From gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr Wed Apr 4 08:30:50 2007 From: gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr (Guillaume Desagulier) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:30:50 +0200 Subject: New journal in Cognitive Linguistics : CogniTextes Message-ID: English version [French version below] CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS (Apologies for multiple postings) The French Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCo) is pleased to launch a call for contributions to their on-line, peer-reviewed journal CogniTextes. The journal is a forum for scientific exchange among researchers in France and beyond working in, or with an interest in, Cognitive Linguistics. CogniTextes is one of the first on-line, peer-reviewed journals in Cognitive Linguistics. Its editors, and its editorial board of internationally renowned scholars, vouch for the scientific quality of the journal. On-line access to the full text of the articles is free. On-line publishing allows articles to include audio and/or video clips which the reader can listen to or view without leaving the text. This facility is invaluable for illustrating research in fields such as sign language or gesture. CogniTextes publishes articles in English and French. Authors need not be AFLiCo members. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Maarten Lemmens, University of Lille 3 Guillaume Desagulier, University of Paris 8 Diana Lewis, University of Lyon 2 Stéphanie Bonnefille, University of Tours Philippe Gréa, University of Paris 10 Jean-Baptiste Guignard, 'Institut de Cognitique' of Compiègne EDITORIAL BOARD (TO BE EXTENDED) Michel Achard, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA Benjamin K. Bergen, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA Stéphanie Bonnefille, University of Tours, France Frank Brisard, University of Antwerp, Belgium Cristiano Broccias, University of Genoa, Italy Pierre Encrevé, EHESS, Paris, France Liesbeth Degand, University of Louvain, Belgium Nicole Delbecque, University of Leuven, Belgium Dagmar Divjak, University of Sheffield, UK Gaëtanelle Gilquin, University of Louvain, Belgium Stefan Th. Gries, University of California at Santa Barbara, USA Willem Hollmann, University of Lancaster, UK Michel de Fornel, EHESS, Paris, France Bernard Laks, University of Paris 10 at Nanterre, France Jean-Rémi Lapaire, University of Bordeaux, France Anatol Stefanowitsch, University of Bremen, Germany MISSION STATEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND Cognitive Linguistics is an umbrella term for a number of related theories including Cognitive Grammar, (Radical) Construction Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Conceptual Blending Theory, etc. Unlike so-called formal theories of language, such as Generative Grammar and its derivatives, all these approaches adopt a usage-based view of language in that they claim that our linguistic knowledge, from the most concrete level to the most abstract, derives from usage. Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes the symbolic nature of grammar, which is viewed not as an autonomous system of representation, but rather as an inventory of symbolic units that organize conceptual content in a conventional manner. Each symbolic form thus captures some socio-physical or conceptual human experience. Cognitive Linguistics has something in common with certain cognitivist theories developed mainly in France over recent decades, such as the Theory of Metaoperations, the Theory of Enunciative Operations and the recent Theory of Semantic Forms. For their interest to the wider cognitive linguistic research community, CogniTextes welcomes contributions that are inspired by these theories, and that explore points of convergence and divergence between Cognitive Linguistics and cognitivist approaches of the French tradition. As its name suggests, CogniTextes also welcomes papers on stylistics and discourse structure from a cognitive perspective. The primary goal of CogniTextes is to provide a publication forum for researchers in the cognitive linguistic tradition as represented by the International Cognitive Linguistics Association (ICLA), with which AFLiCo is officially affiliated. The editorial board of CogniTextes has been selected with a view to ensuring both the quality of the publication and its relevance to Cognitive Linguistics. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES please visit http://aflico.asso.univ-lille3.fr to ensure prompt review, manuscripts should be submitted electronically to: aflico at univ-lille3.fr Version française APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS (Toutes nos excuses pour les envois multiples) L’Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo) lance un appel à contribution pour CogniTextes, sa revue en ligne à comité de lecture. Véritable plateforme d’échange scientifique, CogniTextes s’est donné pour but de créer des liens durables entre les chercheurs travaillant, de près ou de loin, dans le domaine de la Linguistique Cognitive et prêts à participer à son développement en France et au-delà. CogniTextes constitue l’un des premiers projets de revue en ligne en Linguistique Cognitive. Son comité éditorial (qui compte cinq membres) ainsi que son comité scientifique (composé de chercheurs internationaux réputés) veilleront à la qualité scientifique des articles publiés. L’accès aux articles sera gratuit. La publication en ligne a pour avantage d’incorporer dans un même article des clips vidéo et/ou sonores consultables sans quitter le texte. Cela permet de traiter et d’illustrer de manière dynamique des sujets tels que la langue des signes ou les gestes co-verbaux par exemple. Les articles seront en anglais ou en français. Les auteurs n’ont pas l’obligation d’être membres d’AFLiCo. COMITE DE REDACTION Maarten Lemmens, Univ. Lille 3 Guillaume Desagulier, Univ. Paris 8 Diana Lewis, Univ. Lyon 2 Stéphanie Bonnefille, Univ. de Tours Philippe Gréa, Univ. Paris 10 Jean-Baptiste Guignard, Institut de Cognitique de Compiègne COMITE SCIENTIFIQUE (LISTE PROVISOIRE) Michel Achard, Rice University, Huston, Texas, USA Benjamin K. Bergen, Univ. de Hawai’i, USA Stéphanie Bonnefille, Univ. de Tours, France Frank Brisard, Univ. d’Anvers, Belgique Cristiano Broccias, Univ. de Gênes, Italie Liesbeth Degand, Univ. de Louvain, Belgique Nicole Delbecque, Univ. de Leuven, Belgique Dagmar Divjak, Univ. de Sheffield, Royaume-Uni Pierre Encrevé, EHESS, Paris, France Michel de Fornel, EHESS, Paris, France Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Univ. de Louvain, Belgique Stefan Th. Gries, Univ. de Californie, Santa Barbara Willem Hollmann, Univ. de Lancaster, Royaume-Uni Bernard Laks, Univ. de Paris 10-Nanterre, France Jean-Rémi Lapaire, Univ. de Bordeaux, France Anatol Stefanowitsch, Univ. de Brême, Allemagne LIGNES DIRECTIVES ET CONTEXTE SCIENTIFIQUE L’intitulé « Linguistique Cognitive » regroupe plusieurs courants apparentés (la Grammaire Cognitive, les Grammaires de Constructions, la Théorie de la métaphore conceptuelle, la Théorie de l’Intégration Conceptuelle, etc.). Contrairement aux théories dites « formelles » (comme la grammaire générative et ses courants dérivés), toutes ces théories partent du principe que notre connaissance linguistique, du niveau le plus concret au niveau le plus abstrait, est tributaire de l’usage. La Linguistique Cognitive insiste fortement sur la nature symbolique de la grammaire interne : celle-ci est vue non pas comme un système de représentation autonome, mais comme un inventaire de structures symboliques qui organisent de façon conventionnelle des contenus conceptuels. Autrement dit, chacune de ces formes symboliques sémiotise l’expérience socio-physique et conceptuelle ordinaires des êtres humains. La Linguistique Cognitive n’est pas sans faire écho aux théories linguistiques qui ont, depuis plusieurs décennies maintenant, délimité un cognitivisme à la française. Nous pensons notamment à la Théorie des Métaopérations d’Henri Adamczewski, à la T.O.E. d’Antoine Culioli, ainsi qu’à la Théorie des Formes Sémantiques, développée très récemment par Pierre Cadiot et Yves-Marie Visetti. Les contributions s’inscrivant dans ces cadres seront les bienvenues, même si leurs postulats diffèrent parfois de ceux de la Linguistique Cognitive telle que nous l’entendons (insistance sur les opérations cognitives propres à l’énonciation et sur l’invariant sémantique ; rejet des schèmes spatiaux). Prioritairement, la revue CogniTextes entend offrir un forum de publication aux chercheurs qui s’inscrivent pleinement dans les statuts de l’AFLiCo et de l’ICLA (Association Internationale de Linguistique Cognitive). Le comité de lecture a été composé de manière à garantir la qualité de la publication et sa pertinence théorique. Dans un souci de ne pas ignorer les autres théories françaises s’inscrivant dans le paradigme cognitiviste, CogniTextes accueillera également des contributions qui élaborent explicitement les points de chevauchement et de divergence entre la Linguistique Cognitive et les développements auxquels elle a donné lieu en France. Comme son nom l’indique, CogniTextes accueillera également des contributions cognitives qui touchent au domaine de la stylistique et de la structure du discours. CONDITIONS DE SOUMISSION disponibles à l’adresse suivante : http://aflico.asso.univ-lille3.fr pour garantir une évaluation dans les meilleurs délais, prière d'envoyer vos manuscrits sous forme électronique à l'adresse suivante : aflico at univ-lille3.fr From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Wed Apr 4 10:27:40 2007 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= ROBERT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:27:40 +0200 Subject: ALT 7 conference in Paris Message-ID: Association for Linguistic Typology ALT 7 conference (Paris 25-28 September 2007) Registration is open now on the conference web site: http://www.alt7.cnrs.fr Deadline for early registration: June 15, 2007 Contact: alt7 at ivry.cnrs.fr From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Apr 12 00:05:51 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:05:51 -0700 Subject: What language is this? Message-ID: Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"ç" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. Help? Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli Emine apiçxuri Daçxur ore daçxuri Moxti çkim oputeşa Var gagnasen çaçxuri Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-şeni Tolepe omam3unu Anderina naşk'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani 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 hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 12 01:56:23 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:56:23 -0400 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <68982702-BD19-4359-8C62-E0B97E12DAB5@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Laz? > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off > the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does > not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and > voiced bilabial fricative. The"ç" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal > affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. > Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of > Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song > on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > Help? > > Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli > > Emine apiçxuri Daçxur ore daçxuri Moxti çkim oputeşa Var gagnasen > çaçxuri > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-şeni Tolepe omam3unu > > Anderina naşk'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani > > > 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 kemmer at rice.edu Thu Apr 12 02:56:33 2007 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:56:33 -0500 Subject: Conference info ICLC 2007 in Krakow - Gala dinner Message-ID: International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Krakow - ICLC 2007 GALA DINNER The traditional ICLC banquet will be a Gala Dinner on Thursday July 19, held in the historical chambers of the 14th century Royal Castle in Niepołomice. The local organizers of the conference are arranging a special visit to the Museum galleries of the Royal Castle. There is currently a large special exhibit of 19th century Polish art there, at present one of the largest collections in Poland and some of it not normally on view anywhere. On Thursday, July 19th, the Museum is willing to prolong its regular opening hours to give the guests of ICLC2007 a chance to visit the Galleries before the Gala Dinner. The cost of the Gala Dinner will be 70 EURO paid on the spot at the Gala Dinner Desk located at the conference venue. For conference participants and accompanying persons going to Gala Dinner, the visit to Niepołomice Museum will be FREE of charge. The organizers have asked me to pass on the following message: "The visit to the museum before the Gala dinner can be arranged only if we have enough people who want to see the Gallery. Could you please let us know, a.s.a.p., preferably by e-mail, whether you wish to come to Gala Dinner and to see the Gallery? We shall be looking forward to hearing from you, The local organizers of ICLC2007 in Kraków" Further info on the Gala dinner (including the menu) and museum visit is at www.iclc2007.pl/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=103&lang=english Please do send email to Elzbieta Tabakowska to tell her if you plan to attend: etab at lingua.filg.uj.edu.pl thanks, Suzanne Kemmer, on behalf of the organizers of ICLC 2007 From kemmer at rice.edu Thu Apr 12 03:17:02 2007 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:17:02 -0500 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <68982702-BD19-4359-8C62-E0B97E12DAB5@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: I searched on "oraskani" and up came some songs with that word in them, leading to a site for the late recording artist Kazim Koyuncu, bio pasted below. So far I think Paul's got it. --Suzanne Kazim Koyuncu The restless and tall Kazim Koyuncu hailed from the Laz region of Turkey’s Black Sea. This beautiful province alternates stunning green mountains with a rugged coastline not far from the Georgian frontier. Unfortunately, the 250,000 people who speak Laz are the relentless butt of Turkish jokes, paying dearly for their independent and abrasive nature. Since Koyuncu set off on his music career in 1992, he was an enthusiastic ambassador of Laz folklore and traditions. Describing himself as a “revolutionary” devoted to alternative music, he nevertheless included in his repertory traditional instruments, such as the tulum bagpipes and the kemenc violin. Koyuncu attributed his growing success to a rare ability to sing in five of Turkey’s languages, an attribute which appealed to all generations. In his short but meteoric career Koyuncu stamped himself as one of the leading cultural icons for the Laz people. He died of testicular cancer in June 2005. Many believe he contracted it following the Tchernobyl disaster of 1986. On Apr 11, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the > lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local > Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" > varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"ç" > sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". > The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have > their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that > one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the > Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > Help? > > Ma bulur abu abu > A mskva bozo memagu > Memagusis Vixeli > T ora kogovaxeli > > Emine apiçxuri > Daçxur ore daçxuri > Moxti çkim oputeşa > Var gagnasen çaçxuri > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu > Burgulepe ma3unu > Emine skani-şeni > Tolepe omam3unu > > Anderina naşk'vare > Axir oxoriskani > Mot var gokomocaman > Gululun oraskani > > > 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 john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 12 06:22:34 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0300 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <3078.72.95.243.202.1176342983.squirrel@72.95.243.202> Message-ID: I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like Georgian to me. John Quoting Paul Hopper : > Laz? > > > > > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off > > the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does > > not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and > > voiced bilabial fricative. The"?§" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal > > affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. > > Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of > > Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song > > on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > > > Help? > > > > Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli > > > > Emine api?§xuri Da?§xur ore da?§xuri Moxti ?§kim opute??a Var gagnasen > > ?§a?§xuri > > > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu > > > > Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hartmut at ruc.dk Thu Apr 12 06:39:20 2007 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:39:20 +0200 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <1176358954.461dd02a19ae8@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >Georgian to me. >John > > > > Laz sounds like a good guess. Cf. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/caucasica/lazica/lazvok.htm. mskva apparently means 'beautiful' in Laz. Since Laz is Kartvelian (very close to, but not necessarily mutually intelligible with, Megrelian), Georgian is a cognate, too. Hartmut >Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > >>Laz? >> >> >> >> >> >>>Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off >>>the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does >>>not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and >>>voiced bilabial fricative. The"?§" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal >>>affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. >>>Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of >>>Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song >>>on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. >>> >>>Help? >>> >>>Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli >>> >>>Emine api?§xuri Da?§xur ore da?§xuri Moxti ?§kim opute??a Var gagnasen >>>?§a?§xuri >>> >>>Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu >>> >>>Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Apr 12 06:41:00 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:41:00 +0200 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <1176358954.461dd02a19ae8@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John and others, no, no - Laz is OK (a sister (better: cousin) of Georgian)! See http://www.arhavim.net/arhavim/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=130&func=view&id=1414&catid=39 for details on this poem/song! Best Wolfgang john at research.haifa.ac.il schrieb: >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >Georgian to me. >John > > > > > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Primary contact: Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php ---------------------------------------------------------- Second contact: Katedra Germanistiky' Fakulta humanitny'ch vied Univerzita Mateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica Tajovske'ho 40 SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 12 06:47:20 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:47:20 +0300 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <461DD47C.5010902@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: I didn't say I thought it was Georgian. I said it looked LIKE Georgian. John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear John and others, > no, no - Laz is OK (a sister (better: cousin) of Georgian)! See > http://www.arhavim.net/arhavim/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=130&func=view&id=1414&catid=39 > for details on this poem/song! > Best > Wolfgang > > john at research.haifa.ac.il schrieb: > > >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like > >Georgian to me. > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof. Dr. Wolfgang > Schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Primary contact: > > > > Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen > > > Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 > > > D-80539 Mu"nchen > > > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 > (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 > (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > > > > Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Second > contact: > > > Katedra Germanistiky' > > > > Fakulta humanitny'ch > vied > > > Univerzita Mateja Be'la / Banska' > Bystrica > > Tajovske'ho > 40 > > > SK-97401 Banska' > Bystrica > > > Tel: > (00421)-(0)48-4465108 > > > Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 > > > Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk > > > > Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 12 11:00:07 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:00:07 -0400 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <461DD418.1070908@ruc.dk> Message-ID: It wasn't a guess, Hartmut. Laz data appear in a problem in Emmon Bach's Introduction to Transformational Grammars, citing a UT thesis by Raplh Anderson. Given that Johanna's language is spoken in Turkey and that it has a noun plural suffix -epe, clearly cognate with Georgian -eb(e), the possibilities are limited. Paul > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >> Georgian to me. John >> >> >> >> > > > Laz sounds like a good guess. Cf. > http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/caucasica/lazica/lazvok.htm. mskva > apparently means 'beautiful' in Laz. Since Laz is Kartvelian (very close > to, but not necessarily mutually intelligible with, Megrelian), Georgian > is a cognate, too. Hartmut > >> Quoting Paul Hopper : >> >> >> >>> Laz? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the >>>> lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local >>>> Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" >>>> varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"?§" >>>> sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". The >>>> "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have >>>> their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that >>>> one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the >>>> Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. >>>> >>>> Help? >>>> >>>> Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora >>>> kogovaxeli >>>> >>>> Emine api?§xuri Da?§xur ore da?§xuri Moxti ?§kim opute??a Var >>>> gagnasen ?§a?