page (1000 words maximum) statement describing
- your background,
- your reasons for wanting to participate,
- the researcher you would like to work with and why
- a description of at least one specific research question you want to
explore.

2. A copy of your curriculum vitae.

3. One letter of recommendation from someone who knows your research,
preferably your advisor. Have this person submit the letter directly to
mg246 at cornell.edu


Faculty:

Benjamin Bergen (University of Manoa at Hawai)
Asifa Majid (Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen, Holland)
Julio Santiago (University of Barcelona)
(Additional faculty member to be announced)

Faculty interests to be posted shortly on the website:

http://www.um.es/lincoing/aelco2006/


Organizing committee:

Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Cornell University
Javier Valenzuela, University of Murcia

-------------------
_________________________________________

So that the form takes as many risks as the content --
? 					         "Ava" by Carole Maso

M?nica Gonz?lez-M?rquez
Psychology Department
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

mg246 at cornell.edu

_________________________________________

So that the form takes as many risks as the content --
? 					         "Ava" by Carole Maso

M?nica Gonz?lez-M?rquez
Psychology Department
Cornell University
B96b Uris Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853

mg246 at cornell.edu (607) 255-6397


From hilpert at rice.edu  Sat Feb 25 18:11:47 2006
From: hilpert at rice.edu (Martin Hilpert)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:11:47 -0000
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.181147.0000.>

Dear Funknetters,

I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two 
theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:

1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for 
functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span 
centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only 
have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to 
Janda 2001.)

2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently 
existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory power 
to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)

Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated. 


Thanks, --Martin


------------------------------
Martin Hilpert
Rice University
Department of Linguistics MS 23
6100 Main Street
77005-1892 Houston TX
Tel (001) 713 3482822
Fax (001) 713 3484718
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert


From jbybee at unm.edu  Sat Feb 25 20:48:25 2006
From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:48:25 -0700
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.134825.0700.>

Dear Martin,

Point 1 is only a problem if you assume that language change takes place in 
language acquisition. If you assume that grammaticization is driven by 
processes that occur as language is used, by everyone all the time, then 
unidirectionality is what you would expect.

Point 2: of course it's an epiphenomenon! All of grammar is epiphenomenal.

Joan

--On Saturday, February 25, 2006 6:11 PM +0000 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:

> Dear Funknetters,
>
> I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two
> theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:
>
> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one
> to  Janda 2001.)
>
> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory
> power  to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)
>
> Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks, --Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Martin Hilpert
> Rice University
> Department of Linguistics MS 23
> 6100 Main Street
> 77005-1892 Houston TX
> Tel (001) 713 3482822
> Fax (001) 713 3484718
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert
>
>


From delancey at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 00:52:00 2006
From: delancey at uoregon.edu (Scott DeLancey)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:52:00 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.165200.0800.DELANCEY@UOREGON.EDU>

> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory
power
> to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)

"Evolution" should really be decomposed into its independently existing
component processes.  We understand inheritance with variation, we
understand natural selection and ecological adaptation.  What does the
word evolution add to our understanding?  There's no point in granting
explanatory power to an ephiphenomenon.


Scott DeLancey
Department of Linguistics
1290 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA

delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html


From kemmer at rice.edu  Sun Feb 26 01:53:24 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:53:24 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.195324.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental byproduct 
of truly significant processes.
A useful term of opprobrium applied to certain phenomena by members of 
a dominant paradigm whose basic assumptions make it
difficult or impossible to account for such phenomena (without doing 
stated or unstated damage to the assumptions or the theory itself).
Usually dragged into service whenever fruitful generalizations and 
deeper understanding of the phenomena in a new paradigm
can no longer be ignored.

--Suzanne's Dictionary of Linguistic Codewords


From delancey at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 01:56:55 2006
From: delancey at uoregon.edu (Scott DeLancey)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:56:55 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.175655.0800.DELANCEY@UOREGON.EDU>

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:

> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to
> Janda 2001.)

So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
down the road to see the culmination of the process?

Scott DeLancey
Department of Linguistics
1290 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA

delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html


From tgivon at uoregon.edu  Sun Feb 26 04:48:46 2006
From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:48:46 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0602251755190.17150@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SAT.25.FEB.2006.204846.0800.>

The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based, 
adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena', 
because they are the product of interaction between serendipity (random 
mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological behavior of 
organisms during selection). Does that mean that evolutionary biology 
has not come up with explanatory principles that account for why 
synchronic forms are the way they are? No serious biologist would agree 
with that. Does it mean that evolutionary biology has succeeded in 
explaining everytring? No serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim 
that. Science is gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn 
would have us believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new 
theory. Not even Einstein did.

Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to 
bio-evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov & 
Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to do is 
study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both begin with 
rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may engender rather 
global, often strartling consequences. Both begin with *functional 
extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of an existing structure 
(or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni-directional. In both, the 
directionality (and its governing motivating principles) are *never 
100%*, but is nonetheless  quite robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what 
distinguishes biology from physics/math/logic  is precisely 
that--less-than-100% generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And 
finally, in both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the 
same: *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the 
availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8 major 
ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the 'passive' 
function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause fiunction.  And  indeed 
quite often this multiplicity of courses ius found in a single language, 
so that multiple alternative solutions (constructions) *compete* for the 
same (or rather similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is 
chosen over the others to be statistically dominant depends on those 
multiple other factors.

 Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the very  
same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ towards 
different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the 
gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is, 
*one-to-many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both 
grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of 
grammatical-typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much 
less less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic 
pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen-burning 
organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way different organs may 
be recruited for doing respiration in different phila).

One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has to do 
with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have no real 
equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho-syntax gets 
forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But everyday 
communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee says) in a way 
apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing--in the communal 
pool--multiple variants that then compete for selection. Conversely, the 
'*selection*' part of diachronic change is much more socially dependent 
than selection in biology; although in many social species there begins 
to be an element of *social transmission* of individual innovative 
behavior, which becomes part of the overall mechanism of selection.

Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda 
have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing 
grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre 
artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and parcel 
of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that is, viewing 
language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to selective 
pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into evolution--of 
'recursivity').

I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.

Best,  TG

=========================

  Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same 
source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize

>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
>>functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
>>centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
>>have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one to
>>Janda 2001.)
>>    
>>
>
>So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
>not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
>would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
>down the road to see the culmination of the process?
>
>Scott DeLancey
>Department of Linguistics
>1290 University of Oregon
>Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
>
>delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
>http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
>  
>


From daniel.everett at uol.com.br  Sun Feb 26 05:48:05 2006
From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (D.L. Everett)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:48:05 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.064805.0100.DANIEL.EVERETT@UOL.COM.BR>

I certainly agree that language change is reminiscent of bio-evolution.

In my current work (see Science News Dec. 10, 2005 or New Scientist,  
March 08, 2006, or Anthropology News, for popular summaries) I am  
arguing that language evolution is on-going, that languages do not  
all have the same expressive power, and that individual languages can  
undergo pressure to fit particular cultural niches.  Some of this is  
anticipated in other works, of course. But to argue convincingly for  
such claims one needs in-depth studies of individual languages  
alongside broad surveys.