§xuri >>>> >>>> Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu >>>> >>>> Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun >>>> oraskani >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> >> > > From jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se Thu Apr 12 12:39:30 2007 From: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se (Jordan Zlatev) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:39:30 +0200 Subject: 2nd CFP: SALC conference Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS Includes theme sessions and an updated Scientific Committee list! The First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition (SALC) Lund, Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2007 http://www.salc-sssk.org/ We invite the submission of abstracts for oral or poster presentations for the The First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition (SALC) to be held at the Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University between Nov 29 and Dec 1, 2007. Presentations should involve research in which language is not treated in isolation (e.g. as a "module"), but both as based on structures and processes of general cognition (e.g. perception, memory and reasoning) and social cognition (e.g. joint attention and imitation), and as affecting such structures and processes. The conference, as SALC in general, is intended to be a forum for the exchange of ideas between disciplines, fields of study and theoretical frameworks. Topics include, but are not limited to: * semantic analysis and cognition * discourse analysis and cognition * grammar and cognition * pragmatics and cognition * semiotics and cognition * linguistic typology and cognition * language and cognitive development * language and cognitive evolution * language change and cogniton * language and gesture * language and consciousness * linguistic relativity.and linguistic mediation Plenary speakers * Susan Goldin-Meadow, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago * Esa Itkonen, Department of Linguistics, University of Turku * Chris Sinha, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth * Östen Dahl, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Peter Gärdenfors, Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University Theme sessions Space in language and cognition (Conveners: Carita Paradis, Marlene Johansson Falck, Carita Lundmark and Ulf Magnusson) The link between spatial concepts and construals in linguistic expressions and in thought is a rapidly growing field of inquiry which cuts across disciplines such as linguistics, cognitive psychology, anthropology, computer science and philosophy. Oxford University Press will be publishing papers from the session in an edited volume of strictly peer-reviewed papers that capture cutting-edge scholarship in this area. Language and gesture (Conveners: Jordan Zlatev and Cornelia Mueller) While there is a consensus on the close relationship between language and gesture, there is an ongoing debate on the exact relationship between the two: do they constitute a "unified system" (e.g. McNeil) or two closely integrated but distinct semiotic resources (e.g. Donald), supported by distinct cognitive mechanisms (e.g. Kita and Özyürek)? We plan a publication of papers addressing this issue from different perspectives: semiotics, interaction studies, development, evolution and neuroscience. One page abstracts (at most 500 words) should be sent as an attachment (MS Word preferred) to Marlene Johansson Falck, at marlene at magicspelling.com by June 1st 2007. Abstracts will then be reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee, and notification of acceptance will be sent by August 1st. Please indicate whether an oral or poster presentation is preferred, and if a poster presentation is acceptable if the space of the program does not allow for an oral presentation. If you wish your contribution to be considered for one of the theme sessions, please indicate this. The conference will be held in English. Registration fees, including conference participation, book of abstracts, and coffee/snacks: * Faculty: 50 euro/450 SEK (40 euro/360 SEK for SALC members) * Students: 40 euro/360 SEK (30 euro/270 SEK for SALC members) On-line registration facilities will be announced in the Final Call for Papers. Important Dates * Feb 23: First Call for Papers * June 1: Deadline for abstract submission * August 1: Notification of acceptance * October 1: Programme announced * Nov 29 (afternoon) - Dec 1 (whole day): Conference Scientific Committee * Jóhanna Barddal, Department of Linguistics, University of Bergen * Ingar Brinck, Department of Philosophy, Lund University * Alan Cienki Department of Language and Communication, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam * Östen Dahl, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Caroline David, Département d'études anglophones, Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier III * Per Durst-Andersen, Centre for Language, Cognition and Mentality, Copenhagen Business School * Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen * Adam Glaz, Department of English UMCS, Lublin * Peter Gärdenfors, Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University * Peter Harder, Department of English, University of Copenhagen * Merle Horne, Department of Linguistics, Lund University * Anders Hougaard, Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark * Daniel Hutto, Philosophy, University of Hetyfordshire * Esa Itkonen, Department of Linguistics, University of Turku * Christer Johansson, Department of Linguistics, University of Bergen * Henryk Kardela, Department of English, Universytet Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej * Suzanne Kemmer, Department of Linguistics, Rice University * Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Maarten Leemens, English Linguistics, Universitè de Lille3 * Cornelia Mueller, Department for Cultural Studies, Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) * Chris Sinha, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth * Victor Smith, Copenhagen Business School * Göran Sonesson, Department of Semiotics, Lund University * Paul Thibault, Linguistics and Media Communication, Agder University Organizing Committe * Mats Andrén, Lund University * Marlene Johansson Falck, Stockholm University * Carita Lundmark, Mid Sweden University * Ulf Magnusson, Luleå University of Technology * Carita Paradis, Växjö University * Jordan Zlatev, Lund University and Umeå University *************************************************** Jordan Zlatev, Associate Professor Department of Linguistics Center for Languages and Literature Lund University Box 201 221 00 Lund, Sweden email: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se http://www.ling.lu.se/persons/JordanZlatev.html *************************************************** From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Apr 12 16:36:49 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:36:49 -0700 Subject: Laz it is Message-ID: Thanks so much for the several replies! It is, indeed, Laz -- the various web pages I found about it mentioned the "Laz" musical tradition, but I had no idea whether the word referred to a region, an ethnic subgroup within Turkish speakers, or even a musical instrument (there is one called a "saz"). Now ... the taller order ... someone who can gloss and translate the song for me????? I'll do some research on the Internet, but if anyone knows someone who can do it, I'd much appreciate a contact tip. Thanks again! 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 iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Thu Apr 12 21:02:16 2007 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:02:16 -0700 Subject: 17th Japanese/Korean Linguistics - First Call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The 17th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference will be held November 9-11, 2007, on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). 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. This year in addition to the general session, two workshops with guest speakers are scheduled during the conference. Information about these workshops will be available shortly. Papers in all sub-areas of Japanese and Korean linguistics are invited. Presentations 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 JK17 at humnet.ucla.edu by June 15, 2007. 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, followed by the number of words used on the first page of the abstract, excluding the first two lines with the category, the sub-field, and the paper title (e.g., Title (492)). 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, followed by the category, the sub-field, and the paper title (e.g., Title (492)) copied from the top of the first page of the abstract. Use the following subject header for your email: "JK17, 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. From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Apr 13 05:18:36 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:18:36 +0200 Subject: Laz it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Johanna, > Now ... the taller order ... someone who can gloss and translate the > song for me????? You might perhaps check the Laz text with Silvia Kutscher, Sevim Genc and Johanna Mattisen who are real experts of Laz and who are involved in the Laz project (basically Ardeshen dialect) of the University of Cologne, see http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifl/asw/forschung/projekte/Lasisch/d_laspro.html Best wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Primary contact: Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php ---------------------------------------------------------- Second contact: Katedra Germanistiký Fakulta humanitných vied Univerzita Mateja Béla / Banská Bystrica Tajovského 40 SK-97401 Banská Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri Apr 13 21:26:00 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:26:00 -0700 Subject: Laz -- thanks! Message-ID: Thanks to all the people who responded to my Laz query. I found a group at the U of Kölln who works on Kartvelian languages (and thanks to Wolfgang Schulze for also pointing me to their site), and Silvia Kutscher will help me with the translation. Have a great weekend! 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 ekapia at bu.edu Wed Apr 18 00:49:10 2007 From: ekapia at bu.edu (ekapia at bu.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:49:10 -0400 Subject: Call For Papers Reminder Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS REMINDER THE 32nd ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 2-4, 2007 Keynote Speaker: Ellen Bialystok, York University "Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism Across the Lifespan" Plenary Speaker: William O?Grady, University of Hawai?i at Manoa "Does Emergentism Have a Chance?" Lunch Symposium: ?Perspectives on the Production, Perception, and Processing of Grammatical Morphemes? Katherine Demuth, Brown University Anne Fernald, Stanford University Lee Osterhout, University of Washington Discussant: Virginia Valian, Hunter College, and CUNY Graduate Center Submissions which present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including: * Bilingualism * Cognition & Language * Creoles & Pidgins * Dialects * Discourse and Narrative * Gesture * Hearing Impairment and Deafness * Input & Interaction * Language Disorders (Autism, Down Syndrome, SLI, Williams Syndrome, etc.) * Linguistic Theory (Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon) * Neurolinguistics * Pragmatics * Pre-linguistic Development * Reading and Literacy * Signed Languages * Sociolinguistics * Speech Perception & Production Presentations will be 20 minutes long followed by a 10 minute question period. Posters will be on display for a full day with two attended sessions during the day. ABSTRACT FORMAT AND CONTENT * Abstracts submitted must represent original, unpublished research. * Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 500 words in length. Text of abstract should fit on one page, with a second page for examples, figures, or references. Abstracts longer than 500 words will be rejected without being evaluated. * Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. Note that word counts should not include the abstract title, figure or table titles, examples, or the list of references. * A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/template.html * Three examples of how to formulate the content of the abstract can be found at: http://www.lsadc.org/info/dec02bulletin/model.html http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/sociocultural/abstracttips.html http://www.ulcl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=5&c=124 * The criteria used by the reviewers to evaluate abstracts can be found at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html#rate * All abstracts must be submitted as PDF documents. Specific instructions for how to create PDF documents are available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/pdfinfo.html. If you encounter a problem creating a PDF file, please contact us for further assistance. Please use the first author's last name as the file name (eg. Smith.pdf). No author information should appear anywhere in the contents of the PDF file itself. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS * Electronic submission: To facilitate the abstract submission process, abstracts will be submitted using the form available at the conference website at http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm. * Specific instructions for abstract submission are available on this website. * Abstracts will be accepted between April 1 and May 15. * Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform. No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract PDF. * At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster, a paper, or both. Note that this preference is not revealed to the reviewers, and thus is not considered in the review process. * Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation by each author: (a) a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster, and (b) a maximum of 2 papers/posters in any authorship status. Note that no changes in authorship (including deleting an author or changing author order) will be possible after the review process is completed or for publication in the conference proceedings. DEADLINE * All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2007. * Late abstracts will not be considered, whatever the reason for the delay. * We regret that we cannot accept abstract submissions by fax or email. * Submissions via surface mail will only be accepted in special circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. Please contact us well in advance of the submission deadline (May 15, 2007) to make these arrangements. ABSTRACT SELECTION * Each abstract is blind reviewed by 5 reviewers from a panel of approximately 140 international scholars. Further information about the review process is available at http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html. * Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in early August, by email. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late August, 2007. * If your abstract is accepted, you will need to submit a 150-word abstract including title, author(s) and affiliation(s) for inclusion in the conference handbook. Guidelines will be provided along with notification of acceptance. * Abstracts accepted as papers will be invited for publication in the BUCLD Proceedings. * Abstracts accepted as posters will be invited for publication online only, but not in the printed version. * All conference papers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted. Although each abstract will be evaluated individually, we will attempt to honor requests to schedule accepted papers together in group sessions. * No schedule changes will be possible once the schedule is set. Scheduling requests for religious reasons only must be made before the review process is complete (i.e. at the time of submission). A space is provided on the abstract submission webform to specify such requests. FURTHER INFORMATION Information regarding the conference may be accessed on the BUCLD website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 e-mail: langconf at bu.edu From Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl Fri Apr 20 21:50:16 2007 From: Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl (Sanders, Ted) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:50:16 +0200 Subject: ph.d and postdoc positions at Utrecht University: Causality in di scourse Message-ID: The Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS offers three research positions in the programme “Causality and Subjectivity as Cognitive principles of discourse representation”. 1 Postdoc position Discourse processing 1 PhD position in Discourse processing 1 PhD position in Text Linguistics, Discourse analysis and Prosody (0,8-1,0 fte for all positions) Programme. The five-year research programme, awarded to prof. dr. Ted Sanders by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), studies human cognition by investigating the mechanisms underlying discourse coherence. Starting from the challenging idea of a direct link between linguistic categorization and cognition, causal connectives are investigated. The project focuses on the analysis, acquisition and processing of causal relations in discourse. The hypothesis is that the cognitive principles of causality and subjectivity play a crucial role; they explain for the organization of the lexicon of connectives in different languages, as well as for the order in which children acquire connectives and the way in which experienced language users interpret causal relations. The program has started in September 2006. The team consists of the program leader, a postdoc working on the cross-linguistic realization of connectives and a ph.d.-student working on connective acquisition. At present, there are three vacancies in the program. The preferred starting date for all positions is September 2007. POSITION 1: a postdoc researcher will investigate the cognitive processes involved in the processing of causal coherence relations. POSITION 2: a ph.d.-student will investigate the processing and interpretation of various types of causal connectives. POSITION 3: a ph.d.-student will investigate the linguistic categorization of causal relations with connectives in Dutch and English, in spoken and written discourse. Goals. The postdoc researcher will be involved in the supervision of ph.d. position 2, and has a coordinating function in the project, including the collection, analysis, and interpretation of research data. The postdoc-project should result in a series of papers in international journals, in collaboration with the project supervisor. The PhD projects involve a research training and aim at a dissertation within maximally four years. As part of their training, PhD students will take courses offered by the National Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT). Qualifications. Applicants for the postdoc project should hold a doctoral degree (completed by 1 September 2007), as well as demonstrated capacities as an independent researcher, in the form of publications. The successful candidate has a background in psycholinguistics or discourse studies, with expertise in the on-line study of reading processes, preferably eye-tracking techniques. Good knowledge of Dutch is an advantage, and excellent mastering of English is preferable. Applicants for the PhD position 2 have graduated in (psycho)linguistics, language and communication, or discourse studies, or expect to graduate before 1 September 2007. Candidates are near-native speakers of English. Further desirable qualifications are: thorough knowledge of Dutch, experience with experimental and corpus-based methods and enthusiasm for language processing. Applicants for the PhD position 3 have graduated in (psycho)linguistics, language and communication, phonetics or discourse studies, or expect to graduate before 1 September 2007. Candidates are native speakers of Dutch. Further desirable qualifications: near-native in English, experience with prosodic analysis and corpus-based methods and enthusiasm for discourse analysis. Work conditions. For position 1, we offer a 2.5 to 3-year postdoc position, preferably 0.8-1.0 fte. Salary depends on qualifications and experience, and amounts to minimally € 2.934,- and maximally € 4.027,- (level 11 Collective Employment Agreement of the Dutch Universities) gross per month, for 1.0 fte. For position 2 and 3, we offer a full-time 1-year PhD position (to be extended with a maximum of two more years upon positive evaluation) with gross monthly salary starting at € 1.956,- increasing to maximally € 2.502 in the fourth year (for 1.0 fte). For further information, contact dr. Ninke Stukker, postdoc-researcher; telephone +31 30 253 6228, e-mail Ninke.Stukker at let.uu.nl, the project supervisor, Prof. dr. Ted Sanders, e-mail Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl . For information regarding the ph.d.-positions, you can also contact the UiL-OTS PhD coordinator dr. Maaike Schoorlemmer, telephone +31-30-2536183, e-mail Schoorlemmer at let.uu.nl. Also consult our institute's website: http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/ How to apply? We prefer applications by e-mail. E-mail applications should be sent in pdf or doc format to PenO at let.uu.nl and should specify your name and vacancy number in the message as well as in the subject header. Also, include a list of attachments in the message, and specify your name in every attachment. Deadline for application is June 4, 2007. Interviews are planned in the week of August 20. The positions are only officially open after publication of the full and official text of the job openings on the following internet sites, expected on May 5, 2007: Utrecht University (http://www.uu.nl/uupublish/homeuu/homeenglish/1757main.html ), UiL OTS (http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/) or the program leader’s website (http://www.let.uu.nl/~ted.sanders/personal/en.php/index.html). Candidates should react on the official text. -------------------------------------------------------- Ted Sanders Onderwijsinstituut Nederlandse Taal en Cultuur / Utrecht institute of Linguistics UiL OTS Universiteit Utrecht Trans 10 NL-3512 JK Utrecht The Netherlands T +31 30 2536080 / 8000 F +31 30 2536000 E Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl http://www.let.uu.nl/~ted.sanders/personal/index.php ------------------------------------------------------ From eitkonen at utu.fi Mon Apr 23 14:14:40 2007 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:14:40 +0300 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: Dear Friends: On Funknet, in the mid and late 90's, I had some delightful discussions with Dan Everett concerning the relative weaknesses and strengths of generativism. When speaking of my then-forthcoming article 'Concerning the generative paradigm' (Journal of Pragmatics 1996, 471-501) I remember saying, among other things, that "history holds the key" for properly understanding the nature of the current situation. "His brow in deep furrows", Dan responded: "I don't understand." By now, however, it has become evident that he does understand. As much is evident from the New Yorker article (April 2007) where he declares that, having in the late 90's discovered Edward Sapir, the long-forgotten genius of American linguistics, he now understands that it will take 20 years to for us to get out of the hole that Chomsky has dug. Surely he would have reached this insight earlier if, instead of going directly from SIL to MIT, he had devoted some time to history (of linguistics) whic h indeed seems to hold the key. Esa P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 15:18:22 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:18:22 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I happily accept Esa's admonishment and judgements. Dan On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Friends: On Funknet, in the mid and late 90's, I had some > delightful discussions with Dan Everett concerning the relative > weaknesses and strengths of generativism. When speaking of my then- > forthcoming article 'Concerning the generative paradigm' (Journal > of Pragmatics 1996, 471-501) I remember saying, among other things, > that "history holds the key" for properly understanding the nature > of the current situation. "His brow in deep furrows", Dan > responded: "I don't understand." By now, however, it has become > evident that he does understand. As much is evident from the New > Yorker article (April 2007) where he declares that, having in the > late 90's discovered Edward Sapir, the long-forgotten genius of > American linguistics, he now understands that it will take 20 years > to for us to get out of the hole that Chomsky has dug. Surely he > would have reached this insight earlier if, instead of going > directly from SIL to MIT, he had devoted some time to history (of > linguistics) whic > h indeed seems to hold the key. > > Esa > > P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last > page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of > their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In > another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive > remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 18:13:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:13:54 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <18C367C6-5889-4977-9760-E0183A751F53@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: >> >> Esa >> >> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the >> last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 >> of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In >> another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive >> remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >> >> > The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead of Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In any case, I should say that I have read in the history of linguistics regularly since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong since 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any good ideas on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar research program until about 2003 or so. Dan ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 21:21:50 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:21:50 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Jagdish Jain wrote: > Hi Funknet members, > > I have read the buzz created by Dan Everett's claim that PirahaN is > an exceptional language. He also claims that it poses a challenge > to Comsky's linguistics. I have a few observations to make. > > 1. I assume that PirahaN people are cognitively modern human > beings, not chimps or bonobos or rhesus macaques. Their brains (as > physical organs) are like ours. They are genetically endowed with > modern human capabilities --- cognitive recursiveness, metaphoric > mappings, metonymic mappings, etc. Their expression for a foreign > language, according to Everett, is "crooked head." A wonderful > expression! The "head" (rather than "tongue") stands for language > through metonymy, and "crooked" is metaphorically mapped to "bad." > This is very similar to the 19th century British imperialists' > attitude to the languages of India - they were vulgar and inferior > to English. The PirahaN people are good imperialists! > We all are. Yes. > 2. Chomsky has identified the following two traits of language > design as very important: > > (i) Discrete infinity: We can use a small number of discrete > elements (e.g. 8 consonants, 3 vowels, a few tones as in PirahaN to > generate an infinite number of utterances. Dan Everett has given no > evidence to challenge Chomsky on this point. Nor has anybody else. > This is now a noncontroversial point. > This is not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory principles that has been around forever. Languages are not infinite though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor. But these issues will be discussed at the Recursion Conference this week here at ISU. > (ii) Recursiveness: This trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. If a > language does not exploit this trait in one linguistic construction > (e.g. a clause-within-a-clause construction), it may do so in some > other construction (e.g. a NP within a NP, as in "my brother's > son's wife's sister"). It is possible that PirahaN does not use > clause embedding as exemplified by the English sentence, "I know > (that) he lied." They might say, " I know (it). He lied." In Hindi > we cannot embed a small clause as we can in English, " He kicked > the door open." In Hindi we have to say, "He kicked the door. The > door opened." We need to examine other constructions where PirahaN > may use recursion. If we do not find any recursion in any > construction, the only thing we can say that PirahaN has not > exploited this feature of language design. It would be a surprising > fact but it will not disprove the Chomskyan hypothesis that this > trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. > This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages too. The fact that something is available to languages could either follow because it is part of Universal Grammar or because it is part of general human cognitive abilities. That is the question. The lack of recursion in Piraha syntax alongside the clear evidence for recursion in Piraha thought and discourse interpretation and compositional semantics indicates that it is very strange, at the least, to call recursion a fact about grammar or the Faculty of Language, whether FLB or FLN. In fact, Herbert Simon noted years ago (1962) that recursion characterizes all information processing systems, human or not. This cannot be so easily linked to UG, etc. And if I am correct that recursion is absent in Piraha (experiments are on-going) then the simplest hypothesis is that recursion is a fact about brains and not about language. It adds nothing to any debate to say that it is 'available'. Available where, how, and why? In the brain generally due to greater intelligence or in a specialized language compartment, language organ, etc? The evidence suggests the former over the latter. And if I am also correct (maybe not, I grant) that recursion is absent for cultural reasons, then this is culture affecting core grammar in ways that are very difficult to reconcile with the view of recursion as part of the biology. Culture doesn't affect whether hair grows, for example, only how that growth is managed. > 3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation > (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units. cultural > meanings enter the language through its lexicon, metaphors, > metonymies, conceptual blends, etc., NOT through syntax. > Communication involves exchange of ideas, emotional states, etc. > between two parties; it can be done without language, as it seems > that the PirahaN people communicate with each other by prosodic > means only ( humming without using any vowels and consonants of > their language, using nasal whines, popping or flipping their > lips,etc.) The syntax is in fact the claim I have made - the culture affecting the syntax. We all know it can affect the language. > > I am afraid I do not understand this excitement about Dan Everett's > "exceptional findings" about PirahaN. I do not either, since I believe that on closer examination many languages will be found that show similar characteristics. The excitement is not about whether Piraha is exceptional, but whether it and many other languages show that Universal Grammar is an unnecessarily baroque and empirically inadequate hypothesis. Dan From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 23 23:36:50 2007 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:36:50 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken-egg. Cheers, TG ============ Daniel L. Everett wrote: >>> >>> Esa >>> >>> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last >>> page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of >>> their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In >>> another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive >>> remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >>> >>> >> > > The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I > believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead of > Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In any > case, I should say that I have read in the history of linguistics > regularly > since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong since > 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any good ideas > on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar research program > until about 2003 or so. > > Dan > > > > ********************** > Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and > Biological Sciences > and > > Chair, > Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures > Campus Box 4300 > Illinois State University > Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 > OFFICE: 309-438-3604 > FAX: 309-438-8038 > > Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp > Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ > Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ > > Honorary Professor of Linguistics > University of Manchester > Manchester, UK > *********** > “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most > clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are > universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or > that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in > the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that > some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be > generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) > > > From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 23:53:59 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:53:59 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <462D4312.4090400@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin Joos maybe was. D On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which > one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I > could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in > the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme > universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I > would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere > mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- > egg. Cheers, TG > > ============ > > > Daniel L. Everett wrote: > >>>> >>>> Esa >>>> >>>> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the >>>> last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. >>>> 242 of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 >>>> [1975]). In another context (= p. 160) they quote the following >>>> perceptive remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I >> believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead >> of Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In >> any case, I should say that I have read in the history of >> linguistics regularly >> since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong >> since 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any >> good ideas on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar >> research program until about 2003 or so. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> ********************** >> Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and >> Biological Sciences >> and >> >> Chair, >> Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures >> Campus Box 4300 >> Illinois State University >> Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 >> OFFICE: 309-438-3604 >> FAX: 309-438-8038 >> >> Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp >> Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ >> Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ >> >> Honorary Professor of Linguistics >> University of Manchester >> Manchester, UK >> *********** >> “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most >> clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are >> universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people >> or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may >> be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities >> — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to >> be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) >> >> >> > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Tue Apr 24 03:03:40 2007 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David B. Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:40 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist either, even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially when linked with a popular reading of Whorf. David At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone >would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin >Joos maybe was. > >D > >On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >>Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- >>egg. Cheers, TG >> >>============ >snip snip From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 05:13:45 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:13:45 EDT Subject: On Everett & Piraha & Pre-Darwinism Message-ID: In a message dated 4/23/07 5:22:47 PM, Dan Everett quoted Jagdish Jain: <<3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units.>> I'm sorry for interjecting at this point with this reaction, and I hope it won't be taken as too antagonistic. I know its not the issue Dan was addressing or how relativist Sapir was. But reading the above paragraph is a shock. I'm wondering how many on this list agree with that statement. It would be just as easy to be contrary, and say that someone here has confused "language" with "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units." The description seems to describe language as some kind of ever-expanding cognitive Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc. -- or why one bit of computation, merging, adjoining, moving might be preferrable to any another. But that's not the especially troubling part. Especially troubling is how it is even possible to think of separating language from communication. If communication is NOT inherent in this definition of language, then I take it that language can exist independent of communication. I would love to see such an animal, not described in generativist analysis, but actually in operation -- stripped of any semblence of communication, speaking to no one and saying nothing, but nevertheless clicking away madly in a vacuum, doing "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units." (And please don't say I've described a computer. Computer operations are entirely shaped and designed to generate an output. Input and output are the defining attributes of any computer process or operation. They determine what the process will be, not the other way around.) <> Will someone please tell me what kind of meanings there are besides "cultural" meanings? What is the addition of the word "cultural" supposed to add to this? And by the way which kind of meaning is it that syntax supplies? Or is it that syntax is meaningless? Wait, don't syntactical changes change meaning? Then, what kind of meaning is changing, if not cultural? One gets the feeling that all this has not been well thought out. <> Communication depends first of all and most of all on common reference. If I don't know what you are talking about, there will be no exchange. If anybody here has any argument against this premise, please, I'd love to hear it. How does syntax, grammar, "generativeness" contribute to a common reference? Well what happens when there's a flaw in syntax, in grammar? For one thing, there's a loss of common reference. Could it be that simple? Separating language from communication is a violation of the Origin of Species. It dates back to the idea that human organs were made prefab before they were ever put to use. The capacity to use language -- to speak -- depended on having someone to speak to, who could understand that speech. Speaking to no one or for no reason was not how human language started. Human language was either about communication or it would have had no survival value and would have been junked by natural selection as an extravagant trait a long time ago. And of course if evolution of language capacity was driven by the need to communicate, then the productive aspects of language -- grammar, syntax, "verbal cognition" -- developed to advance communication. Otherwise, human language capacity is a case of divine intervention or alien contribution -- and its not for naturalistic science to entertain either possibility at this time. <> This is precisely what I heard when I first heard French being spoken out loud in a class room a long time ago-- nasal whines, popping and flipping lips. The reason for the complete failure of communication had nothing to do with my innate language mechanism. The reason was because in the real world there is no such thing as "language." There are only languages. And what I lacked -- as listener -- was commonality with the speaker. To learn French, I had to overcome that lack of common reference. But prosody didn't hurt in the mean time. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 24 06:44:40 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:44:40 +0300 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <2A3F1B97-598F-4B00-824C-203898DA4FA4@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Let me say that I have always thought that Dan's work was interesting even before he 'saw the light.' And in the same vein, whatever relativism Sapir had, as far as I'm concerned he didn't let in get in the way of his linguistics; Chomsky's ideology, on the other hand, affects practically everything he does (I say 'practically' because I have always thought 'On wh-movement' was a very interesting article whatever framework you were operating in). But I'm afraid 20 years is not going to be enough to dig ourselves out of the Chomsky hole. I have long maintained that Chomskyism is a sociological phenomenon sustained by Chomsky's apparent charisma and fed by confusion about what linguistics is supposed to be. So even if Chomsky were to pass from the scene tomorrow,* people would still be getting tenure on the basis of association with him for another 10 years or so, and then they would work for another 30 years until they retire gnashing their teeth at new developments and wondering what The Master would have said about the latest problems they're addressing. So I think we're looking at an absolute minimum of 40 years more recovery time. John *PLEASE DON'T FLAME IF THIS SUGGESTION OFFENDS YOU! (this happened when I posted a similar message like 8 years ago) Quoting "Daniel L. Everett" : > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Jagdish Jain wrote: > > > Hi Funknet members, > > > > I have read the buzz created by Dan Everett's claim that PirahaN is > > an exceptional language. He also claims that it poses a challenge > > to Comsky's linguistics. I have a few observations to make. > > > > 1. I assume that PirahaN people are cognitively modern human > > beings, not chimps or bonobos or rhesus macaques. Their brains (as > > physical organs) are like ours. They are genetically endowed with > > modern human capabilities --- cognitive recursiveness, metaphoric > > mappings, metonymic mappings, etc. Their expression for a foreign > > language, according to Everett, is "crooked head." A wonderful > > expression! The "head" (rather than "tongue") stands for language > > through metonymy, and "crooked" is metaphorically mapped to "bad." > > This is very similar to the 19th century British imperialists' > > attitude to the languages of India - they were vulgar and inferior > > to English. The PirahaN people are good imperialists! > > > > We all are. Yes. > > > > 2. Chomsky has identified the following two traits of language > > design as very important: > > > > (i) Discrete infinity: We can use a small number of discrete > > elements (e.g. 8 consonants, 3 vowels, a few tones as in PirahaN to > > generate an infinite number of utterances. Dan Everett has given no > > evidence to challenge Chomsky on this point. Nor has anybody else. > > This is now a noncontroversial point. > > > > This is not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory > principles that has been around forever. Languages are not infinite > though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor. But > these issues will be discussed at the Recursion Conference this week > here at ISU. > > > (ii) Recursiveness: This trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. If a > > language does not exploit this trait in one linguistic construction > > (e.g. a clause-within-a-clause construction), it may do so in some > > other construction (e.g. a NP within a NP, as in "my brother's > > son's wife's sister"). It is possible that PirahaN does not use > > clause embedding as exemplified by the English sentence, "I know > > (that) he lied." They might say, " I know (it). He lied." In Hindi > > we cannot embed a small clause as we can in English, " He kicked > > the door open." In Hindi we have to say, "He kicked the door. The > > door opened." We need to examine other constructions where PirahaN > > may use recursion. If we do not find any recursion in any > > construction, the only thing we can say that PirahaN has not > > exploited this feature of language design. It would be a surprising > > fact but it will not disprove the Chomskyan hypothesis that this > > trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. > > > > This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages > too. The fact that something is available to languages could either > follow because it is part of Universal Grammar or because it is part > of general human cognitive abilities. That is the question. The lack > of recursion in Piraha syntax alongside the clear evidence for > recursion in Piraha thought and discourse interpretation and > compositional semantics indicates that it is very strange, at the > least, to call recursion a fact about grammar or the Faculty of > Language, whether FLB or FLN. In fact, Herbert Simon noted years ago > (1962) that recursion characterizes all information processing > systems, human or not. This cannot be so easily linked to UG, etc. > And if I am correct that recursion is absent in Piraha (experiments > are on-going) then the simplest hypothesis is that recursion is a > fact about brains and not about language. It adds nothing to any > debate to say that it is 'available'. Available where, how, and why? > In the brain generally due to greater intelligence or in a > specialized language compartment, language organ, etc? The evidence > suggests the former over the latter. And if I am also correct (maybe > not, I grant) that recursion is absent for cultural reasons, then > this is culture affecting core grammar in ways that are very > difficult to reconcile with the view of recursion as part of the > biology. Culture doesn't affect whether hair grows, for example, only > how that growth is managed. > > > > 3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation > > (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units. cultural > > meanings enter the language through its lexicon, metaphors, > > metonymies, conceptual blends, etc., NOT through syntax. > > Communication involves exchange of ideas, emotional states, etc. > > between two parties; it can be done without language, as it seems > > that the PirahaN people communicate with each other by prosodic > > means only ( humming without using any vowels and consonants of > > their language, using nasal whines, popping or flipping their > > lips,etc.) > > > The syntax is in fact the claim I have made - the culture affecting > the syntax. We all know it can affect the language. > > > > > I am afraid I do not understand this excitement about Dan Everett's > > "exceptional findings" about PirahaN. > > > I do not either, since I believe that on closer examination many > languages will be found that show similar characteristics. The > excitement is not about whether Piraha is exceptional, but whether it > and many other languages show that Universal Grammar is an > unnecessarily baroque and empirically inadequate hypothesis. > > Dan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From skopetea at rz.uni-potsdam.de Tue Apr 24 12:20:26 2007 From: skopetea at rz.uni-potsdam.de (Stavros Skopeteas) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:26 +0200 Subject: Book Announcement: Quesada 2007, The Chibchan Languages Message-ID: Quesada, J. Diego. 2007. The Chibchan Languages. Cartago: Editorial Tecnológica. 262 pages. ISBN 9977-66-186-3 Paperback Price: US$ 30.00 + shipping. Orders: e-mail: editorial at itcr.ac.cr Fax: 00-506-552-5354 Relatively little is known about the languages spoken at the heart of the American continent, at least in the English-speaking (and hence most widespread) linguistic literature. As a result, confusion about the typological, areal and even genetic relationships existing among those languages and language families is rampant. The languages of Central America are more often than not regarded as residual languages of either Mesoamerica or Amazonia, the surrounding linguistic areas of Central and northern South America, respectively; and within this tradition, the name Chibchan has played the role of a “ragbag”; the terms Macro-Chibchan, Chibchan-Paezan among others represent a case in point. Thus, in the past, languages as disparate as Paez (Ecuador), Tarasco (Mexico), isolate Warao (Venezuela), as well as members of other language families (e.g. Carib or Aztec), and even languages from as far as Chile (e.g. Atacama) or Argentina (e.g. Allentiac) have been given the label of “Chibchan”. Such an easy-going attitude shows not only the lack of a strong Chibchan linguistics tradition, but, especially, the need for an up to date, coherent, and modern linguistics-oriented description of this language family. Prefaced by W. Adelaar (University of Leiden), the book offers a thorough presentation of the Chibchan family of languages, with data from all living members of the family, plus extinct Muisca. Chapter 1, The Chibchan languages in areal perspective, introduces this language family in its wider areal dimension, a necessary step given the widespread ignorance in the mainstream literature about both the family per se and its areal affiliation. Chapters 2 and 3, The languages of Central America and The languages of Colombia (and Venezuela), respectively, offer a thorough description of the main structural features of these languages. Each of these chapters opens with a brief description of the main phonological aspects, followed by a comparative description of morphological (e.g. word classes, nominal and verbal categories) and syntactic (word order, grammatical relations, syntactic operations) patterns. The division of the family into Central America and Colombia has to do with important differences that recent archaeological, anthropological and linguistic research has established between these two geographic zones of the Chibchan world. Chapter 4, Relevant topics in Chibchan linguistics, treats in considerable detail three of the most relevant themes of Chibchan: ergativity, participant-highlighting (how prominence is expressed in Chibchan), and intermittent marking of grammatical categories. Chapter 5 wraps up the conclusions of the book in terms of the likely relation between the lack of prominence of grammatical relations and the wealth of participant-encoding and highlighting strategies. From amnfn at well.com Tue Apr 24 15:37:34 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:37:34 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha & Pre-Darwinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The relationship between language and communication is similar to the relationship between sex and procreation. There can be procreation without sex and sex without procreation, although undoubtedly sex has survived because it was of benefit in facilitating the continuation of species. There is a strong causal relationship between the use of language and communication, but language and communication are distinct. We can communicate without language, and we can use language without communicating. There are aspects of language and its structure that can be studied apart from their effect on communication. An even more interesting distinction is that between transfer of information through language and intentional linguistic acts whose purpose is the changing of another's state of mind. Encoding a proposition in a language, and getting someone to believe the truth of that proposition are two different things. Which of them is communication? Transmission of information or changing someone's mind? We can talk to ourselves or to a friend and be overheard by someone that we didn't even know existed. Our speech transmits that information to the unobserved stranger without our ever intending to communicate. On the other hand, we can speak nonsense to an intended audience with the result of making some kind of impression on them, without actually encoding any proposition with our words. Language doesn't have an objective. It's just a phenomenon. Speakers have objectives, but they have many alternate ways of achieving them. Language, as a phenomenon, sometimes helps transmit information despite lack of intention to communicate on the part of speakers. --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/23/07 5:22:47 PM, Dan Everett quoted Jagdish Jain: > <<3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, > moving,etc.) with word-sized units.