Grammaticalization has a role to play in this, but convincing cases  
for evolution of individual languages in the sense that I find most  
interesting, i.e. languages fitting cultural niches,  will link  
grammatical structures to cultural values.

Dan Everett




On 26 Feb 2006, at 05:48, Tom Givon wrote:

>
>
>
> The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based,  
> adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena',  
> because they are the product of interaction between serendipity  
> (random mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological  
> behavior of organisms during selection). Does that mean that  
> evolutionary biology has not come up with explanatory principles  
> that account for why synchronic forms are the way they are? No  
> serious biologist would agree with that. Does it mean that  
> evolutionary biology has succeeded in explaining everytring? No  
> serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim that. Science is  
> gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn would have us  
> believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new theory. Not  
> even Einstein did.
>
> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to bio- 
> evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov &  
> Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to  
> do is study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both  
> begin with rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may  
> engender rather global, often strartling consequences. Both begin  
> with *functional extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of  
> an existing structure (or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni- 
> directional. In both, the directionality (and its governing  
> motivating principles) are *never 100%*, but is nonetheless  quite  
> robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what distinguishes biology from  
> physics/math/logic  is precisely that--less-than-100%  
> generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And finally, in  
> both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the same:  
> *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the  
> availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8  
> major ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the  
> 'passive' function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause  
> fiunction.  And  indeed quite often this multiplicity of courses  
> ius found in a single language, so that multiple alternative  
> solutions (constructions) *compete* for the same (or rather  
> similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is chosen over  
> the others to be statistically dominant depends on those multiple  
> other factors.
>
> Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the  
> very  same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ  
> towards different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the  
> gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is, *one-to- 
> many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both  
> grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of grammatical- 
> typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much less  
> less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic  
> pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen- 
> burning organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way  
> different organs may be recruited for doing respiration in  
> different phila).
>
> One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has  
> to do with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have  
> no real equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho- 
> syntax gets forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But  
> everyday communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee  
> says) in a way apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing-- 
> in the communal pool--multiple variants that then compete for  
> selection. Conversely, the '*selection*' part of diachronic change  
> is much more socially dependent than selection in biology; although  
> in many social species there begins to be an element of *social  
> transmission* of individual innovative behavior, which becomes part  
> of the overall mechanism of selection.
>
> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and  
> Janda have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing  
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre  
> artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and  
> parcel of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that  
> is, viewing language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to  
> selective pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into  
> evolution--of 'recursivity').
>
> I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.
>
> Best,  TG
>
> =========================
>
>  Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same  
> source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize
>
>> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
>>> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that  
>>> span
>>> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers,  
>>> who only
>>> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute  
>>> this one to
>>> Janda 2001.)
>>>
>>
>> So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye  
>> could
>> not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
>> would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
>> down the road to see the culmination of the process?
>>
>> Scott DeLancey
>> Department of Linguistics
>> 1290 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
>>
>> delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
>> http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
>>
>


From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de  Sun Feb 26 08:30:04 2006
From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:30:04 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <df68b0695a53ea0538c66c80cc9ed1d1@rice.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.093004.0100.>

                                         Caminante, no hay camino / se 
hace camino al andar (...) Caminante, no hay camino / sino estelas en el 
mar  (Antonio Machada)

Dear Colleagues,
Maybe that Suzanne's quote, namley:

> Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental 
> byproduct of truly significant processes. 

reflects the actual use of the term epiphenomenon in very many 
instances. However, I think, we can break down the term to a more 
specific notion (as I try to do in my Cognitive Typology /Radical 
Experientialism framework). Accordingly we should start from the term 
'phenomenon' itself. In many pholosophical traditions (from which the 
term is taken), a phenomenon  is opposed to something 'really being', 
compare the Old Greek dictum 'kai ontes kai phainomenoi' (those which 
are and which appear to be [in a free translation]). Hence an 'object' 
said to be a phenomenon does not have properties itself (reflected in 
the qualification of the phenomenon), but it acquaires its properties 
through perception (and cognitive construction). A phenomenon thus 
presupposes the relation between an 'object' and its perceiver. Now, it 
seems out of the question that linguistic structures (in the broadest 
sense) are phenomena, perceived differently in space and time etc. In 
fact, Linguistics turns out to be a phenomenology rather than a 
scientific technique to describe the ontological status of language 
itself, even though the ultimate goal of Linguistics should always aim 
at unveiling the ontology of language lying 'behind' the 
phenomenological layer. The epistemological dilemma of Linguistics (we 
use language to describe Language), however, renders it doubtful that we 
will ever reach this goal (even if we try to substitute (!) the 
descriptive layer by a formal apparatus taken from say Natural 
Sciences). Perhaps it is more important to analyze the way the 
(possible) 'object' of Language is perceived and construed in terms of 
phenomena by both speakers and scientists (then turning linguistic data 
into some kind of meta-phenomenology).

An EPIphenomenon naturally relates to the same processes of perception. 
If we again start from the Greek term (epi-phainomai, again the 
passive), we get the notion of 'showing up as' etc. The epi-segment 
suggests that this type of phenomenon presupposes the existence 
(construal) of another phenomenon, without which the epiphenomenon would 
not have come into existence (would not be constructed). Now, if 
Language is an epiphenomenon (sharing its basic features with 
phenomena), the phenomenological substrate should be given in just that 
entity that enables Language, that is Cognition. In other words: 
Cognition (as a phenomenon) supervenes Language (as an epiphenomenon). 
If we observe changes in Language, this should be related to changes in 
the cognitive (functional!) apparatus. Likewise, variations in the 
synchronic 'substance' of languages(s) illustrate nothing but variations 
in (habitualized) experiential strategies to construe 'objects' in terms 
of phenomena (in a communicative perspective). The main point, however, 
is that human beings (better: cognitions) always try to make sense of 
the cognitive processes they 'live by'. In this sense, (epi)phenomena 
are turned into 'real objects' and manipulated/interpreted  accordingly. 
As a matter of fact it is crucial in linguistic analysis to decide 
whether a given process is related to the experience of language as an 
'object' or to the underlying (epi)phenomenology of language.

In this sense, we should distinguish at least two types of 
grammaticalization: a) processes that originate in cognition-driven 
changes in the mode to communicative experience (on a phenomenological 
level) and b) processes "that occur as language is used", as Joan has 
put it. Admittedly, it is not always easy to clearly distinguish these 
two types, but that problem may be conditioned by our yet unsufficient 
tools to identify all the (epi)phenomenologcal layers of language.