>> > > I'm sorry for interjecting at this point with this reaction, and I hope it > won't be taken as too antagonistic. I know its not the issue Dan was addressing > or how relativist Sapir was. > > But reading the above paragraph is a shock. I'm wondering how many on this > list agree with that statement. > > It would be just as easy to be contrary, and say that someone here has > confused "language" with "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with > word-sized units." > > The description seems to describe language as some kind of ever-expanding > cognitive Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that > merging, adjoining, moving, etc. -- or why one bit of computation, merging, > adjoining, moving might be preferrable to any another. > > From Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 24 16:33:15 2007 From: Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:33:15 -0600 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <200704240302.l3O32ERA030282@flpi102.sbcis.sbc.com> Message-ID: Indeed, Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full chapter (Chapter 10, Language, Race, and Culture) to the independence of language and culture. The description of the chapter in the first edition reads: Native tendency to consider linguistic, racial, and cultural groupings as congruent. Race and language need not correspond. Cultural and linguistic boundaries not identical. Coincidences between linguistic cleavages and those of language [sic] and culture due to historical, not intrinsic psychological, causes. Language does not in any deep sense "reflect" culture. Don't forget that this was written at a time when nationalistic invocations of the 'spirit of the folk' and its embodiment in language had been going on for some decades in Europe, culminating, of course, in the pseudo-scholarly ditherings that supported national socialism, and that are probably still to be found among apologists for 'ethnic cleansing'. On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:03 PM, David B. Kronenfeld wrote: > Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist either, > even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially when > linked with a popular reading of Whorf. > David > > At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >> I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone >> would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >> was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin >> Joos maybe was. >> >> D >> >> On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>> one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>> could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>> the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>> universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>> would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>> mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- >>> egg. Cheers, TG >>> >>> ============ >> snip snip > > > > Lise Menn Office: 303-492-1609 Linguistics Dept. Fax: 303-413-0017 295 UCB Hellems 293 University of Colorado Boulder CO 80309-0295 Professor of Linguistics, University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] From dlevere at ilstu.edu Tue Apr 24 17:58:19 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:58:19 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <978A472C-F904-4568-A6A5-DF90EB2D20FB@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Yes, that is a very important chapter and, as usual, Sapir illustrates his care as a linguist in writing it. It is difficult to find a more balanced approach to language in the history of American linguistics than Sapir. One that combines function, form, culture, society, etc. so well. Dan On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Lise Menn wrote: > Indeed, Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full > chapter (Chapter 10, Language, Race, and Culture) to the > independence of language and culture. The description of the > chapter in the first edition reads: > > Native tendency to consider linguistic, racial, and cultural > groupings as congruent. > Race and language need not correspond. > Cultural and linguistic boundaries not identical. > Coincidences between linguistic cleavages and those of language > [sic] and culture due to historical, not intrinsic psychological, > causes. > Language does not in any deep sense "reflect" culture. > > Don't forget that this was written at a time when nationalistic > invocations of the 'spirit of the folk' and its embodiment in > language had been going on for some decades in Europe, culminating, > of course, in the pseudo-scholarly ditherings that supported > national socialism, and that are probably still to be found among > apologists for 'ethnic cleansing'. > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:03 PM, David B. Kronenfeld wrote: > >> Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist >> either, even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially >> when linked with a popular reading of Whorf. >> David >> >> At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >>> I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if >>> anyone >>> would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >>> was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. >>> Martin >>> Joos maybe was. >>> >>> D >>> >>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>>> one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>>> could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>>> the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>>> universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>>> would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>>> mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or >>>> chicken- egg. Cheers, TG >>>> >>>> ============ >>> snip snip >> >> >> >> > > Lise Menn Office: 303-492-1609 > Linguistics Dept. Fax: 303-413-0017 > 295 UCB Hellems 293 > University of Colorado > Boulder CO 80309-0295 > > Professor of Linguistics, University of Colorado > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From jjain at sfsu.edu Tue Apr 24 19:03:28 2007 From: jjain at sfsu.edu (Jagdish Jain) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:03:28 -0700 Subject: PirahN Message-ID: Dear Funknet members, A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, 2007 I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - Dan Everett) Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's major contribution. It seems even now linguists like Dan Everett do not understand the significance of it. ("Languages are not infinite though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor." - - Dan Everett) This statement of Dan Everett shows that he is not making a distinction between "the finiteness of an individual user of a language" and "the discrete infinity of language." An individual user of a language has finite time on this planet: he/she is able to speak/understand or write/read only a finite (although very large) number of linguistic expressions. The finiteness is the property of the language user, not that of language. And "recursion" is the key to 'discrete infinity." In response to my statement that recursiveness/recursion is "AVAILABLE to all languages," Dan Everett says, "This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages too." Dan Everett's statement that "FACIAL RECOGNITION is available to all languages" (=is a trait of language design on par with the Chomskyan notion of discrete infinity) is astonishing. If he had intended to say "facial expressions, gestures, etc.," I could have made some sense of it. As far as I am concerned, facial expressions, gestures, etc. are part (very important part) of communication through language, but they are not traits of language design. The are, of course, indispensable in communication through dance in India. Dan Everett's hypothesis that "recursion is a fact about brains and not about language" would astound students of Neural Sciences. The location of the language is inside the human brain in a very important sense (I-language of Chomsky). A response to Steve Long's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, 2007 I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound and meaning (in spoken languages). These are not blind processes. They are highly constrained. For example, the thematic roles (agent, experiencer, theme, etc.) and the conceptual frame of a lexical item are vital for merging operations. If I choose the English lexical item "put." I have to satisfy its conceptual frame, as was pointed out by Charles Fillmore a long time ago : it needs "an entitity that performs the action of putting (agent), "an entitity that is put" (theme) and a place (location). The merging operations must satisfy the thematic roles and language particular principles of the location of complements and subjects. The speaker may produce an expression like "She put the food on the table." But the computation " The food put her on the table" or " It is hard to put food on your family" will not be acceptable because it cannot relate sound and meaning (the primary objective of language). I hope this will answer Steve Long's question, "why one bit of computation, merging, adjoining, moving might be preferable to any other." See a representative sample of English when the computational processes have gone awry. All the examples are from the desk calendar "George W. Bushisms." No disrespect to President Bush is intended. 1. A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness. 2. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. 3. It's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life. 4. I know how hard it is to put food on your family. 5. Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis. 6. We don't want to discourage the innovations and those who take risks because they're afraid of getting sued by a lawsuit. I hope Steve Long will come out of his "shock" that he experienced because of my earlier e-mail note. Jagdish Jain From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 19:38:53 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:38:53 EDT Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: In a message dated 4/24/07 12:47:34 PM, Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU writes: << Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full chapter...to the independence of language and culture. >> Just so that this is not misunderstood, Sapir was addressing anthropological cultures, not "human culture" in general. He was fundamentally addressing the issue brought on by the 19th Century version of "cultural evolution" theory, which said that "superior races or cultures" showed themselves in having "superior languages." This didn't really go to the relativistic question. Sapir concluded in the chapter mentioned: "From this it follows that all attempts to connect particular types of linguistic morphology with certain correlated stages of cultural development are vain. Rightly understood, such correlations are rubbish.... Both simple and complex types of language of an indefinite number of varieties may be found spoken at any desired level of cultural advance. When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam."


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 24 19:57:01 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:57:01 -0400 Subject: PirahN Message-ID: Given the possible emotional and social consequences of the messages being passed back and forth here, I'm starting to feel that the Puzzle Box from the movie Hellraiser inspires more accurate functionally-oriented imagery than the simple structuralist implications of 'the ever-expanding Rubik's Cube'. Have I hit the nail(s) on the head? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 24 20:16:50 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:16:50 -0400 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: Plato and Confucius- may hap so.... but might not different language types correlate with different strategies of backgrounding versus foregrounding information, which itself may say something about the stability of the generic lifestyles of speakers? Fixity of combination, in polysynthesis, for instance, may imply reliance on formula, deep backgrounding, communicative efficiency, perhaps less willingness to experiment in long-term straitened circumstances. Do analytical/isolating languages tend to come from 'easier' environments allowing for more leisure and play, both in living and communicating? Has anyone ever done a study to ascertain whether anything like this might be the case? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From Arie.Verhagen at let.LeidenUniv.nl Tue Apr 24 20:52:13 2007 From: Arie.Verhagen at let.LeidenUniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:52:13 +0200 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important contributions to the field (where would syntax be without him?) - let me address at least one of the misunderstandings in Jagdish Jain's response to Dan Everett and Steve Long. Surely the concept of 'discrete infinity' (perhaps not the term) as characteristic of human language has been around long before Chomsky. It is present, for example, in pre- Chomskyan structuralism such as Martinet's (1949) notion of "double articulation" ("articulation" equals discreteness), and Hockett's (1958) equivalent "duality of patterning" (a somewhat less felicitous phrase). These are about a finite, in fact very limited, set of phonemes mapping onto a basically unlimited number of signals, actually already a lexicon of in principle unlimited length (there being no non-arbitrary boundary to the number of phonemes in a word). Chomsky could have said something like: "Hockett is right that language provides finite means for non-finite ends, but he is wrong in restricting it to phonology and lexicon; in fact the same applies (again), independently, in syntax, taking a finite set of words into an infinite number of messages." - it would certainly have been a major contribution. Instead, he said something like "People have not appreciated that language uses finite means for non-finite ends, and it is syntax that is the source of this very special property." It may have driven the message home more forcefully than a more moderate and nuanced way of putting it, but it has also laid the foundation for a lot of confusion and misunderstandings since then. As to other things, such as different applications and notions of recursion - well, I hope we will have a chance to discuss these in an open-minded and respectful way, in the conference at the end of the week as well as on the list. Best, --Arie Verhagen ---------------- Message from Jagdish Jain 24 Apr 2007, 12:03 Subject: [FUNKNET] PirahN > Dear Funknet members, > > A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, > 2007 > > I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN > people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - > Dan Everett) > > Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact > about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete > infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had > existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of > structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of > linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's > major contribution. [...] ---------------------------------------- Arie Verhagen Opleiding Nederlands/LUCL P.N. van Eyckhof 1 2311 BV Leiden tel. +31 (0)71 527-4152 www.arieverhagen.nl ---------------------------------------- From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Tue Apr 24 23:24:34 2007 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David B. Kronenfeld) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:24:34 -0700 Subject: was PirahN Message-ID: I don't want to get into the present discussion (the part I snipped out, and the trail it replied to)--probably don't know enough to do it. But on Chomsky's role and effects I do have some thoughts. I think it is important to separate Chomsky's linguistics, narrowly taken from the philosophic affiliations and the psychological imperatives that he adduces his linguistic work in support of. The former flows very smoothly from his teacher, Zellig Harris, and then develops from there. Working through SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES was a a eureka experience for me when I encountered it in an undergraduate linguistics course; some particularly previously confusing parts of English syntax all of a sudden became totally clear. And then, later, I valued ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX. And, still, today, I find the ideas of "base structure" and "deep structure" different, each useful (for very different purposes), and not at all incompatible. I haven't much kept up with what he's subsequently done--since, as a professional anthropologist interested in semantics and pragmatics, I've moved away from any ongoing interest in the subsequent development of Transformational/Generative approaches to syntax (or phonology). Chomsky's philosophy and psychology--including the details implied by his discussions of "innatism" and "Language Acquisition Device" and so forth--are not at all necessarily entailed by his linguistics work, his apparent claims notwithstanding. For those who might be curious, this set of problems is one that I have discussed in a couple of papers--one quite old and one recent. Kronenfeld, David B. 1979 Innate Language? Language Sciences 1:209-239. 2006 Formal Rules, Cognitive Representations, and Learning in Language and Other Cultural Systems. Language Sciences Vol 28: 424-435. I can provide hard copy reprints of the former. The latter is available on line in one of two forms (same text)--preface either line below with "http:" e-copy of article on formal rules and cognition: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.06.001 or as typescript //repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1721 David At 01:52 PM 4/24/2007, Arie Verhagen wrote: >With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important >contributions to the field (where >would syntax be without him?) - snip snip David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu From amnfn at well.com Wed Apr 25 05:23:10 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:23:10 -0700 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <462E8A1D.28138.76A951@Arie.Verhagen.let.LeidenUniv.nl> Message-ID: Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or inanimate, recursion is everywhere. Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the song. It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. Best, --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Arie Verhagen wrote: > > With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important contributions to the field (where > would syntax be without him?) - let me address at least one of the misunderstandings in > Jagdish Jain's response to Dan Everett and Steve Long. > > Surely the concept of 'discrete infinity' (perhaps not the term) as characteristic of human > language has been around long before Chomsky. It is present, for example, in pre- > Chomskyan structuralism such as Martinet's (1949) notion of "double articulation" > ("articulation" equals discreteness), and Hockett's (1958) equivalent "duality of > patterning" (a somewhat less felicitous phrase). These are about a finite, in fact very > limited, set of phonemes mapping onto a basically unlimited number of signals, actually > already a lexicon of in principle unlimited length (there being no non-arbitrary boundary > to the number of phonemes in a word). Chomsky could have said something like: > "Hockett is right that language provides finite means for non-finite ends, but he is wrong > in restricting it to phonology and lexicon; in fact the same applies (again), independently, > in syntax, taking a finite set of words into an infinite number of messages." - it would > certainly have been a major contribution. Instead, he said something like "People have > not appreciated that language uses finite means for non-finite ends, and it is syntax that > is the source of this very special property." It may have driven the message home more > forcefully than a more moderate and nuanced way of putting it, but it has also laid the > foundation for a lot of confusion and misunderstandings since then. > > As to other things, such as different applications and notions of recursion - well, I hope > we will have a chance to discuss these in an open-minded and respectful way, in the > conference at the end of the week as well as on the list. > > Best, > --Arie Verhagen > > ---------------- > Message from Jagdish Jain > 24 Apr 2007, 12:03 > Subject: [FUNKNET] PirahN > > > Dear Funknet members, > > > > A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, > > 2007 > > > > I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN > > people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - > > Dan Everett) > > > > Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact > > about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete > > infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had > > existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of > > structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of > > linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's > > major contribution. [...] > > ---------------------------------------- > Arie Verhagen > Opleiding Nederlands/LUCL > P.N. van Eyckhof 1 > 2311 BV Leiden > > tel. +31 (0)71 527-4152 > www.arieverhagen.nl > ---------------------------------------- > > > From Mike_Cahill at sil.org Wed Apr 25 14:11:25 2007 From: Mike_Cahill at sil.org (Michael Cahill) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:11:25 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In response to Aya Katz below, Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object or event or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these subparts into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a molecule is composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each atom of a molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms within atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. Repetition is not recursion. Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. Mike Cahill ************************************************************** Dr. Michael Cahill International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. Dallas, TX 75236 USA email: mike_cahill at sil.org phone: 972-708-7328 fax: 972-708-7380 ************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or inanimate, recursion is everywhere. Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the song. It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. Best, --Aya Katz From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 14:16:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:54 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is roughly correct, Mike. However, as the papers at the first international conference on Recursion in Human Language, to begin here at ISU on Friday April 27 show, there are various potential understandings and applications of recursion. Some forms of recursion are equivalent formally to nothing more than iteration. Others require embedding. Some definitions make it the basis for hierarchical structures (so hierarchy and recursion are the same in these views), others equate it more with embedding. A lot of clarification is needed. If you cannot make the conference on recursion, we hope to publish a book afterwards. But people should try to be there. Funny that in spite of how important it has become in recent months, there are so few attempts to reach consensus on what it is. Many people think it is self-evident. Not so. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object > or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these > subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a > molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and > electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each > atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms > within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. > Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** > ******* > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- > or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion > runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are > composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of > magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is > animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if > there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, > then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch > patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content > of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is > not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It > is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, > that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From Mike_Cahill at sil.org Wed Apr 25 14:24:20 2007 From: Mike_Cahill at sil.org (Michael Cahill) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:24:20 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <5883B1F8-5096-4723-9593-31C32A91DC62@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Well, good luck on getting everyone on the same page! I must confess I had no idea anyone would talk of iterations as "recursion." If you do nothing more at the conference than agreeing on a common definition, that will still be a significant accomplishment. Mike "Daniel L. Everett" Mike_Cahill at sil.org Sent by: cc funknet-bounces at m Arie Verhagen ailman.rice.edu , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu, 04/25/2007 09:16 "A. Katz" AM Subject Re: [FUNKNET] PirahN This is roughly correct, Mike. However, as the papers at the first international conference on Recursion in Human Language, to begin here at ISU on Friday April 27 show, there are various potential understandings and applications of recursion. Some forms of recursion are equivalent formally to nothing more than iteration. Others require embedding. Some definitions make it the basis for hierarchical structures (so hierarchy and recursion are the same in these views), others equate it more with embedding. A lot of clarification is needed. If you cannot make the conference on recursion, we hope to publish a book afterwards. But people should try to be there. Funny that in spite of how important it has become in recent months, there are so few attempts to reach consensus on what it is. Many people think it is self-evident. Not so. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object > or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these > subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a > molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and > electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each > atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms > within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. > Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** > ******* > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- > or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion > runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are > composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of > magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is > animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if > there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, > then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch > patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content > of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is > not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It > is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, > that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** “The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people — in their oddities — that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.” Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From wilcox at unm.edu Wed Apr 25 14:36:44 2007 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:36:44 -0600 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm with Mike on this one. I can't make the conference, but here's my vote for a definition of recursion (from a computer scientist): “Recursive structures are built of components that are structurally identical to themselves” (Gelernter 1998: 59). Gelernter, D. (1998). Machine beauty: Elegance and the heart of technology. NY: Basic Books. -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 14:41:57 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <65D797B8-D09D-4A9E-A0C3-29A1AB925E7D@unm.edu> Message-ID: There will be computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, biologists, and anthropologists at the conference. A number of twists in the typology, definition, etc. The conference website is at the bottom of this message. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > I'm with Mike on this one. I can't make the conference, but here's > my vote for a definition of recursion (from a computer scientist): > > “Recursive structures are built of components that are structurally > identical to themselves” (Gelernter 1998: 59). > Gelernter, D. (1998). Machine beauty: Elegance and the heart of > technology. NY: Basic Books. > > > > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > > ********************** Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ From andreamates at gmail.com Wed Apr 25 17:33:07 2007 From: andreamates at gmail.com (Andrea Mates) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:33:07 -0700 Subject: Jain & neuroscience Message-ID: Jain: > "Dan Everett's hypothesis that "recursion is a fact about brains and not > about language" would astound students of Neural Sciences. The location of > the language is inside the human brain in a very important sense (I-language > of Chomsky)." > You may take the following for whatever grain of salt seems appropriate since I'm not entirely clear on "recursion" or "I-language"; however, I am a student of neuroscience. The neuroscience community does not support LAD or an innatist position on language. By neuroscience, I do not mean psychologists using ERPs as a measurment device. Joaquin Fuster who works with single cell studies of working memory cells and Marco Iacoboni a brain mapper who has worked on the mirron neuron system both find claims of a LAD or innate language untenable. They report that they know no colleagues who believe otherwise. Of course, language use is an embrained activity but one that depends on domain general mechanisms. Insofar as this is recursive we can say there is general recursivity in the brain. But since it appears that recusivity is not an agreed upon term, who knows what is where. Andrea -- Andrea W. Mates Neurobiology of Language Research Group Department of Applied Linguistics & TESL University of California, Los Angeles Please pardon the multiple email addresses, they all forward to the same inbox. From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 18:00:24 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:00:24 EDT Subject: PirahN Message-ID: n a message dated 4/25/07 10:13:30 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org writes: <> Well, there's another approach that adds some functional emphasis, rather than just observing this structural feature without direct concern with why it would be there.  Some "hierarchical" repetitive patterns serve the purpose of reducing uncertainty (e.g., Fibonacci).  Information theory would call such an element "redundancy" whether it is "recursive" or not. I hope this kind of approach will be at your conference, Dan. Steve Long ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 18:24:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:24:54 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [FUNKNET] PirahN Message-ID: I was asked to post this on behalf of Fred Karlsson Dan Begin forwarded message: > From: fgk at mappi.helsinki.fi > Date: April 25, 2007 12:42:12 PM CDT > To: Mike_Cahill at sil.org > Cc: "Daniel L. Everett" , Arie Verhagen > , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] PirahN > > It is common knowledge in computer science (and should be > it in linguistics) that **tail-recursion**, i.e. recursion > leftwards as in English stacked genitives (Sue's mother's ...), > or rightwards as in stacked final embeddings (.. said > that ... thought that ... claimed that ...), is formally > equivalent to iteration. See Aho et el. (1986: 53) for details. > > Center-embedding is another matter: this is full-blown recursion, > requiring a stack for everything to be properly wound up. > > Fred Karlsson > > > Aho, A. V., Sethi, R. & Ullman, J. D. (1986). Compilers. Reading, > Mass.: > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. > > > Citerar Mike_Cahill at sil.org: > >> Well, good luck on getting everyone on the same page! I must >> confess I >> had >> no idea anyone would talk of iterations as "recursion." If you do >> nothing >> more at the conference than agreeing on a common definition, that >> will >> still be a significant accomplishment. >> >> Mike >> >> From amnfn at well.com Wed Apr 25 19:03:30 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:03:30 -0700 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Things composed of atoms don't look like giant atoms, but the subcomponents of trees -- trunks, branches, twigs, etc. -- do look like each other. I'm talking about real trees, not the abstract kind used by Chomsky. It's as if the program for making a tree had a subroutine that said "grow a branch". It looks as if the tree growing program called on the same subroutine many times during the life of the tree. This type of iteration is found throughout nature. It is more than hierarchy, and the effect is not redundancy. It's getting a lot of mileage out of the same pattern. --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ***************************************************************************** > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 22:00:00 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:00:00 EDT Subject: Recursion Message-ID: In a message dated 4/25/07 2:26:28 PM, dlevere at ilstu.edu writes: << It is common knowledge in computer science (and should be in linguistics) that **tail-recursion**... is formally equivalent to iteration. See Aho et el. (1986: 53) for details. Center-embedding is another matter: this is full-blown recursion, requiring a stack for everything to be properly wound up. >> Fred Karlson has effectively argued that multiple center-embedding of clauses has been constrained in Standard Average European, that it developed with writing and that it has not become more complex since. (This raises the question of what exactly recursiveness is supposed to bring to language -- what possible survival value it would have, how it improves language? I suppose that it might contribute gradual compactness. Or disambiguation -- but in a way that is what any kind of added complexity is to language -- more disambiguation at the price of added complexity.) Last year, Timothy Gentner et al demonstrated recursive syntactic pattern learning in starlings. That these songbirds are "vocal learners" was considered as a key determinant in the experiments -- as opposed to non-human primates who did not perform well in similar experiments. This is a particularly interesting quote from the above report: "There might be no single property or processing capacity that marks the many ways in which the complexity and detail of human language differs from non-human communication systems... It may be more useful to consider species differ ences as quantitative rather than qualitative distinctions in cognitive mechanisms." It is also worth noting that there are those who consider the whole recursion issue a red herring. Philip Lieberman, who is professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown and recently authored the book "Toward an evolutionary biology of language" had the following to say in a yet-unpublished letter: "Tecumseh Fitch, no doubt will be able to convince himself and Chomsky’s other acolytes that the Piraha language involves recursion, but that won’t salvage Universal Grammar There is no Universal Grammar specific to language that specifies the possible rules of syntax of every language that is, was, or will be spoken. We don’t have to debate whether recursion marks Piraha to rule out Universal Grammar. The ever present occurrence of genetic variation, which as Charles Darwin noted is the key to Natural Selection, makes any form of Universal Grammar problematic." Some may come to the conclusion that, even if it makes or breaks Universal Grammar, recursiveness in language may in the end be a kind of a parlour trick -- a test of pattern generation and recognition or a vestige of Ciceronian verbosity, which little to do with the basic nature of language. Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From Salinas17 at aol.com Fri Apr 27 05:05:19 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:19 EDT Subject: Language and Communication Message-ID: In a message dated 4/25/07 11:40:16 AM, jjain at sfsu.edu writes: << I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound and meaning (in spoken languages). >> So, putting the elements together we have: "Language... is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units... [whose] objective is to relate sound and meaning..." So we have this "object" that's doing all these computations in order to "relate sound and meaning." So my question is... Why relate sound to meaning or meaning to sound? What does sound got to do with this? Let say we leave sound out of this for the moment. Is this computating object still "language" if only meaning is involved? Do we call it language if Jagdish's object is just doing computation to relate meanings to one another or whatever it is computing? If sound is one of the objectives of this "cognitive object" called language, well what is the sound for? All one has to do is talk out loud to oneself to accomplish "language"? Of course, the reason sound is part of the objective is because the word "language" presumes that there are speakers and listeners. This is of course communication. Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that supposedly support the LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone else is supposed to hear it. Now there may be a case where one person talks only to himself in his own personal language. But that could not be how human language started. Defining language without including communication is like defining a motor car without mentioning that it moves and is supposed to take you from place to place. The study of syntax and of the structure of language is extremely valuable. But to say that language itself is not communication is to see only structure and not function. And it is not even remotely plausible that language should be made up of sound (more properly symbol) without any need for those sounds to be heard. These purely structural view of language is pre-Darwinian precisely because it can give no account of how such a thing as human language could have developed. <> It's been officially upgraded to "shocked and appalled." Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From amnfn at well.com Fri Apr 27 08:34:47 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:34:47 -0700 Subject: Language and Communication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This may be a little tangential to the discussion between Steve Long and and J. Jain about viewing language as a series of computational type moves, but I still think it's an important point: the objectives of speakers and the effect of language on other speakers are not necessarily the same. The motive for sound-to-meaning mapping on the part of speakers can be self-expression, even though the overall effect is communication with others. >>From an evolutionary point of view, it is not clear that language necessarily emerged due to the intent to communicate with others. In all likelihood, self expression was the initial motive of speakers, even though it was communication with others that served as the force that kept that motive a part of our human behavioral repertoire. We eat because we are hungry. The effect of eating is that we have enough energy to continue to live. Copulation is motivated by sexual urges. Procreation is the result. Almost anything necessary for the survival of the species is motivated in the individual by a psychological need, not by a general understanding of what filling that need will achieve. Even when we do understand how things work, the underlying motivation is still the primitive one. Animal calls, from which human language may have derived, map sounds onto meanings: the arrival of a particular kind of predator, the ripening of a particular fruit. However, the reason individuals emit these calls is not necessarily the intent to alert others. It is most likely that they feel an urgent desire to express their fear or joy -- a desire so strong they cannot master it. These cries often endanger the lives of the indviduals emitting them, but they enhance the survival of the group. Sitting at the table with us, Bow, a five year old chimpanzee, cannot help emitting food cries when he gets a food he really likes. The sounds are louder than normal dinner conversation. My seven year old daughter keeps berating him for being rude. Bow, however, can't help himself. The urge to make those sounds is one he cannot master. He is not doing it to communicate with us. However, any chimpanzee within earshot would know that he is eating -- and what. --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/25/07 11:40:16 AM, jjain at sfsu.edu writes: > << I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational > processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing > language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any > mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." > > No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound > and meaning (in spoken languages). >> > > So, putting the elements together we have: > "Language... is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, > moving,etc.) with word-sized units... [whose] objective is to relate sound > and meaning..." > > So we have this "object" that's doing all these computations in order to > "relate sound and meaning." > > So my question is... Why relate sound to meaning or meaning to sound? What > does sound got to do with this? > > Let say we leave sound out of this for the moment. Is this computating > object still "language" if only meaning is involved? Do we call it language if > Jagdish's object is just doing computation to relate meanings to one another or > whatever it is computing? > > If sound is one of the objectives of this "cognitive object" called language, > well what is the sound for? All one has to do is talk out loud to oneself to > accomplish "language"? > > Of course, the reason sound is part of the objective is because the word > "language" presumes that there are speakers and listeners. > > This is of course communication. > > Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language > that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that supposedly support the > LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that > learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not > learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from > another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. > And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone > else is supposed to hear it. > > Now there may be a case where one person talks only to himself in his own > personal language. But that could not be how human language started. > > Defining language without including communication is like defining a motor > car without mentioning that it moves and is supposed to take you from place to > place. > > The study of syntax and of the structure of language is extremely valuable. > But to say that language itself is not communication is to see only structure > and not function. And it is not even remotely plausible that language should > be made up of sound (more properly symbol) without any need for those sounds > to be heard. > > These purely structural view of language is pre-Darwinian precisely because > it can give no account of how such a thing as human language could have > developed. > > < of my earlier e-mail note.>> > > It's been officially upgraded to "shocked and appalled." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