Personally, I would not go so far to relate grammaticalization processes 
to evolution (be it in a metaphorical sense). We do not have any 
evidence that would reveal to us the 'dark age' of language, that is the 
gap between language evolution and the earliest reconstructable layers 
of language (in a conservative estimate, the 'dark age' covers at least 
50.000 years or so, more likely much more than 100.000 years). Whenever 
we reconstruct earlier layers of language, we get just what we have, but 
in another phenomenology (perhaps this is also true because we cannot 
reconstruct by comparison but a variant of what we start from in our 
comparison). In this sense, grammaticalization is nothing but a repeated 
shift in the relation of concept and (articulatory) symbolization. For 
instance, the emergence of a 'near future' or present inchoative through 
the grammaticalization of GO verbs does not necessarily mean that on the 
conceptual layer, the notion of near futureness hasn't prior been 
existent. The only question is, to which degree this concept had been 
symbolized before. What we must not do is to infer from the 
non-existence of a grammatical 'form' (symbol/sign) to the non-existence 
of the 'corresponding' phenomenon on the conceptual layer. So it may 
well be that grammaticalization is unidirectional on the 'linguistic' 
layer, but surely not on the conceptual layer.

Naturally, the question remains whether grammaticalization itself is a 
phenomenon shaped in cognition. Personally, I would claim that 
grammaticalization again is an epiphenomenon that takes shape in 
language. it is supervened by cognitive processes that by themselves 
have nothing to do with grammaticalization, but with more general 
procedures of varying patterns of communicative perception and 
experience (e.g. Di(h)airesis, Zipf, the so-called Perception 
Action/Information Cycle, memory routines, metaphorization/metonymy, 
blending etc.). In addition, communicative (pragmatic) routines stemming 
from the layer of language objectification' mentioned above supply these 
processes.

Best wishes,
Wolfgang 

#############################
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze
Institut f?r Allgemeine und Typologische Sprachwissenschaft  (IATS)
[General Linguistics and Language Typology]
Department f?r Kommunikation und Sprachen / F 13.14
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen
Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1
D-80539 M?nchen
Tel.:     ++49-(0)89-2180 2486 (secretary)
             ++49-(0)89-2180 5343 (office)
Fax:     ++49-(0)89-2180 5345
E-mail: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de
Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.php


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 26 16:12:18 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:12:18 -0500
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.111218.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

As one might also say of DNA, great thread!

'Mutation' is a pretty squishy notion- all the really interesting (from the evolutionary standpoint) alterations happen at higher levels than classical point mutations in DNA- involving rearrangements of blocks of materials, sometimes coding for protein or intervening segments which are then edited out (introns and exons), regulatory elements which direct replication or transcription, re-emplacements of entire sections of chromosomes (with same or inverted orientation), or even splits and fusions of entire chromosomes, not to mention deletions or multiplications at every level (including entire genomes).

Most point mutations are either rather neutral in effect, or relatively deleterious (even fatal) (so black and white), but these higher level rearrangements often produce viable results due to backup plans (systemic degeneracy?) that can pick up slack (grays). The bigger the system chunk, the more plastic its responses, in many cases.

Years ago I pointed to higher level parallelisms between genes and language on LINGUIST- flexibly edited split genes in eukaryotes versus analytical/isolating type, appositional bacterial genes resembling agglutinating languages, and rigidly maintained overlapping genes in smaller viruses as against certain polysynthetic systems.

In the analytical genetic/linguistic type one sees a lot of external modification of the stored information depending on context (thus pragmatically organized). Duplications and deletions are used extensively. Lots of many to one and one to many mappings for gene parts. Combinatoric heaven. Eukaryotes are the result of organismal fusions, so a little like cosmopolitan empires. The regulatory/transcriptional machinery has to be generalized to deal with all comers and all situations. Somewhat like similar linguistic environments. The 'ecology' becomes internalized.

At the other end of the continuum, the overlapping/polysynthetic genetic/linguistic type seems more characterized by overall system architectural loss, increased dependency on fuller systems elsewhere, and idiosyncratic (i.e. specialized) behavioral rigidification (given less material to play with, in more automatic and fixed combinations). This is the inverse of the analytical 'type'

Just as linguistic systems can evolve between types, so can genetic ones. Many parasitic organisms have been demonstrated to have simplified genetically, which is alright given that they just let their host carry out functions the lost genes would otherwise cover. The process can become extreme, even nearly total, but by that time such 'parasites' have become nearly completely integrated with their hosts (such as in organelles, or certain viral elements now known to aid in element movement within the genome).

Thus we have the makings of a genetic cycle similar to the linguistic one (which is usually thought of out of the social/historical/areal context).

Grammaticalization/grammaticization (the geneticists have their own version of this- eucaryote/eukaryote) should probably be seen as part of this bigger overall picture in a complex systems perspective- opposing poles of behavioral flexibility versus rigidity (or automatization) reflecting environmental flux as against predictability needing to be responded to.

Given creeping loss of lexical resources as one moves towards polysynthesis (Michael Fortescue has suggested that the root inventory is reduced), one might expect a certain narrowing of possibilities for grammaticalization along the line (and perhaps longer staying power for existing grams as one 'fills in the dots'). Reminds one a little also of tissue specialization in multicellular organisms. Fewer degrees of variational freedom.

Anyway, just a couple of slightly off-focus thoughts for a very interesting discussion.

Jess Tauber


From Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu  Sun Feb 26 20:39:27 2006
From: Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu (Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:39:27 -0700
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.133927.0700.DIANE.LESLEYNEUMAN@COLORADO.EDU>

Dr. Givon,
I think that you are misrepresenting Kuhn's ideas here.  If you reread Kuhn,
you might see the gradual nature of the paradigm shift--he even points out how
evidence contradicting the prevailing paradigm is ignored and explained away
for a period of time until more evidence accumulates for the paradigm shift to
take place.  What Kuhn actually says contradicts the myth of the orderly
progress of the paradigm shifts, but also mythically revolutionary nature of
the so-called "revolutions". He does not contradict the accumulation of
information that produces it. He used the principles of historical
investigation to get more accurate time frames of who was doing what, and who
was communicating with whom to present a real picture of how the basic
discoveries in physics and chemistry were made.
  Also, let us keep in mind that the fields of science have become more orderly
and systematic over the years. The first years of science may have been a
little messy. We communicate with one another more, and are constantly
improving our methods.  Nevertheless, many discoveries are still accidental--
found in pursuit of solutions to other problems.
  I use Kuhn to understand what is happening in the debates over phonological
theory.  If we can take OT as an attempt at a paradigm shift, and study the the
history and the evidence, one can navigate the waters of the phonology wars
with a great deal more equilibrium and tranquility. The tableau was drawn on a
napkin in a cafe in Tucson, AZ. Or so they tell me.
--
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Linguistics Department
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder


Quoting Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>:

>
>
>
> The *epiphenomenon* epithet is just that. All biologically-based,
> adaptively-evolved systems can thus be dismissed as 'epiphenomena',
> because they are the product of interaction between serendipity (random
> mutation) and teleology  (not ID,but the teleological behavior of
> organisms during selection). Does that mean that evolutionary biology
> has not come up with explanatory principles that account for why
> synchronic forms are the way they are? No serious biologist would agree
> with that. Does it mean that evolutionary biology has succeeded in
> explaining everytring? No serious biologist would be so dumb as to claim
> that. Science is gradual and cumulative (not revolutionary, as Kuhn
> would have us believe), you don't solve all problems with a neat new
> theory. Not even Einstein did.
>
> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather similar to
> bio-evolution. Both are ultimately adaptively-driven, thus (Labov &
> Newmeyer notwithstanding) functionally motivated. All you have to do is
> study the rich variational data a bit more carefully. Both begin with
> rathe local, low-level *variation* that eventually may engender rather
> global, often strartling consequences. Both begin with *functional
> extension* (thus early *functional ambiguity*) of an existing structure
> (or lexeme). Both are profoundly uni-directional. In both, the
> directionality (and its governing motivating principles) are *never
> 100%*, but is nonetheless  quite robust. And as Ernst Mayr said, what
> distinguishes biology from physics/math/logic  is precisely
> that--less-than-100% generalization--but generalization nonetheless. And
> finally, in both the reason for less-than-100% generalization is the
> same: *Multi-variant environment*, *competing motivations*, and the
> availability of alternatives. For example, there are at least 7-8 major
> ways (plus lots of minor ones) for grammaticalizing the 'passive'
> function (agent suppression), or the REL-clause fiunction.  And  indeed
> quite often this multiplicity of courses ius found in a single language,
> so that multiple alternative solutions (constructions) *compete* for the
> same (or rather similar) function. Why eventually one alternative is
> chosen over the others to be statistically dominant depends on those
> multiple other factors.
>
>  Here is another similarity with bio-evolution and diachrony--the very
> same initial popullation can re-fashion the same source-organ towards
> different target (think of the mammal forelimb; or the
> gframmaticalization of 'go', 'take', 'come' etc.). That is,
> *one-to-many*. Likewise, *many-to-one* is found is found in both
> grammaticalization (massively; that's the essence of
> grammatical-typological diversity) and in bio-evolution, although much
> less less commonly in the latter. (Think e.g. of the main metabolic
> pathways to energy production: anaerobic sulfur bacteria, oxygen-burning
> organisms; the latter plus photosynthesis; the way different organs may
> be recruited for doing respiration in different phila).
>
> One of the main differencs between bio-evolution and diachrony has to do
> with  the *source of the serendipity* (randomness). We have no real
> equivalent in diachrony to random mutations, since morpho-syntax gets
> forever re-cycled, rather than genetically coded. But everyday
> communicative behavior of individiuals (as Joan Bybee says) in a way
> apes the randomness of DNA mutation, by producing--in the communal
> pool--multiple variants that then compete for selection. Conversely, the
> '*selection*' part of diachronic change is much more socially dependent
> than selection in biology; although in many social species there begins
> to be an element of *social transmission* of individual innovative
> behavior, which becomes part of the overall mechanism of selection.
>
> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda
> have been fighting the same old rear-guard war agains viewing
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, rather than a bizarre
> artifact ('epiphenomenon'). And of course, their work is part and parcel
> of what Chomsky has been trying to do over a lifetime; that is, viewing
> language as a unique phenomenon that is not subject to selective
> pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, foray into evolution--of
> 'recursivity').
>
> I think it behooves us all to take biology a bit more to heart.
>
> Best,  TG
>
> =========================
>
>   Likewise, there are many targets that can be colonized by the same
> source (think of how 'go' can grammaticalize
>
> >On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 hilpert at rice.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> >>functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> >>centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> >>have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one
> to
> >>Janda 2001.)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >So how is this different from the argument that says that the eye could
> >not be the result of evolution through natural selection, since that
> >would require the organism to teleologically look many generations
> >down the road to see the culmination of the process?
> >
> >Scott DeLancey
> >Department of Linguistics
> >1290 University of Oregon
> >Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA
> >
> >delancey at darkwing.uoregon.edu
> >http://www.uoregon.edu/~delancey/prohp.html
> >
> >
>


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Sun Feb 26 21:56:23 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:56:23 -0500
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.165623.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was not only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly right in the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of what happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and humanities.

Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.

Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to stresses/strains which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or because someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough and far enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn your own work on its head.

As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school. But it isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother to find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation, rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time and resources for anything else?

But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics at earthlink.net


From Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu  Sun Feb 26 22:08:01 2006
From: Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu (Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:08:01 -0700
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <19253239.1140990983590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-ovcar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <SUN.26.FEB.2006.150801.0700.DIANE.LESLEYNEUMAN@COLORADO.EDU>

I think that in linguistics and in phonology this is a big problem. I used to
get a lot of pressure not to read--just get in there and crack phonemes.  It is
part of the crisis of linguistics as a science--which I find to be quite
Balkanized, and waters are tricky to navigate.  When that hurdle is overcome
there is the aspect of competition and professional jealousy--a minefield for a
newcomer in the field.
--
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Linguistics Department
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder


Quoting jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:

> I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was not
> only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and
> extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly right in
> the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of what
> happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and humanities.
>
> Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.
>
> Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone
> popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to stresses/strains
> which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or because
> someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough and far
> enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn your
> own work on its head.
>
> As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school. But it
> isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of
> someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother to
> find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation,
> rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or
> perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time and
> resources for anything else?
>
> But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.
>
> Jess Tauber
> phonosemantics at earthlink.net
>
>


From w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk  Mon Feb 27 09:10:15 2006
From: w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk (Hollmann, Willem)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:10:15 -0000
Subject: PhD studentships at Lancaster University
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.091015.0000.W.HOLLMANN@LANCASTER.AC.UK>

The attached PDF file conrtains information about ESRC PhD studentship
opportunities in the Dept of Linguistics and English Language at
Lancaster University. Please feel free to distribute among eligible
students.

WBH


 <<ESRC_studentships_06.pdf>> 
**********************************************************
Willem Hollmann
Dept of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YT
Tel: +44 (0)1524 594644
Fax: +44 (0)1524 843085
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/willem/willem.htm 
**********************************************************  


From w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk  Mon Feb 27 09:16:16 2006
From: w.hollmann at lancaster.ac.uk (Hollmann, Willem)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:16:16 -0000
Subject: PhD studentships at Lancaster University
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.091616.0000.W.HOLLMANN@LANCASTER.AC.UK>

Apologies for the previous message -- here's the second attempt, without
attachment.

Please feel free to distribute this e-mail among eligible students.

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


ESRC Quota Studentships in Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster

The Department of Linguistics and English Language has been awarded 6
quota studentships for its PhD programmes, which have received 1+3 and
+3 recognition, part time and full time. We welcome applicants from the
UK and the EU in all ESRC-relevant areas of linguistics and applied
linguistics, including:

*	sociolinguistics (especially language variation, bilingualism,
language and gender, language policy)
*	(critical) discourse analysis
*	literacy studies
*	applied linguistics (language teaching, language testing)
*	corpus linguistics (with a sociolinguistic and/or typological
approach)

For a +3 award applicants should hold an ESRC-recognised Masters in
Linguistics or Applied Linguistics.

A 1+3 award is available for those applying for the PhD by Thesis and
Coursework.

Closing date for applications to Department: 15th March 2006.

The Department is the largest of its kind in England, with a full-time
lecturing staff of 28, some 25 Research Associates, and 150 PhD
students. It has library holdings and a thriving research environment,
organised around 4 Research Centres and 15 Research Groups. See
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/research/index.htm for details.

In the first instance please contact Mrs Marjorie Wood
(m.f.wood at lancaster.ac.uk) for further details. 



**********************************************************
Willem Hollmann
Dept of Linguistics and English Language
Lancaster University
Lancaster LA1 4YT
Tel: +44 (0)1524 594644
Fax: +44 (0)1524 843085
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/willem/willem.htm 
**********************************************************  


From lists at chaoticlanguage.com  Mon Feb 27 09:40:59 2006
From: lists at chaoticlanguage.com (Rob Freeman)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:40:59 +1300
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <20060225181147.248DC1989A@fungible5.mail.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.224059.1300.LISTS@CHAOTICLANGUAGE.COM>

Everybody,

An aside: must we constantly equate epiphenomena with evolution? The results 
of some kinds of evolution may be epiphenomena, but the two are not the same.

Take a classic demonstration of an epiphenomenon in Conway's 
"Life" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life). The "glider" 
moves across the screen. This movement is an epiphenomenon, but it is not 
evolutionary.

This distinction is important. For instance I believe grammar to be an 
epiphenomenon of corpus generalization. Most people confuse this with the 
gradual evolution of grammar, and so miss my argument completely.

I think the association of Paul Hopper's emergent grammar with 
grammaticalization is an error of the same kind, perhaps one largely shared 
by Paul himself.

Anyway, back to the point. What were Newmeyer etc's arguments against the 
explanatory power of an epiphenomenon, Martin?

-Rob


From ar at phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de  Mon Feb 27 14:03:41 2006
From: ar at phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de (Anette Rosenbach)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:03:41 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.150341.0100.AR@PHILFAK.UNIDUESSELDORF.DE>

Dear Martin,

In a recent paper Gerhard J?ger and I try to show that an account of 
unidirectionality and a speaker/usage-based approach to language change do 
not exclude each other, quite the opposite. We argue that at least two cases 
of unidirectional change (the pathway from spatial to temporal expressions 
and phonological reduction) may be connected to evidence for asymmetric 
priming reported in the (psycho-)linguistic literature. We suggest that 
unidirectionality is ultimately decomposable into atomic steps of asymmetric 
priming in language change. That is, in our account, unidirectionality quite 
neatly falls out from language usage, which is, I think, in line with what 
Joan Bybee said in her reply.

Ultimately, we also want to incorporate these ideas into an evolutionary 
approach to language change. The paper contains some first suggestions in 
this direction; for those interested, it is availabe on Gerhard J?ger's 
website: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/gjaeger/.

Anette Rosenbach

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <hilpert at rice.edu>
To: <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 7:11 PM
Subject: [FUNKNET] criticisms of grammaticalization


> Dear Funknetters,
>
> I'd like to find out whether anyone has addressed the following two
> theoretical criticisms against grammaticalization theory:
>
> 1. Unidirectionality, if it exists, is an even greater problem for
> functionalism than if it turns out to be false. Developments that span
> centuries would have to be explained independently of speakers, who only
> have access to three generations of other speakers. (I attribute this one 
> to
> Janda 2001.)
>
> 2. Grammaticalization should really be decomposed into its independently
> existing component processes. There's no point in granting explanatory 
> power
> to an epiphenomenon. (Newmeyer 1998, Joseph 2001, amongst others)
>
> Any references - or spontaneous reactions - will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks, --Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Martin Hilpert
> Rice University
> Department of Linguistics MS 23
> 6100 Main Street
> 77005-1892 Houston TX
> Tel (001) 713 3482822
> Fax (001) 713 3484718
> http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~hilpert
>
> 


From mark at polymathix.com  Mon Feb 27 17:39:32 2006
From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:39:32 -0600
Subject: grammaticalization Don't misrepresent Kuhn
In-Reply-To: <1140991681.440226c1e4cc0@webmail.colorado.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.113932.0600.MARK@POLYMATHIX.COM>

Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> I think that in linguistics and in phonology this is a big problem. I
> used to get a lot of pressure not to read--just get in there and crack
> phonemes. It is part of the crisis of linguistics as a science--which I
> find to be quite Balkanized, and waters are tricky to navigate.  When
> that hurdle is overcome there is the aspect of competition and
> professional jealousy--a minefield for a newcomer in the field.

I think that the apparent crisis of linguistics as a science looks a lot
less dangerous if we realize that not all linguists are actually
practicing science, nor even want to practice science -- even if some of
them may think and say otherwise.

If those linguists who *are* practicing science are in crisis (I don't
think so), then that's one thing. But if it's merely the fact that some
linguists are actually practicing philosophy of language (at best) or
armchair casuistry (at worst) but not science, then there's not really any
crisis as far as the science is concerned -- just the historical
happenstance that the community of science-practicing linguists is a
smallish subset of the academic discipline overall.

If we ignore academic turf boundaries (what a concept) and consider the
community of all researchers studying human language by means of the
scientific method (i.e. regardless of whether they consider themselves
linguists, cognitive scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists or
whatever), then that community is obviously quite large -- and still not
particularly in crisis, as far as I can see.

So the short version of this is that it's the turf that is in crisis, not
the science. That, in my opinion, is as it should be.


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Polymathix
San Antonio, TX



> --
> Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
> Linguistics Department
> Institute for Cognitive Science
> University of Colorado at Boulder
>
>
> Quoting jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>:
>
>> I spoke with Kuhn about a decade before his death (in 1996), and he was
>> not
>> only rather unhappy with the way his earlier work had been distorted and
>> extended to areas like business, but also wasn't sure he was exactly
>> right in
>> the first place anymore. But this is from misty memory. It reminds me of
>> what
>> happened to Einstein's 'relativity' in the social sciences and
>> humanities.
>>
>> Shows what happens when someone else runs with your football.
>>
>> Seems to me that 'paradigm shift' is more like an earthquake or someone
>> popping your balloon. Cumulating force imbalances lead to
>> stresses/strains
>> which can be ignored only until something gives either by itself, or
>> because
>> someone helps the process along. If you're lucky you are young enough
>> and far
>> enough from the main eruption to survive without too much need to turn
>> your
>> own work on its head.
>>
>> As for communicating more- maybe within any subdiscipline and school.
>> But it
>> isn't hard to find people ignoring both established and new findings of
>> someone else's. Nor do people often delve back into the past to bother
>> to
>> find out if they're reinventing the wheel (AGAIN). Insularity/isolation,
>> rather than multidisciplinary interfacing, is the norm in the publish or
>> perish world (speaking as a member of the latter realm). Who has time
>> and
>> resources for anything else?
>>
>> But storming the gates of heaven is always loads of fun.
>>
>> Jess Tauber
>> phonosemantics at earthlink.net


From daniel.everett at uol.com.br  Mon Feb 27 19:56:35 2006
From: daniel.everett at uol.com.br (D.L. Everett)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:56:35 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <c594a9d1c9e6e99390aa934b98d00ead@calpoly.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.205635.0100.DANIEL.EVERETT@UOL.COM.BR>

It is perhaps true that all minds have the same capacity for  
expressive power in some non-pathological biological sense. But that  
is all the statement below about 'potential' expressive power  
addresses, not languages.

The EU is investing several hundred thousand euros in the study of  
Piraha over the next three years, with several psycholinguists and  
linguists visiting the Pirahas to conduct follow-up experiments on my  
claims. So we shall have the evidence requested below over the next  
year or three.

Dan


On 27 Feb 2006, at 20:45, Johanna Rubba wrote:

> With regard to Dan Everett's statement "that languages do not all  
> have the same expressive power", I would suggest a reminder that  
> all languages do have the same _potential_ for expressive power.  
> Mechanisms such as metaphor, metonymy, blending, word formation  
> techniques such as compounding, zero derivation, etc. are always  
> available to the human mind. Grammaticalization itself is such an  
> extension technique (think of the ways that words like "done" can  
> acquire aspectual nuances in creoles, or the development of the  
> Germanic words for "body" into adverbial/adjectival suffixes such  
> as German "-lich" and English "-ly", acquiring, as the OED says, "a  
> much wider application".)
>
> I'm fascinated by Dan's work with Pirah? because of its assertion  
> of such a global shaping of language by culture. (Though I can't  
> buy it entirely until other linguists verify it by studying Pirah?  
> and finding such extensive shaping in other languages.) It's  
> trivial that a language will develop words for culturally important  
> artifacts/concepts, and expand the vocabulary when new ones come  
> in, or that languages develop classifier systems based on cultural  
> categories. The idea that a group will deliberately _limit_ its  
> language's  expressive power because of the ideology of the culture  
> is a new twist (perhaps, or perhaps the obverse of Whorf?)
>
> 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 fjn at u.washington.edu  Mon Feb 27 22:57:19 2006
From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer)
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:57:19 -0800
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4401332E.8080707@uoregon.edu>
Message-ID: <MON.27.FEB.2006.145719.0800.FJN@U.WASHINGTON.EDU>

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Tom Givon wrote:

> Up to a point, linguistic *diachrony* is rather 
> similar to bio-evolution. Both are ultimately 
> adaptively-driven, thus (Labov & Newmeyer 
> notwithstanding) functionally motivated. 

If you think that I reject the idea that language 
change is to a large extent functionally motivated, 
Talmy, could you please support your charge with a 
quote from something I have written in the past 20 
years? In fact, my position on this issue is clear:

"... one can indeed make the case that many 
innovations [in language change] are motivated by user-based 
external functions. This is particularly true for those that 
arise language-internally." (Newmeyer 2005: 188)

> Finally, if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say 
> Newmeyer, Joseph and Janda have been fighting 
> the same old rear-guard war agains viewing 
> grammaticalization as a *natural phenomenon*, 
> rather than a bizarre artifact 
> ('epiphenomenon'). 

Since when are 'natural phenomena' and 
'epiphenomena' counterposed notions? Any 
epiphenomenon that results from the interplay of 
natural forces (as does grammaticalization) is ipso 
facto 'natural'. Do you disagree, as you seem to, 
with Joan Bybee's comment that 'all of grammar is 
epiphenomenal'?

> And of course, their work is part and parcel of 
> what Chomsky has been trying to do over a 
> lifetime; that is, viewing language as a unique 
> phenomenon that is not subject to selective 
> pressures (viz his recent, most intriguing, 
> foray into evolution--of 'recursivity').

How could I (or anybody else) believe that grammaticalization is 
epiphenomenal and at the same time believe that it is 'a unique 
phenomenon'? The two notions are contradictory.

Fritz

REFERENCE: Newmeyer, Frederick  J. 2005. Possible and Probable 
Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic 
Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Howard and Frances Nostrand Professor of 
Linguistics
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-4340 USA
Home page: 
http://depts.washington.edu/lingweb/people/
fjned.html


From jcxvjh732973 at yahoo.com.sg  Tue Feb 28 14:10:39 2006
From: jcxvjh732973 at yahoo.com.sg (Debra Ziegeler)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:10:39 +0800
Subject: epiphenomenological grammaticalisation
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.221039.0800.>

Suzanne Kemmer wrote:
   
  "Epiphenomenon:  A phenomenon that is a trivial and accidental byproduct 
of truly significant processes."

   
  Wolfgang Schulze wrote:
   
  "In this sense, grammaticalization is nothing but a 
repeated 
shift in the relation of concept and (articulatory) symbolization. For 
instance, the emergence of a 'near future' or present inchoative 
through 
the grammaticalization of GO verbs does not necessarily mean that on 
the 
conceptual layer, the notion of near futureness hasn't prior been 
existent. The only question is, to which degree this concept had been 
symbolized before. What we must not do is to infer from the 
non-existence of a grammatical 'form' (symbol/sign) to the 
non-existence 
of the 'corresponding' phenomenon on the conceptual layer. So it may 
well be that grammaticalization is unidirectional on the 'linguistic' 
layer, but surely not on the conceptual layer.

Naturally, the question remains whether grammaticalization itself is a 
phenomenon shaped in cognition. Personally, I would claim that 
grammaticalization again is an epiphenomenon that takes shape in 
language. it is supervened by cognitive processes that by themselves 
have nothing to do with grammaticalization, but with more general 
procedures of varying patterns of communicative perception and 
experience (e.g. Di(h)airesis, Zipf, the so-called Perception 
Action/Information Cycle, memory routines, metaphorization/metonymy, 
blending etc.). In addition, communicative (pragmatic) routines 
stemming 
from the layer of language objectification' mentioned above supply 
these 
processes."

   
  A question which may arise from these comments is to determine how a by-product of truly significant processes can get disentangled from the processes themselves. It would seem impossible to describe grammaticalisation (particularly with reference to Wolfgang's definitions) without reference to such processes themselves. So perhaps the trivial and accidental by-product is simply just a collective and convenient term for all of this (as well as the processes outlined in Newmeyer's (1998) interlocking circles)? If not, it remains to describe the by-product as a separate entity without reference to the truly significant processes themselves, which, in my opinion, comprise the principle, perceptible characteristics of grammaticalisation.
   
  It has also been shown that unidirectionality is possible on the conceptual layer, and perhaps more justifiably than on the 'linguistic' layer (as I discussed in a paper published in FLH XXIV, and as also noted by Traugott and Dasher 2002: 87). Examples shown in these studies reveal that although there may be structural counter-evidence to unidirectionality, semantic unidrectionality has not been shown to be violated.
   
  The crisis, I believe, that is facing grammaticalisation studies at the moment, is not how to describe what went on in the past, but how to derive enough of a theoretical position from the past to be able to predict what will happen in the future (Bernd Heine (p.c.) raised a similar stance on unidirectionality) . Only then can it resist counter-attack from other forces.
   
  Debra Ziegeler
   
  References:
   
  Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   
  Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   
  Ziegeler, Debra. 2003. 'Redefining unidirectionality: insights from demodalisation'. Folia Linguistica Historica XXIV/1-2: 225-266.



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Movies - Search movie info and celeb profiles and photos.


From w.spooren at let.vu.nl  Tue Feb 28 14:28:16 2006
From: w.spooren at let.vu.nl (Wilbert Spooren)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:28:16 +0100
Subject: Job opening at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.152816.0100.W.SPOOREN@LET.VU.NL>

Assistant professor position at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Rank: Assistant Professor
Linguistic Field: Discourse studies/written communication
Application deadline: March 10, 2006
Date posted: February 28, 2006
Job description:
The department of Language & Communication at the Vrije Universiteit 
Amsterdam is looking for an energetic, innovative person to teach and to 
carry our research in the field of discourse studies, with an emphasis 
on the Dutch language (part-time, 70 %). You will be teaching both at 
the BA-level (in the Dutch and Communication & Information Studies 
program) and the MA-level (in the Dutch, Communication & Information 
Studies and Journalism program).

Your research interests should fit in with the group's research 
expertise on the efficacy and optimisation of communication in 
institutional settings. Within that framework your research will focus 
on the role of written communication. There is a preference for 
candidates with a demonstrable expertise in journalistic language (e.g., 
news genres). A relevant PhD from an accredited institution is required. 
Excellent command of Dutch is essential.

Salary is ranked according to the university pay scale at rank 11 (UD2) 
(maximum payment EUR 4,049 per month, full-time). A positive evaluation 
of the successful candidate?s performance after one year will lead to a 
tenured position. Full-time assistant professors at the Vrije 
Universiteit Amsterdam have a teaching load of two to three courses per 
semester. Additional information on the position and on the profile of 
the research group can be obtained from the contact address given below.

Application address:
Dr B. Weltens
Managing Director
Faculty of Arts
Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1105

or by email: vacature at let.vu.nl

Please add the vacancy number: 1.2006.00027 at the top of your letter 
and (if applicable) on the top left of the envelope.

Contact information:
Prof. dr. Wilbert Spooren
email: w.spooren at let.vu.nl
tel.: +31.20.5986572

-- 
**************************
Wilbert Spooren
Afdeling Taal & Communicatie/Dpt. of Language & Communication
FdL VU / Faculty of Arts, Vrije Universiteit
De Boelelaan 1105 NL-1081 HV Amsterdam
Tel. +31.20.598.6572
Fax. +31.20.598.6500

http://www.let.vu.nl/staf/w.spooren/
http://www.let.vu.nl/organisatie/leerstoelen/taalencommunicatie/index.html
**************************


From kemmer at rice.edu  Tue Feb 28 15:02:57 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:02:57 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0602271457190.26368@hymn06.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.090257.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

I think an appropriate response from any scientist told
that grammaticalization (or grammar, or sociolinguistic variation,
or any other patterns of language use) is an epiphenomenon would be,
"then what are you studying it for?"

Evolution (in the sense of the patterns observed and explained in terms 
of
the overarching conceptual theory) is like grammaticalization and all of
those other things: an emergent phenomenon. Biologists don't usually 
call evolution,
or any of its describable subpatterns, epiphenomenal.

The operative term is "emergent".  I don't think functional linguists 
should
buy into the 'epiphenomenon' label for what they study, since it has, 
in its scientific sense,
an intrinsic value judgement about significance and relation to causal 
factors .

It's bad enough that the word has already acquired a special sense in 
linguistics, which
is as (as Tom said) a dismissive epithet:
'you may see patterns there, but they're not really important'.

Suzanne




On Feb 27, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote:

> Since when are 'natural phenomena' and
> 'epiphenomena' counterposed notions? Any
> epiphenomenon that results from the interplay of
> natural forces (as does grammaticalization) is ipso
> facto 'natural'. Do you disagree, as you seem to,
> with Joan Bybee's comment that 'all of grammar is
> epiphenomenal'?


From Salinas17 at aol.com  Tue Feb 28 15:47:40 2006
From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:47:40 EST
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.104740.EST.>

In a message dated 2/26/06 11:12:55 AM, phonosemantics at earthlink.net writes:
<< 'Mutation' is a pretty squishy notion- all the really interesting (from 
the evolutionary standpoint) alterations happen at higher levels than classical 
point mutations in DNA- involving rearrangements of blocks of materials,...>>

Mutation may be squishy, but the randomness element is not.  As much as a 
progressive or goal-oriented tone has snuck into current evolutionary 
terminology, there's still no reason to assume any Lamarckian "striving" in biological 
evolution.   The degree of complexity comes out of the degree of diversity.  We 
have no reason to assume otherwise.  

Dawkins criticism of Gould -- that he did not recognize the "cumulative" 
effect of biological evolution -- is off the point.  The accumulation of traits or 
mechanisms -- no matter how complex or plastic they may become -- is still 
generated by randomness.  And all that accumulation of adaptive strategies is 
totally dependent on the environment for its survival.  An organism that is 
plastic or complex enough to adapt to many different environments has a survival 
advantage.   But that kind of organism comes from the same place that 
specialized organisms come from -- randomness in the evolutionary process.

Grammaticalization -- at some important level -- involves intentionality.  No 
matter what the two processes share in structure, that makes 
grammaticalization different from evolution.  Grammar grows not just because of diversity, but 
because of some common human objectives guiding it.

Once again, repeated in this thread is the idea that the "functionality" of 
language somehow equals cognition.  Then let me ask the question, what is the 
function driving cognition?  Or, better, what master do both cognition and 
language serve?  Answer that and you may have a better idea of how language and 
evolution are alike.

Regards, 
Steve Long


From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de  Tue Feb 28 15:51:47 2006
From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:51:47 +0100
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <4b3e31fa80fb2809758a5d66d3dacd1b@rice.edu>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.165147.0100.HASPELMATH@EVA.MPG.DE>

I think the label "epiphenomenon" for grammaticalization theory arose 
when generative linguists looking at what grammaticalization theorists 
said could not find a theory easily comparable to their familiar 
"binding theory" or "X-bar theory". In the generative world view, 
binding facts and phrase structure facts are epiphenomena falling out 
from the respective theories, but grammaticalization phenomena do not 
fall out so easily from grammaticalization theory.

But grammaticalization theory is a very different sort of theory from 
X-bar theory, as every proponent will readily admit. Newmeyer 
(1998:233-4) suggests that the literature on grammaticalization portrays 
it as ?an encapsulated phenomenon?, ?driven by a distinct set of 
principles governing the phenomenon alone?.

This is not really true (see Haspelmath 2000:?6 and 2004:?3.2.3 for more 
discussion), but it is also the case that there is rather little direct 
general discussion of the key question of why grammaticalization 
exhibits the properties it does (especially unidirectionality, see 
Haspelmath 1999). Maybe it's OK that most grammaticalization research 
focuses on specific language-particular facts, because the most general 
why-questions are also the hardest, and it's not easy to tell whether we 
are making any progress.

Martin

*****
References

Haspelmath, M. 2004. "On directionality in language change with 
particular reference to grammaticalization." In: Olga Fischer, Muriel 
Norde and Harry Perridon (eds). Up and down the cline: /The nature of 
grammaticalization/. (Typological Studies in Language, 59.) Amsterdam: 
Benjamins, 17-44.

Haspelmath, M. 2000. ?Why can?t we talk to each other? A review article 
of [Newmeyer, Frederick. 1998. Language form and language function. 
Cambridge: MIT Press.] /Lingua/ 110.4: 235-55.

Haspelmath, M. 1999. "Why is grammaticalization irreversible?" 
/Linguistics/ 37.6: 1043-68.

(see http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/publist.html)

-- 
Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de)
Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6	
D-04103 Leipzig      
Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616


From kemmer at rice.edu  Tue Feb 28 17:17:47 2006
From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:17:47 -0600
Subject: criticisms of grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.111747.0600.KEMMER@RICE.EDU>

I take Martin's points in general, but his historical comment below  
makes no sense to me.

If in the generative world view, syntactic patterns are epiphenomena
that fall out of their theories,  then why would generative linguists  
refer to
observations about grammaticalization as epiphenomena, since they
can't see how these observations fall out of any theory of  
grammaticalization?

Perhaps there is already a dual usage in Linguistics : 'epiphenomena'  
is being used to mean 'complex surface patterns originated by deep  
underlying principles (and such patterns are worth studying because  
they reveal the deep principles)'; vs. 'trivial surface patterns that  
cannot reveal anything meaningful about deep underlying causes'.   
It's the latter sense that I am most familiar with in the form of  
remarks at conferences and in reviews of functional work.

I hope this word falls out of fashion in linguistics sooner rather  
than later.
--Suzanne

Martin Haspelmath wrote:
I think the label "epiphenomenon" for grammaticalization theory arose  
when generative linguists looking at what grammaticalization  
theorists said could not find a theory easily comparable to their  
familiar "binding theory" or "X-bar theory". In the generative world  
view, binding facts and phrase structure facts are epiphenomena  
falling out from the respective theories, but grammaticalization  
phenomena do not fall out so easily from grammaticalization theory.


From phonosemantics at earthlink.net  Tue Feb 28 18:18:52 2006
From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:18:52 -0500
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.131852.0500.PHONOSEMANTICS@EARTHLINK.NET>

Things aren't as random as all that- each new generation takes its cue from the prior one, however imperfectly. This means there is already a 'memory' of prior selection. The historical dimension must be taken into account for both linguistics and genetics.

An example of genetic order recently announced on the science feeds- apparently genes that share common activation are spaced, on DNA, in a periodic fashion over VERY long stretches of nucleotides, with intervening genes that don't share in that particular pattern. This would imply that all one has to do is shift the activation up or downstream a notch to change the 'phase'. Many genes in higher eukaryotes exist in chains of differentiated forms, for instance hemoglobin, which has embryonic, fetal, and other forms for later parts of the human life cycle. My guess would be that many of the 'early' forms of expressed genes for young organisms would pattern together. So one might regulate the entire system temporally just by shifting the packaging (and thus inactivation/activation) on histones and other proteins.

It was already known that the genes which control the layout and development of the metazoan body plan were laid out in linear fashion parallel to that of the body segments.

It has also been recently discussed that chromosomal rearrangements are also not as random as previously believed. Obviously real errors do occur, but when things work smoothly such rearrangements, in the long term, may be more like the shuffling of decks of cards. Given that the linear orders which govern temporal and spatial developments (as laid out above) must needs be maintained for the organism to be viable, one wonders then whether the entire system, as it operates inter- and intra-generationally, in the short and long term, and over short and long space (cells, organs, bodies, families, populations) has been optimized for just such a task.

As mentioned in my first post, genes can be split, appositional, or overlapping. The former have the greatest flexibility, due to higher level editing processes and regulation. You can do a lot to such genes and still have enough play to make a usable product in the end. The overlapping viral genes are 'trapped' by their own efficiency of use of space on nucleic acid chains- one little change in sequence and its all over.

If we look at the linguistic parallels, one sees that the split gene analog, analytic/isolating languages, can vary wildly in the particulars of their lexicons (just take a look for instance at Tibeto-Burman cognate roots, compounds, etc.). 
Such languages are very context-dependent (as are genes in the cells of eukaryotes).

My point is that it may not be one-size-fits-all with regards to 'random' 'mutation'- the multilevel, cosmopolitan system is very robust, with many redundancies constituting 'plans b, c...', etc. If you ignore the tweaking that goes on at higher level, it might look like chaos. But its organized chaos. The simple systems on the other hand are more likely to show nice clear form/function mappings at what in the bigger systems would consitute the lowest hierarchical levels, with little or no tweaking necessary. Tab A fits slot B. End of story. The most flexible systems can create and modify slots and tabs as necessary. But this requires higher level system memory (such as eukaryotic cells have). Some of this isn't even genetic at all (for instance flagellar orientation in the pellicle of various Paramecia, shapes of those pellicles, etc.- these change with direct damage to the pellicle, and are heritable.).

As you may know, my decades long obsession with form/meaning mapping nonarbitrariness (whether sound symbolism, syntactic iconicity, etc.) tends to make me somewhat wary of blanket application of terms like 'random'. When it comes to order, absence of evidence does not necessarily constitute evidence of absence. 

But perhaps that's just me.

Jess Tauber 


From oesten at ling.su.se  Tue Feb 28 19:48:47 2006
From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:48:47 +0100
Subject: Evolution and Grammaticalization
In-Reply-To: <28970764.1141150732827.JavaMail.root@elwamui-darkeyed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <TUE.28.FEB.2006.204847.0100.OESTEN@LING.SU.SE>

For those who are interested in the term "epiphenomenon", its history and
various uses I recommend reading Daniel Dennett's discussion in "Consciousness
explained", pp. 401-404. As will be clear from the following quote, it's not
only in linguistics that the term is problematic: 

"The term "epiphenomena" is in common use today by both philosophers and
psychologists (and other cognitive scientists). It is used with the presumption
that its meaning is familiar and agreed upon, when in fact, philosophers and
cognitive scientists use the term with *entirely* different meanings -- a
strange fact made even stranger to me by the fact that although I have pointed
this out time and again, no one seems to care."

(The two meanings are "a nonfunctional property or byproduct" and "an effect
which by itself has no effects in the physical world whatever".)

The term "emergence", by the way, is arguably even more ambiguously used by
linguists and others. I discuss the two terms "emergence" and "epiphenomena" in
my book "The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity", Benjamins 2004.  

-- ?sten Dahl