**************************************
See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Apr 27 16:07:39 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:07:39 -0500 Subject: Language and Communication Message-ID: Though you might have to admit, Steve, that the private language of twins is an interesting case that could possibly relate to language origins. In such a case one has genetically near-identical (near because of genetic changes that occur somatically after the twins split) entities which invent their own communicative system. Twins in the same environment are likely to share much in the way of points of view, personality, etc. that therefore don't have to be negotiated around (even if they will likely differentiate as they get older). I would imagine that social insect communication as in wasps, ants, and bees is like this to some extent, since worker sisters are very close genetically. As for how this might relate to the human story, consider that humans have 46 chromosomes, while all extant apes (including our nearest relatives the chimps and bonobos) have 48. There would have to have been a major chromosomal fusion event, which would make it much more likely that nearest relatives would have had to be mated, since big problems would occur if normal 48'ers tried their luck with 46'ers (or rather the haploid numbers of 24 vs. 23). There have been, in addition, major inversion events as well between humans and apes, where large chunks of genetic material have been turned end for end on chromosomes, which doesn't much disrupt function (though regulation will change), yet again will cause issues when nonidentical varieties are aligned after mating. So more likely nearest relatives will get the job done again. As with *identical* twins, nearest relatives will share a great deal that might facilitate the development of a communication system a bit less fully developed than modern languages, yet more so than the usual systems found in genetically diverse populations of conspecifics. And we know that the founder populations of modern humans went through a tight genetic bottleneck. How many times has this happened? Major genetic events might also have disrupted existing communicative systems as those that are found in extant apes- could such event have created communicative saltations? Opened up the systems for learning rather than instinct, moving control to the cortex? Might it be that it is not primarily the brain that could be *modular* in this regard, but the genome itself? It would be very interesting to see what kind of communication APE twins would come up with. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From Vyv.Evans at brighton.ac.uk Fri Apr 27 16:37:57 2007 From: Vyv.Evans at brighton.ac.uk (Vyvyan Evans) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:57 +0100 Subject: 1st CFP: Language, Communication & Cognition: Brighton 4-7 Aug 2008 Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS Conference on LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND COGNITION University of Brighton, August 4th-7th 2008, Brighton, UK Website: www.languageandcognition.net The conference on Language, Communication and Cognition aims to promote an interdisciplinary, comparative, multi-methodological approach to the study of language, communication and cognition, informed by method and practice as developed in Cognitive Linguistics. The objective is to contribute to our understanding of language as a key aspect of human cognition, using converging and multi-disciplinary methodologies, based upon cross-linguistic, cross-cultural, and cross-population comparisons. The conference will address the following themes: -Language, creativity and imagination -Language in use -Meaning and grammar -Communication, conceptualisation and gesture -Language and its influence on thought -Language acquisition and conceptual development -Origins and evolution of language and mind Keynote speakers The following distinguished scholars will be giving keynote lectures relating to the conference themes: Lera Boroditsky, Stanford University Herbert H. Clark, Stanford University Adele Goldberg, Princeton University Sotaro Kita, Birmingham University George Lakoff, University of California, Berkeley Michael Tomasello, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig Theme Sessions In addition to a General Session and a Poster Session, there will be 6 specially-convened theme sessions, with specially invited discussants. These are as follows: 1. The socio-cultural, cognitive and neurological bases of metaphor Discussants: George Lakoff and Vyv Evans 2. Cognitive and social processes in language use Discussants: Herbert Clark and Paul Hopper 3. Constructional approaches to grammar and first language acquisition Adele Goldberg and Eve V. Clark 4. The role of gesture in communication and cognition Discussants: Sotaro Kita and Alan Cienki 5. The social and cognitive bases of language evolution Discussants: Chris Sinha and tbc 6. Linguistic relativity: Evidence and methods Discussants: Lera Borodistsky and tbc Submission of abstracts Submissions are solicited for the general session, the theme sessions, and the poster session. The abstract guidelines for all sessions are as follows: --Abstracts should not exceed 500 words - references are excluded from this count --Abstracts should clearly indicate a presentation title --Abstracts should be anonymous for purposes of blind peer-review --Abstracts should be formatted as Word, RTF or PDF documents --Abstracts should be submitted electronically to LCC at brighton.ac.uk Please include the following information in the main body of your email: --title and name of author(s) --affiliation --email address for correspondence --presentation title --3-5 keywords --preferred session for presentation: either general session, poster session, or theme session (please specify theme session number or title) Please include the following information in the subject header of your email: --"Abstract Submission - author(s) name(s)" ABSTRACT DEADLINE: November 26th 2007 For full details please consult the conference website: http://www.languageandcognition.net Organisers The conference is organised by Vyv Evans and Stéphanie Pourcel Contact The conference email address is LCC at brighton.ac.uk Web details are available at: www.languageandcognition.net From dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com Fri Apr 27 20:14:21 2007 From: dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com (Denis Donovan) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:14:21 -0400 Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" Message-ID: At 1:05 AM -0400 4/27/07, Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: >Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language >that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that >supposedly support the >LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that >learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not >learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from >another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. >And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone >else is supposed to hear it. (emphasis added) Let me throw a pebble into this interesting stream. I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher, the subject of Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli and Neil Smith's book The Mind of a Savant. Smith and Tsimpli's linguistic savant is obsessed with learning new languages very much as one might learn lots of mathematical systems. His interest is in the structure, not the function, of language. To use Alan Watts's felicitous expression, in obsessively "acquiring" new languages, Smith and Tsimpli's linguistic savant consistently mistook the roadmap for the road. Or, more to the point, he can't see the road because he can't take his eyes off the roadmap. This is a beautiful -- and, in my view, revealing -- example of the dissociability of syntax (pattern) and semantics (meaning), making for zero pragmatics. Prodigious pattern-avidity plus prodigious memory do not (necessarily) make for language-as-communication. The other side of the coin, of course, is Williams syndrome. Just a thought. Denis Donovan Bates, E. (1997). "On language savants and the structure of the mind: A review of Neil Smith and Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli, "The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity"." International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2): 163-186. Smith, N. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1997). "Reply to Bates." International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2). Smith, N. V. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Oxford, Blackwell. -- ===================================================== Denis M. Donovan, M.D., M.Ed., F.A.P.S. Medical Director, 1983 - 2006 The Children's Center for Developmental Psychiatry St. Petersburg, Florida Mail: P.O Box 47576 St. Petersburg, FL 33743-7576 Phone: 727-641-8905 Email: dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com 785 - 123rd Avenue Treasure Island, Florida 33706, USA 727-360-1912 (H) 727-641-8905 (C) ===================================================== From kibrik at comtv.ru Fri Apr 27 21:49:00 2007 From: kibrik at comtv.ru (Andrej A. Kibrik) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:49:00 +0400 Subject: The Third International Conference on Cognitive Science Message-ID: The Third International Conference on Cognitive Science "Biennale of Cognitive Science 2008" Moscow, Russia, June 20-25 2008 First call for papers The Interregional Association for Cognitive Studies, Institute of Psychology RAS, and the Center for Russian Language Development announce the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, to be held in Moscow, Russia, June 20-25, 2008. This conference succeeds the First and the Second Conferences on Cognitive Science held in Kazan' (2004) and in St. Petersburg (2006) (see the Association's website at www.cogsci.ru). The conference aims at organizing a multidisciplinary forum for researchers exploring cognition and its evolution, intellect, thinking, perception, consciousness, knowledge representation and acquisition, language as a means of cognition and communication, brain mechanisms of cognition, emotion and higher forms of behavior. Psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists, specialists in education, artificial intelligence, neuroinformatics and cognitive ergonomics, computer scientists, philosophers, anthropologists, as well as other researchers interested in interdisciplinary research on cognition are invited to participate in the conference. The central topics of the conference are various aspects of and approaches to development: from brain plasticity, genetics and evolutionary anthropology to language acquisition and cross-cultural differences. Within the framework of these problems, the following issues will also be discussed: development of emotions, effects of fatigue on learning and working, affective modulation of cognitive processes, as well as abnormal development of cognition and the corresponding neurogenetic and neuropsychological mechanisms. At the same time, papers on all other major issues in contemporary cognitive studies will be welcomed. The conference program will include invited lectures by leading experts in multidisciplinary cognitive studies. Invited speakers include the Nobel Prize winners Gerald Edelman and Daniel Kahneman, as well as Antonio Damasio, Marc Hauser, George Lakoff, Michael Tomasello, Anne Treisman, Stella Vosniadou and others. Some of these lectures will be named in honor of such outstanding students of cognition, brain and development as Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Luria. In addition to sessions and workshops with oral presentations, special attention will be given to poster sessions; these are planned to incorporate most of the papers. The working languages of the Conference are English and Russian. Accepted abstracts will be published by the beginning of the Conference. The deadline for abstract submission is December 1, 2007. Abstracts should be submitted online via the conference website: www.cogsci2008.ru Organizers of the Conference hope to keep the registration fee to a minimum. A competition for Student Travel Fellowships is announced. For further details on abstract submission and Travel Fellowships see the conference website. The Program Committee will accept papers on the basis of the criteria of interdisciplinary relevance, novelty and scientific significance. The Program Committee reserves the right to assign accepted papers to particular sessions of the conference. Applicants will be notified of their status by March 1, 2008. Organizing Committee Chair - Yuri I. Alexandrov (Institute of Psychology RAS, Moscow) Program Committee Chair - Boris M. Velichkovsky (Dresden and Moscow Universities) Conference Secretary - Olga E. Svarnik (Institute of Psychology RAS, Moscow) org at cogsci2008.ru From Salinas17 at aol.com Sat Apr 28 03:09:05 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:09:05 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:34:58 AM, amnfn at well.com writes: <> This is an example of how absolutely critical *common reference* is to language. Are Aya and I talking about the same thing when we talk about "self-expression"? I'm not sure what Aya means by "self-expression." I've heard the term of course many times. But I'm unsure what it specifically refers to, in this context. The term "self-expression" has been used in discourse analysis, general sociolinguistics and even marketing research to refer to the individualistic element in language or how something is congruent with one's own sense of identity. In these areas, it's not really separate from communication, but more like the opposite of "group-expression" -- conformity of ideas, styles or ways of thinking. Look up "self-expression" on Google and you'll see that, in the vernacular, it usually doesn't mean anything like "non-communication" -- quite the contrary. I believe Chomsky has used the term in connection with his Free Speech position, which is also inherently about communication. (Nobody has to be concerned about Free Speech if they never intend to express their ideas to anyone else.) Chomsky has also distinguished "self-expression" from communication, but I must confess I don't understand the contrast. "Self-expression" seems to be about the origin of the message, not about who it's meant for. When Lincoln spoke the Gettysburg Address, that was self-expression. If I just quote the Gettyburg Address in a speech, without regard for what the words mean, that is not self-expression -- it's somebody else's. This seems to be a logical understanding of the word. But the context of Aya's message seems to suggest that there is some kind of non-communal use of language called "self-expression." I take it that this means talking to one's-self instead of anyone else. I would call this "self-communication", I guess. There's no doubt it happens all the time, but just as a matter of sequence in the acquisition of language, it can only be a secondary effect. In order to talk to myself in English, I have to learn English first. English is a communal language, shared by billions of people who spoke it before I was born. Every single one of those people without exception were not born speaking English. It had to be shared with them. Communication is how every single person in the world learns a language. No one speaks raw Universal Grammar and that's a good reason to think no one speaks it to himself either. Now, let's say I have another language -- my own private language -- my "self-expression" language. Since I don't use it for communicating with anybody but myself, it is not a normal language. But let's say I constantly violate the rules of grammar in my private language. What is the consequence of my violation? Are those expressions I make to myself "unacceptible", "incomprehensible" or simply "ungrammatical?" In those cases, would I say I do not understand my own private language? Do I rap myself on my knuckles for using bad grammar and correct myself? Of course, there is an advantage to this private language. I don't have to worry about sharing common references with anybody else. In English, I need to call a horse a "horse", or a self-expression a "self-expression" or I will have poor hope of being understood. However, in my private language, I can call a cow a "horse", a spotted dog a "horse" and a self-expression a "horse" and have no problem with understanding myself. I even always know which kind of "horse" I am referring to, and can also use the word as a verb or a pronomial because I always know what I am referring to, even if I'm using the same word all those different ways. And no one's going to correct my "self-expression" because communication with others has no importance. Turning this into audible speech, however, can present a problem. We don't hear such private "self-expression" languages spoken out loud much around town. People who spout incomprehensible "self-expressions" on a regular basis are not treated with much understanding by most folk. They are often diagnosed as having mental problems. Perhaps it would be more enlightened to consider them just people who have choosen to use their LADs and UGs for non-communicative purposes. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 28 03:58:14 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:58:14 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another. Sometimes the vocalization is involuntary. The speaker just couldn't help himself. He might prefer not to communicate, but the need to express his thoughts and feelings overrides his concern about sharing information. At other times, the speaker may be unaware that he has an audience. When someone cries out in pain, everyone who hears understands the message. But it is not a message that the injured party necessarily meant to send out. The urge to cry out is difficult to overcome. We might not want others to know we are suffering. Nature made sure we would let others know, because it might save the lives of our group mates, who would be alerted to the danger. Babies are born with a repertoire of cries that alert caretakers to their needs. But a newborn does not know that there are others. The concept of self versus other develops much later. When a baby cries out, it is self-expression, regardless of the fact that for hearers the cries function as a form of communication, in that the baby supplies them with important information about its needs. If Abraham Lincoln had composed and spoken the Gettysburg Address without intending it for an audience, then it would have been mere self-expression. Since he did intend it for an audience, we can safely say that it was an intentional act of communication. Some people with autistic spectrum disorders master both grammar and its mapping onto meaning, without developing a theory of mind. When they speak, they comment on reality without taking into consideration what others will make of their comments. Their speech is motivated by self- expression, but they are using a language they picked up from their environment, so anybody listening in can understand what was said. Best, --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/07 4:34:58 AM, amnfn at well.com writes: > < self-expression, even though the overall effect is communication with others. In > all likelihood, self expression was the initial motive of speakers, even > though it was communication with others that served as the force that kept that > motive a part of our human behavioral repertoire.>> > > This is an example of how absolutely critical *common reference* is to > language. Are Aya and I talking about the same thing when we talk about > "self-expression"? > > I'm not sure what Aya means by "self-expression." I've heard the term of > course many times. But I'm unsure what it specifically refers to, in this > context. > > The term "self-expression" has been used in discourse analysis, general > sociolinguistics and even marketing research to refer to the individualistic > element in language or how something is congruent with one's own sense of identity. > In these areas, it's not really separate from communication, but more like > the opposite of "group-expression" -- conformity of ideas, styles or ways of > thinking. Look up "self-expression" on Google and you'll see that, in the > vernacular, it usually doesn't mean anything like "non-communication" -- quite the > contrary. I believe Chomsky has used the term in connection with his Free > Speech position, which is also inherently about communication. (Nobody has to > be concerned about Free Speech if they never intend to express their ideas to > anyone else.) > > Chomsky has also distinguished "self-expression" from communication, but I > must confess I don't understand the contrast. "Self-expression" seems to be > about the origin of the message, not about who it's meant for. When Lincoln > spoke the Gettysburg Address, that was self-expression. If I just quote the > Gettyburg Address in a speech, without regard for what the words mean, that is not > self-expression -- it's somebody else's. This seems to be a logical > understanding of the word. > > But the context of Aya's message seems to suggest that there is some kind of > non-communal use of language called "self-expression." > > I take it that this means talking to one's-self instead of anyone else. I > would call this "self-communication", I guess. There's no doubt it happens all > the time, but just as a matter of sequence in the acquisition of language, it > can only be a secondary effect. > > In order to talk to myself in English, I have to learn English first. > English is a communal language, shared by billions of people who spoke it before I > was born. Every single one of those people without exception were not born > speaking English. It had to be shared with them. Communication is how every > single person in the world learns a language. No one speaks raw Universal > Grammar and that's a good reason to think no one speaks it to himself either. > > Now, let's say I have another language -- my own private language -- my > "self-expression" language. Since I don't use it for communicating with anybody > but myself, it is not a normal language. > > But let's say I constantly violate the rules of grammar in my private > language. What is the consequence of my violation? Are those expressions I make to > myself "unacceptible", "incomprehensible" or simply "ungrammatical?" In those > cases, would I say I do not understand my own private language? Do I rap > myself on my knuckles for using bad grammar and correct myself? > > Of course, there is an advantage to this private language. I don't have to > worry about sharing common references with anybody else. In English, I need > to call a horse a "horse", or a self-expression a "self-expression" or I will > have poor hope of being understood. However, in my private language, I can > call a cow a "horse", a spotted dog a "horse" and a self-expression a "horse" and > have no problem with understanding myself. I even always know which kind of > "horse" I am referring to, and can also use the word as a verb or a pronomial > because I always know what I am referring to, even if I'm using the same word > all those different ways. > > And no one's going to correct my "self-expression" because communication with > others has no importance. Turning this into audible speech, however, can > present a problem. > > We don't hear such private "self-expression" languages spoken out loud much > around town. People who spout incomprehensible "self-expressions" on a regular > basis are not treated with much understanding by most folk. They are often > diagnosed as having mental problems. Perhaps it would be more enlightened to > consider them just people who have choosen to use their LADs and UGs for > non-communicative purposes. > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


**************************************
See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 05:29:08 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:29:08 EDT Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:16:24 PM, dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com writes: << I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher,... >> Denis - The case you refer to, described in "The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity", clearly states not only did Christopher communicates, he did so in multiple languages. The authors state so expressly: "He first came to attention because of his remarkable ability to translate from and communicate in any of a large number of languages." Denis, you also wrote: <> I'm not sure where you got zero "pragmatics" from. But the disassociation of syntax and semantics seem to have little to do with any problems Christopher had with such things as discourse structure or non-literal meanings (if that's what you mean by pragmatics). In fact, the authors claimed that when it came to English, the L1, Christopher's performance was "perfect" on sentence testing for morphological and syntactic violations, but that he ONLY occasionally missed on items that required "semantic and pragmatic" judgments. Being UGists, they ascribed this misses to problems with input from central cognition, not to any "special" diassociation between semantics and syntax. The disassociation of syntax and semantic was rather something that the researchers attempted to do in their research, especially with the L2 languages and the artificial language they had Christopher and the controls learn. >>From my perspective, a distinction between "syntax and meaning" is like the difference between the trees and the forest. Syntax is regularly necessary at the sentence level for communication. I c an't string a run of words together and hope you will understand them unless we share a COMMON understanding of the relationship of the words to one another. If you don't catch the relationships -- differentiate the noun from the verb, etc -- I will be miscommunicating. In that sense, syntax is simply one more form of common reference. With good syntax, we both understand the communication, because syntax disambiguates a string of words that otherwise could be interpreted in any number of ways. Without syntax, you might hear "Spring flower flower run run." What am I saying? Can you guess? There are quite a few possible interpretations. With syntax, you'll hear "It's Spring. Flowers flower, and the run runs." The ambiguoty of the first sentence is substantially reduced. Shared syntax substantially improves communication. There's really no true disassociation between meaning and syntax. In fact, in the sense of acheiving common reference -- so that we both know what we're talking about -- they are fundamentally the same thing. They both mean we are referring at the sentence level to the same things. At least as much as human language permits a common understanding without the aid of either ESP or UG. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 15:27:01 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:27:01 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 11:59:21 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: << Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another. >> "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Aya - I am trying to understand what this might mean. So I'll try to do something that promotes common reference between us. I'll ask some questions. Is there a difference between "form-to-meaning mapping" where the intent is self-expression versus where the intent is communication? What is that difference? To put it another way: I presume that we are talking about self-expression that must involve language, since your distinction above doesn't work otherwise. Is this self-expressive "form-to-meaning mapping" in a specific language? (Not Language in general, but in a specific language.) If this self-expression is in a specific language, then is that language changed when used for non-communicative self-expression? How is it changed? If a listener should accidentially overhear this "form-to-meaning mapping" as speech, would he find that it violates grammar or syntax? Would it be a different language than the speaker would otherwise speak in? If the form or structure of the language is not changed, what is the different between speech generated for self-expression versus communication? I appreciate your patience in all this, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Apr 29 15:31:25 2007 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:31:25 -0600 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm... > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes > information > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 29 18:56:40 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:56:40 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/07 11:59:21 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: > << Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be > voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of > language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a > form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to > communicate with another. >> > > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." > > Aya - > I am trying to understand what this might mean. So I'll try to do something > that promotes common reference between us. I'll ask some questions. > > Is there a difference between "form-to-meaning mapping" where the intent is > self-expression versus where the intent is communication? What is that > difference? There is no formal or semantic difference between utterances that are distinguished by the itent or lack of intent to communicate. That was my point. Individuals need not be aware that communication is happening in order for transfer of information to take place as a result of one vocalizing and the other hearing the vocalization. One can communicate without intending to. I thought your position was that one couldn't, and that therefore all communication is governed by the intent to communicate, and that syntax could not possibly form without intentional use of the communicative function. My point was that standard mappings from form to meaning can arise under circumstances where neither party intends to communicate. Language and the precursors of language could have evolved before people had developed a strong theory of mind. > > To put it another way: > I presume that we are talking about self-expression that must involve > language, since your distinction above doesn't work otherwise. My distinction works both in the case of human language, and in the case of other non-human or non-linguistic signals. > > Is this self-expressive "form-to-meaning mapping" in a specific language? > (Not Language in general, but in a specific language.) > It can work in specific languages and in specific non-linguistic forms of communication. > If this self-expression is in a specific language, then is that language > changed when used for non-communicative self-expression? How is it changed? > The form does not have to change. The point is that it doesn't have to. The form can be interpreted regardless of whether the speaker had a particular hearer in mind, no hearer in mind -- or even was not aware that other hearers could exist. > If a listener should accidentially overhear this "form-to-meaning mapping" as > speech, would he find that it violates grammar or syntax? Would it be a > different language than the speaker would otherwise speak in? > No. Accidental overhearing is just one example of how communication can occur unintentionally > If the form or structure of the language is not changed, what is the > different between speech generated for self-expression versus communication? > None. No difference. The point is: You need not intend to communicate in order for the message to go through. Use a standard form to meaning mapping to express your thoughts and others will get the message even if you don't know they exist. You just blurted something out without any concern for its effect on others: there still will be an effect, regardless of your intent, if somebody heard. The hearer need not know what you were thinking in order to associate the message with its meaning. A cry of pain from an unknown source spells danger. Everbody pays attention. I gave you many, many specific examples: a) food and predator cries of primates, whose purport does not change regardless of the intent of the speaker. Motive: self expression. Effect: Communication. b) The cries of infants who have not yet made the distinction between self and other, but who communicate their needs without intending to. Motive: Primitive Urge to self-express. Effect: Vital information. c) Involuntary cries of pain by any individual, infant or adult. Motive: Involuntary self-expression. Effect: Warning. d) The fully grammatical, semantically unobjectionable human specific language utterances of high functioning autistics who speak a standard language without having a theory of mind or an intent to comunicate with another individual. When overheard talking by others, their speech transmits information about their state of mind and their observations on reality. Motive: The desire to express one's thoughts. Effect: Transmission of said thoughts to another. Intent to communicate is something that we develop when we start to realize other people have minds separate from our own. But it is possible to communicate with another long before we make that realization. Communication with the help of a standard code of sound to meaning mappings enhances the survival of the group, and it predates the intentional use of language. First we cry because we are sad and we can't help it. Only much later do some people learn to pretend to cry in order to make someone think they are sad. The first was self-expression. The second: intentional communication. Best, --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 29 21:27:06 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:27:06 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think we might be having a bracketing problem. A person intent on self expression does not thereby intend to communicate, but that does not necessarily mean that he intends not to communicate. Communication, if it happens, is incidental. Some concentrate on the message. Others on the hearer. Without a message, there'd be nothing to communicate. Without a hearer... well, the code would never have evolved. That's the difference between the motivation of the individual and the function that this motivation serves in the survival of the species. Best, --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > Hmmm... > > > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes > > information > > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." > > Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Mon Apr 30 04:54:16 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:54:16 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/29/07 11:35:06 AM, wilcox at unm.edu writes: << Hmmm... "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. >> Sherman - I think this use of the term "self-expression" is very different than the way it's commonly used these days. I believe (but am not sure) that Chomsky got the term from Descartes, who used it to refer to a non-communicative way to use language. I also think that this use of "self-expression" for Descartes was in reference to the "internal dialogue" that he described in his famous Discourse and elsewhere. In that sense it doesn't involve speech or any other kind of "external" communication. It's basically "thinking" or talking to oneself in one's head, and not anything anyone else can share in. Aya, I believe, is using self-expression to include vocalization or other public "access," if I understand him correctly. I'm in no way saying that his definition is incorrect, but it seems to be different. It may be worth noting that Descartes appears to give no indication whether he self-expressed in Latin or French. He wrote in both languages. Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From jrubba at calpoly.edu Mon Apr 30 16:24:37 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:24:37 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in my head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation in the motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that sometimes accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list knows this for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to that effect regarding people who subvocalize when they read. I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirahã thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to post, or post it for me? Thanks! 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 lamb at rice.edu Mon Apr 30 17:51:53 2007 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:51:53 -0500 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, there is research on slips of the tongue in inner speech. They show the same patterns as slips in audible speech. Done by Peter Reich, or by someone he knows -- I'll copy him on this message. I too have noticed speech errors in my inner speech. All best, - Syd Lamb On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have > made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in > my head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation > in the motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that > sometimes accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list > knows this for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to > that effect regarding people who subvocalize when they read. > > I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirah� > thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single > address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to > post, or post it for me? > > Thanks! > > 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 > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From hopper at cmu.edu Mon Apr 30 18:05:48 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:05:48 -0400 Subject: Language and 'Self-Expression' (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fascinating! I've even caught myself correcting speech errors when I talk to my dog. My speech errors, that is. All this reminds me of David Bloor's definition of conscience: "the internalized image of collective reproach." (I'm afraid I don't have a reference for this. Probably his 'Knowledge and Social Imagery.')) We're constrained by norms even when no one is listening. - Paul > Yes, there is research on slips of the tongue in inner speech. They show > the same patterns as slips in audible speech. Done by Peter Reich, or by > someone he knows -- I'll copy him on this message. I too have noticed > speech errors in my inner speech. > > All best, - Syd Lamb > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have >> made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in my >> head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation in the >> motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that sometimes >> accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list knows this >> for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to that effect >> regarding people who subvocalize when they read. >> >> I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirahã >> thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single >> address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to >> post, or post it for me? >> >> Thanks! >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive > Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Mon Apr 30 20:18:40 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:18:40 EDT Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:16:24 PM, dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com writes: << I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher,... >> Denis - The case you refer to, described in "The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity", clearly states not only did Christopher communicates, he did so in multiple languages. The authors state so expressly: "He first came to attention because of his remarkable ability to translate from and communicate in any of a large number of languages." Denis, you also wrote: <> I'm not sure where you got zero "pragmatics" from. But the disassociation of syntax and semantics seem to have little to do with any problems Christopher had with such things as discourse structure or non-literal meanings (if that's what you mean by pragmatics). In fact, the authors claimed that when it came to English, the L1, Christopher's performance was "perfect" on sentence testing for morphological and syntactic violations, but that he ONLY occasionally missed on items that required "semantic and pragmatic" judgments. Being UGists, they ascribed these misses to problems with input from central cognition, not to any "special" disassociation between semantics and syntax. The disassociation of syntax and semantic was rather something that the researchers attempted to do in their research, especially with the L2 languages and the artificial language they had Christopher and the controls learn. >>From my perspective, a distinction between "syntax and meaning" is like the difference between the trees and the forest. Syntax is regularly necessary at the sentence level for communication. I can't string a run of words together and hope you will understand them unless we share a COMMON understanding of the relationship of the words to one another. If you don't catch the relationships -- differentiate the noun from the verb, etc -- I will be miscommunicating. In that sense, syntax is simply one more form of common reference. With good syntax, we both understand the communication, because syntax disambiguates a string of words that otherwise could be interpreted in any number of ways. Without syntax, you might hear "Spring flower flower run run." What am I saying? Can you guess? There are quite a few possible interpretations. With syntax, you'll hear "It's Spring. Flowers flower, and the run runs." The ambiguity of the first sentence is substantially reduced. Shared syntax substantially improves communication. There's really no true disassociation between meaning and syntax. In fact, in the sense of achieving common reference -- so that we both know what we're talking about -- they are fundamentally the same thing. They both mean we are referring at the sentence level to the same things. At least as much as human language permits a common understanding without the aid of either ESP or UG. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr Wed Apr 4 08:30:50 2007 From: gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr (Guillaume Desagulier) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:30:50 +0200 Subject: New journal in Cognitive Linguistics : CogniTextes Message-ID: English version [French version below] CALL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS (Apologies for multiple postings) The French Association for Cognitive Linguistics (AFLiCo) is pleased to launch a call for contributions to their on-line, peer-reviewed journal CogniTextes. The journal is a forum for scientific exchange among researchers in France and beyond working in, or with an interest in, Cognitive Linguistics. CogniTextes is one of the first on-line, peer-reviewed journals in Cognitive Linguistics. Its editors, and its editorial board of internationally renowned scholars, vouch for the scientific quality of the journal. On-line access to the full text of the articles is free. On-line publishing allows articles to include audio and/or video clips which the reader can listen to or view without leaving the text. This facility is invaluable for illustrating research in fields such as sign language or gesture. CogniTextes publishes articles in English and French. Authors need not be AFLiCo members. EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Maarten Lemmens, University of Lille 3 Guillaume Desagulier, University of Paris 8 Diana Lewis, University of Lyon 2 St?phanie Bonnefille, University of Tours Philippe Gr?a, University of Paris 10 Jean-Baptiste Guignard, 'Institut de Cognitique' of Compi?gne EDITORIAL BOARD (TO BE EXTENDED) Michel Achard, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA Benjamin K. Bergen, University of Hawai?i at Manoa, USA St?phanie Bonnefille, University of Tours, France Frank Brisard, University of Antwerp, Belgium Cristiano Broccias, University of Genoa, Italy Pierre Encrev?, EHESS, Paris, France Liesbeth Degand, University of Louvain, Belgium Nicole Delbecque, University of Leuven, Belgium Dagmar Divjak, University of Sheffield, UK Ga?tanelle Gilquin, University of Louvain, Belgium Stefan Th. Gries, University of California at Santa Barbara, USA Willem Hollmann, University of Lancaster, UK Michel de Fornel, EHESS, Paris, France Bernard Laks, University of Paris 10 at Nanterre, France Jean-R?mi Lapaire, University of Bordeaux, France Anatol Stefanowitsch, University of Bremen, Germany MISSION STATEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND Cognitive Linguistics is an umbrella term for a number of related theories including Cognitive Grammar, (Radical) Construction Grammar, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Conceptual Blending Theory, etc. Unlike so-called formal theories of language, such as Generative Grammar and its derivatives, all these approaches adopt a usage-based view of language in that they claim that our linguistic knowledge, from the most concrete level to the most abstract, derives from usage. Cognitive Linguistics emphasizes the symbolic nature of grammar, which is viewed not as an autonomous system of representation, but rather as an inventory of symbolic units that organize conceptual content in a conventional manner. Each symbolic form thus captures some socio-physical or conceptual human experience. Cognitive Linguistics has something in common with certain cognitivist theories developed mainly in France over recent decades, such as the Theory of Metaoperations, the Theory of Enunciative Operations and the recent Theory of Semantic Forms. For their interest to the wider cognitive linguistic research community, CogniTextes welcomes contributions that are inspired by these theories, and that explore points of convergence and divergence between Cognitive Linguistics and cognitivist approaches of the French tradition. As its name suggests, CogniTextes also welcomes papers on stylistics and discourse structure from a cognitive perspective. The primary goal of CogniTextes is to provide a publication forum for researchers in the cognitive linguistic tradition as represented by the International Cognitive Linguistics Association (ICLA), with which AFLiCo is officially affiliated. The editorial board of CogniTextes has been selected with a view to ensuring both the quality of the publication and its relevance to Cognitive Linguistics. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES please visit http://aflico.asso.univ-lille3.fr to ensure prompt review, manuscripts should be submitted electronically to: aflico at univ-lille3.fr Version fran?aise APPEL A CONTRIBUTIONS (Toutes nos excuses pour les envois multiples) L?Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo) lance un appel ? contribution pour CogniTextes, sa revue en ligne ? comit? de lecture. V?ritable plateforme d??change scientifique, CogniTextes s?est donn? pour but de cr?er des liens durables entre les chercheurs travaillant, de pr?s ou de loin, dans le domaine de la Linguistique Cognitive et pr?ts ? participer ? son d?veloppement en France et au-del?. CogniTextes constitue l?un des premiers projets de revue en ligne en Linguistique Cognitive. Son comit? ?ditorial (qui compte cinq membres) ainsi que son comit? scientifique (compos? de chercheurs internationaux r?put?s) veilleront ? la qualit? scientifique des articles publi?s. L?acc?s aux articles sera gratuit. La publication en ligne a pour avantage d?incorporer dans un m?me article des clips vid?o et/ou sonores consultables sans quitter le texte. Cela permet de traiter et d?illustrer de mani?re dynamique des sujets tels que la langue des signes ou les gestes co-verbaux par exemple. Les articles seront en anglais ou en fran?ais. Les auteurs n?ont pas l?obligation d??tre membres d?AFLiCo. COMITE DE REDACTION Maarten Lemmens, Univ. Lille 3 Guillaume Desagulier, Univ. Paris 8 Diana Lewis, Univ. Lyon 2 St?phanie Bonnefille, Univ. de Tours Philippe Gr?a, Univ. Paris 10 Jean-Baptiste Guignard, Institut de Cognitique de Compi?gne COMITE SCIENTIFIQUE (LISTE PROVISOIRE) Michel Achard, Rice University, Huston, Texas, USA Benjamin K. Bergen, Univ. de Hawai?i, USA St?phanie Bonnefille, Univ. de Tours, France Frank Brisard, Univ. d?Anvers, Belgique Cristiano Broccias, Univ. de G?nes, Italie Liesbeth Degand, Univ. de Louvain, Belgique Nicole Delbecque, Univ. de Leuven, Belgique Dagmar Divjak, Univ. de Sheffield, Royaume-Uni Pierre Encrev?, EHESS, Paris, France Michel de Fornel, EHESS, Paris, France Ga?tanelle Gilquin, Univ. de Louvain, Belgique Stefan Th. Gries, Univ. de Californie, Santa Barbara Willem Hollmann, Univ. de Lancaster, Royaume-Uni Bernard Laks, Univ. de Paris 10-Nanterre, France Jean-R?mi Lapaire, Univ. de Bordeaux, France Anatol Stefanowitsch, Univ. de Br?me, Allemagne LIGNES DIRECTIVES ET CONTEXTE SCIENTIFIQUE L?intitul? ? Linguistique Cognitive ? regroupe plusieurs courants apparent?s (la Grammaire Cognitive, les Grammaires de Constructions, la Th?orie de la m?taphore conceptuelle, la Th?orie de l?Int?gration Conceptuelle, etc.). Contrairement aux th?ories dites ? formelles ? (comme la grammaire g?n?rative et ses courants d?riv?s), toutes ces th?ories partent du principe que notre connaissance linguistique, du niveau le plus concret au niveau le plus abstrait, est tributaire de l?usage. La Linguistique Cognitive insiste fortement sur la nature symbolique de la grammaire interne : celle-ci est vue non pas comme un syst?me de repr?sentation autonome, mais comme un inventaire de structures symboliques qui organisent de fa?on conventionnelle des contenus conceptuels. Autrement dit, chacune de ces formes symboliques s?miotise l?exp?rience socio-physique et conceptuelle ordinaires des ?tres humains. La Linguistique Cognitive n?est pas sans faire ?cho aux th?ories linguistiques qui ont, depuis plusieurs d?cennies maintenant, d?limit? un cognitivisme ? la fran?aise. Nous pensons notamment ? la Th?orie des M?taop?rations d?Henri Adamczewski, ? la T.O.E. d?Antoine Culioli, ainsi qu?? la Th?orie des Formes S?mantiques, d?velopp?e tr?s r?cemment par Pierre Cadiot et Yves-Marie Visetti. Les contributions s?inscrivant dans ces cadres seront les bienvenues, m?me si leurs postulats diff?rent parfois de ceux de la Linguistique Cognitive telle que nous l?entendons (insistance sur les op?rations cognitives propres ? l??nonciation et sur l?invariant s?mantique ; rejet des sch?mes spatiaux). Prioritairement, la revue CogniTextes entend offrir un forum de publication aux chercheurs qui s?inscrivent pleinement dans les statuts de l?AFLiCo et de l?ICLA (Association Internationale de Linguistique Cognitive). Le comit? de lecture a ?t? compos? de mani?re ? garantir la qualit? de la publication et sa pertinence th?orique. Dans un souci de ne pas ignorer les autres th?ories fran?aises s?inscrivant dans le paradigme cognitiviste, CogniTextes accueillera ?galement des contributions qui ?laborent explicitement les points de chevauchement et de divergence entre la Linguistique Cognitive et les d?veloppements auxquels elle a donn? lieu en France. Comme son nom l?indique, CogniTextes accueillera ?galement des contributions cognitives qui touchent au domaine de la stylistique et de la structure du discours. CONDITIONS DE SOUMISSION disponibles ? l?adresse suivante : http://aflico.asso.univ-lille3.fr pour garantir une ?valuation dans les meilleurs d?lais, pri?re d'envoyer vos manuscrits sous forme ?lectronique ? l'adresse suivante : aflico at univ-lille3.fr From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Wed Apr 4 10:27:40 2007 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= ROBERT) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:27:40 +0200 Subject: ALT 7 conference in Paris Message-ID: Association for Linguistic Typology ALT 7 conference (Paris 25-28 September 2007) Registration is open now on the conference web site: http://www.alt7.cnrs.fr Deadline for early registration: June 15, 2007 Contact: alt7 at ivry.cnrs.fr From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Apr 12 00:05:51 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:05:51 -0700 Subject: What language is this? Message-ID: Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"?" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. Help? Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli Emine api?xuri Da?xur ore da?xuri Moxti ?kim opute?a Var gagnasen ?a?xuri Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-?eni Tolepe omam3unu Anderina na?k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani 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 hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 12 01:56:23 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:56:23 -0400 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <68982702-BD19-4359-8C62-E0B97E12DAB5@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Laz? > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off > the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does > not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and > voiced bilabial fricative. The"??" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal > affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. > Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of > Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song > on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > Help? > > Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli > > Emine api??xuri Da??xur ore da??xuri Moxti ??kim opute??a Var gagnasen > ??a??xuri > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu > > Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani > > > 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 kemmer at rice.edu Thu Apr 12 02:56:33 2007 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:56:33 -0500 Subject: Conference info ICLC 2007 in Krakow - Gala dinner Message-ID: International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Krakow - ICLC 2007 GALA DINNER The traditional ICLC banquet will be a Gala Dinner on Thursday July 19, held in the historical chambers of the 14th century Royal Castle in Niepo?omice. The local organizers of the conference are arranging a special visit to the Museum galleries of the Royal Castle. There is currently a large special exhibit of 19th century Polish art there, at present one of the largest collections in Poland and some of it not normally on view anywhere. On Thursday, July 19th, the Museum is willing to prolong its regular opening hours to give the guests of ICLC2007 a chance to visit the Galleries before the Gala Dinner. The cost of the Gala Dinner will be 70 EURO paid on the spot at the Gala Dinner Desk located at the conference venue. For conference participants and accompanying persons going to Gala Dinner, the visit to Niepo?omice Museum will be FREE of charge. The organizers have asked me to pass on the following message: "The visit to the museum before the Gala dinner can be arranged only if we have enough people who want to see the Gallery. Could you please let us know, a.s.a.p., preferably by e-mail, whether you wish to come to Gala Dinner and to see the Gallery? We shall be looking forward to hearing from you, The local organizers of ICLC2007 in Krak?w" Further info on the Gala dinner (including the menu) and museum visit is at www.iclc2007.pl/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=56&Itemid=103&lang=english Please do send email to Elzbieta Tabakowska to tell her if you plan to attend: etab at lingua.filg.uj.edu.pl thanks, Suzanne Kemmer, on behalf of the organizers of ICLC 2007 From kemmer at rice.edu Thu Apr 12 03:17:02 2007 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:17:02 -0500 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <68982702-BD19-4359-8C62-E0B97E12DAB5@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: I searched on "oraskani" and up came some songs with that word in them, leading to a site for the late recording artist Kazim Koyuncu, bio pasted below. So far I think Paul's got it. --Suzanne Kazim Koyuncu The restless and tall Kazim Koyuncu hailed from the Laz region of Turkey?s Black Sea. This beautiful province alternates stunning green mountains with a rugged coastline not far from the Georgian frontier. Unfortunately, the 250,000 people who speak Laz are the relentless butt of Turkish jokes, paying dearly for their independent and abrasive nature. Since Koyuncu set off on his music career in 1992, he was an enthusiastic ambassador of Laz folklore and traditions. Describing himself as a ?revolutionary? devoted to alternative music, he nevertheless included in his repertory traditional instruments, such as the tulum bagpipes and the kemenc violin. Koyuncu attributed his growing success to a rare ability to sing in five of Turkey?s languages, an attribute which appealed to all generations. In his short but meteoric career Koyuncu stamped himself as one of the leading cultural icons for the Laz people. He died of testicular cancer in June 2005. Many believe he contracted it following the Tchernobyl disaster of 1986. On Apr 11, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the > lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local > Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" > varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"?" > sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". > The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have > their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that > one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the > Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > Help? > > Ma bulur abu abu > A mskva bozo memagu > Memagusis Vixeli > T ora kogovaxeli > > Emine api?xuri > Da?xur ore da?xuri > Moxti ?kim opute?a > Var gagnasen ?a?xuri > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu > Burgulepe ma3unu > Emine skani-?eni > Tolepe omam3unu > > Anderina na?k'vare > Axir oxoriskani > Mot var gokomocaman > Gululun oraskani > > > 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 john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 12 06:22:34 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:22:34 +0300 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <3078.72.95.243.202.1176342983.squirrel@72.95.243.202> Message-ID: I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like Georgian to me. John Quoting Paul Hopper : > Laz? > > > > > Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off > > the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does > > not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and > > voiced bilabial fricative. The"??" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal > > affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. > > Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of > > Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song > > on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. > > > > Help? > > > > Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli > > > > Emine api??xuri Da??xur ore da??xuri Moxti ??kim opute??a Var gagnasen > > ??a??xuri > > > > Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu > > > > Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hartmut at ruc.dk Thu Apr 12 06:39:20 2007 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:39:20 +0200 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <1176358954.461dd02a19ae8@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >Georgian to me. >John > > > > Laz sounds like a good guess. Cf. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/caucasica/lazica/lazvok.htm. mskva apparently means 'beautiful' in Laz. Since Laz is Kartvelian (very close to, but not necessarily mutually intelligible with, Megrelian), Georgian is a cognate, too. Hartmut >Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > >>Laz? >> >> >> >> >> >>>Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the lyrics off >>>the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local Turkish speaker does >>>not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" varies among a /w/, /v/, and >>>voiced bilabial fricative. The"??" sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal >>>affricate we spell "ch". The "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. >>>Otherwise, the letters have their IPA values. I have it on a collection of >>>Turkish songs that one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song >>>on the Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. >>> >>>Help? >>> >>>Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora kogovaxeli >>> >>>Emine api??xuri Da??xur ore da??xuri Moxti ??kim opute??a Var gagnasen >>>??a??xuri >>> >>>Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu >>> >>>Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun oraskani >>> >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Apr 12 06:41:00 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:41:00 +0200 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <1176358954.461dd02a19ae8@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John and others, no, no - Laz is OK (a sister (better: cousin) of Georgian)! See http://www.arhavim.net/arhavim/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=130&func=view&id=1414&catid=39 for details on this poem/song! Best Wolfgang john at research.haifa.ac.il schrieb: >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >Georgian to me. >John > > > > > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Primary contact: Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php ---------------------------------------------------------- Second contact: Katedra Germanistiky' Fakulta humanitny'ch vied Univerzita Mateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica Tajovske'ho 40 SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 12 06:47:20 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:47:20 +0300 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <461DD47C.5010902@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: I didn't say I thought it was Georgian. I said it looked LIKE Georgian. John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear John and others, > no, no - Laz is OK (a sister (better: cousin) of Georgian)! See > http://www.arhavim.net/arhavim/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=130&func=view&id=1414&catid=39 > for details on this poem/song! > Best > Wolfgang > > john at research.haifa.ac.il schrieb: > > >I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like > >Georgian to me. > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof. Dr. Wolfgang > Schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Primary contact: > > > > Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen > > > Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 > > > D-80539 Mu"nchen > > > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 > (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 > (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > > > > Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Second > contact: > > > Katedra Germanistiky' > > > > Fakulta humanitny'ch > vied > > > Univerzita Mateja Be'la / Banska' > Bystrica > > Tajovske'ho > 40 > > > SK-97401 Banska' > Bystrica > > > Tel: > (00421)-(0)48-4465108 > > > Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 > > > Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk > > > > Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 12 11:00:07 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:00:07 -0400 Subject: What language is this? In-Reply-To: <461DD418.1070908@ruc.dk> Message-ID: It wasn't a guess, Hartmut. Laz data appear in a problem in Emmon Bach's Introduction to Transformational Grammars, citing a UT thesis by Raplh Anderson. Given that Johanna's language is spoken in Turkey and that it has a noun plural suffix -epe, clearly cognate with Georgian -eb(e), the possibilities are limited. Paul > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I don't know what I'm talking about, but the elis and uris look like >> Georgian to me. John >> >> >> >> > > > Laz sounds like a good guess. Cf. > http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/caucasica/lazica/lazvok.htm. mskva > apparently means 'beautiful' in Laz. Since Laz is Kartvelian (very close > to, but not necessarily mutually intelligible with, Megrelian), Georgian > is a cognate, too. Hartmut > >> Quoting Paul Hopper : >> >> >> >>> Laz? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Does anyone recognize this language? I got this version of the >>>> lyrics off the Internet. Supposedly, it's Turkish, but a local >>>> Turkish speaker does not recognize ANY of the words. The "v" >>>> varies among a /w/, /v/, and voiced bilabial fricative. The"??" >>>> sounds like the voiceless alveopalatal affricate we spell "ch". The >>>> "x" is a voiceless velar fricative. Otherwise, the letters have >>>> their IPA values. I have it on a collection of Turkish songs that >>>> one dances Turkish dances to. You can sample the song on the >>>> Internet, but I don't have the proper player software. >>>> >>>> Help? >>>> >>>> Ma bulur abu abu A mskva bozo memagu Memagusis Vixeli T ora >>>> kogovaxeli >>>> >>>> Emine api??xuri Da??xur ore da??xuri Moxti ??kim opute??a Var >>>> gagnasen ??a??xuri >>>> >>>> Emine 3ulu 3ulu Burgulepe ma3unu Emine skani-??eni Tolepe omam3unu >>>> >>>> Anderina na??k'vare Axir oxoriskani Mot var gokomocaman Gululun >>>> oraskani >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> >> > > From jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se Thu Apr 12 12:39:30 2007 From: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se (Jordan Zlatev) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:39:30 +0200 Subject: 2nd CFP: SALC conference Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS Includes theme sessions and an updated Scientific Committee list! The First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition (SALC) Lund, Nov 29 - Dec 1, 2007 http://www.salc-sssk.org/ We invite the submission of abstracts for oral or poster presentations for the The First Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition (SALC) to be held at the Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University between Nov 29 and Dec 1, 2007. Presentations should involve research in which language is not treated in isolation (e.g. as a "module"), but both as based on structures and processes of general cognition (e.g. perception, memory and reasoning) and social cognition (e.g. joint attention and imitation), and as affecting such structures and processes. The conference, as SALC in general, is intended to be a forum for the exchange of ideas between disciplines, fields of study and theoretical frameworks. Topics include, but are not limited to: * semantic analysis and cognition * discourse analysis and cognition * grammar and cognition * pragmatics and cognition * semiotics and cognition * linguistic typology and cognition * language and cognitive development * language and cognitive evolution * language change and cogniton * language and gesture * language and consciousness * linguistic relativity.and linguistic mediation Plenary speakers * Susan Goldin-Meadow, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago * Esa Itkonen, Department of Linguistics, University of Turku * Chris Sinha, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth * ?sten Dahl, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Peter G?rdenfors, Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University Theme sessions Space in language and cognition (Conveners: Carita Paradis, Marlene Johansson Falck, Carita Lundmark and Ulf Magnusson) The link between spatial concepts and construals in linguistic expressions and in thought is a rapidly growing field of inquiry which cuts across disciplines such as linguistics, cognitive psychology, anthropology, computer science and philosophy. Oxford University Press will be publishing papers from the session in an edited volume of strictly peer-reviewed papers that capture cutting-edge scholarship in this area. Language and gesture (Conveners: Jordan Zlatev and Cornelia Mueller) While there is a consensus on the close relationship between language and gesture, there is an ongoing debate on the exact relationship between the two: do they constitute a "unified system" (e.g. McNeil) or two closely integrated but distinct semiotic resources (e.g. Donald), supported by distinct cognitive mechanisms (e.g. Kita and ?zy?rek)? We plan a publication of papers addressing this issue from different perspectives: semiotics, interaction studies, development, evolution and neuroscience. One page abstracts (at most 500 words) should be sent as an attachment (MS Word preferred) to Marlene Johansson Falck, at marlene at magicspelling.com by June 1st 2007. Abstracts will then be reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee, and notification of acceptance will be sent by August 1st. Please indicate whether an oral or poster presentation is preferred, and if a poster presentation is acceptable if the space of the program does not allow for an oral presentation. If you wish your contribution to be considered for one of the theme sessions, please indicate this. The conference will be held in English. Registration fees, including conference participation, book of abstracts, and coffee/snacks: * Faculty: 50 euro/450 SEK (40 euro/360 SEK for SALC members) * Students: 40 euro/360 SEK (30 euro/270 SEK for SALC members) On-line registration facilities will be announced in the Final Call for Papers. Important Dates * Feb 23: First Call for Papers * June 1: Deadline for abstract submission * August 1: Notification of acceptance * October 1: Programme announced * Nov 29 (afternoon) - Dec 1 (whole day): Conference Scientific Committee * J?hanna Barddal, Department of Linguistics, University of Bergen * Ingar Brinck, Department of Philosophy, Lund University * Alan Cienki Department of Language and Communication, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam * ?sten Dahl, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Caroline David, D?partement d'?tudes anglophones, Universit? Paul-Val?ry, Montpellier III * Per Durst-Andersen, Centre for Language, Cognition and Mentality, Copenhagen Business School * Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen * Adam Glaz, Department of English UMCS, Lublin * Peter G?rdenfors, Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University * Peter Harder, Department of English, University of Copenhagen * Merle Horne, Department of Linguistics, Lund University * Anders Hougaard, Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark * Daniel Hutto, Philosophy, University of Hetyfordshire * Esa Itkonen, Department of Linguistics, University of Turku * Christer Johansson, Department of Linguistics, University of Bergen * Henryk Kardela, Department of English, Universytet Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej * Suzanne Kemmer, Department of Linguistics, Rice University * Maria Koptjevskaja Tamm, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University * Maarten Leemens, English Linguistics, Universit? de Lille3 * Cornelia Mueller, Department for Cultural Studies, Europa-Universit?t Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) * Chris Sinha, Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth * Victor Smith, Copenhagen Business School * G?ran Sonesson, Department of Semiotics, Lund University * Paul Thibault, Linguistics and Media Communication, Agder University Organizing Committe * Mats Andr?n, Lund University * Marlene Johansson Falck, Stockholm University * Carita Lundmark, Mid Sweden University * Ulf Magnusson, Lule? University of Technology * Carita Paradis, V?xj? University * Jordan Zlatev, Lund University and Ume? University *************************************************** Jordan Zlatev, Associate Professor Department of Linguistics Center for Languages and Literature Lund University Box 201 221 00 Lund, Sweden email: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se http://www.ling.lu.se/persons/JordanZlatev.html *************************************************** From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Apr 12 16:36:49 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:36:49 -0700 Subject: Laz it is Message-ID: Thanks so much for the several replies! It is, indeed, Laz -- the various web pages I found about it mentioned the "Laz" musical tradition, but I had no idea whether the word referred to a region, an ethnic subgroup within Turkish speakers, or even a musical instrument (there is one called a "saz"). Now ... the taller order ... someone who can gloss and translate the song for me????? I'll do some research on the Internet, but if anyone knows someone who can do it, I'd much appreciate a contact tip. Thanks again! 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 iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Thu Apr 12 21:02:16 2007 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:02:16 -0700 Subject: 17th Japanese/Korean Linguistics - First Call In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The 17th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference will be held November 9-11, 2007, on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). 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. This year in addition to the general session, two workshops with guest speakers are scheduled during the conference. Information about these workshops will be available shortly. Papers in all sub-areas of Japanese and Korean linguistics are invited. Presentations 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 JK17 at humnet.ucla.edu by June 15, 2007. 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, followed by the number of words used on the first page of the abstract, excluding the first two lines with the category, the sub-field, and the paper title (e.g., Title (492)). 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, followed by the category, the sub-field, and the paper title (e.g., Title (492)) copied from the top of the first page of the abstract. Use the following subject header for your email: "JK17, 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. From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Apr 13 05:18:36 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:18:36 +0200 Subject: Laz it is In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Johanna, > Now ... the taller order ... someone who can gloss and translate the > song for me????? You might perhaps check the Laz text with Silvia Kutscher, Sevim Genc and Johanna Mattisen who are real experts of Laz and who are involved in the Laz project (basically Ardeshen dialect) of the University of Cologne, see http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifl/asw/forschung/projekte/Lasisch/d_laspro.html Best wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Primary contact: Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php ---------------------------------------------------------- Second contact: Katedra Germanistik? Fakulta humanitn?ch vied Univerzita Mateja B?la / Bansk? Bystrica Tajovsk?ho 40 SK-97401 Bansk? Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri Apr 13 21:26:00 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:26:00 -0700 Subject: Laz -- thanks! Message-ID: Thanks to all the people who responded to my Laz query. I found a group at the U of K?lln who works on Kartvelian languages (and thanks to Wolfgang Schulze for also pointing me to their site), and Silvia Kutscher will help me with the translation. Have a great weekend! 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 ekapia at bu.edu Wed Apr 18 00:49:10 2007 From: ekapia at bu.edu (ekapia at bu.edu) Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:49:10 -0400 Subject: Call For Papers Reminder Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS REMINDER THE 32nd ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 2-4, 2007 Keynote Speaker: Ellen Bialystok, York University "Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism Across the Lifespan" Plenary Speaker: William O?Grady, University of Hawai?i at Manoa "Does Emergentism Have a Chance?" Lunch Symposium: ?Perspectives on the Production, Perception, and Processing of Grammatical Morphemes? Katherine Demuth, Brown University Anne Fernald, Stanford University Lee Osterhout, University of Washington Discussant: Virginia Valian, Hunter College, and CUNY Graduate Center Submissions which present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including: * Bilingualism * Cognition & Language * Creoles & Pidgins * Dialects * Discourse and Narrative * Gesture * Hearing Impairment and Deafness * Input & Interaction * Language Disorders (Autism, Down Syndrome, SLI, Williams Syndrome, etc.) * Linguistic Theory (Syntax, Semantics, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon) * Neurolinguistics * Pragmatics * Pre-linguistic Development * Reading and Literacy * Signed Languages * Sociolinguistics * Speech Perception & Production Presentations will be 20 minutes long followed by a 10 minute question period. Posters will be on display for a full day with two attended sessions during the day. ABSTRACT FORMAT AND CONTENT * Abstracts submitted must represent original, unpublished research. * Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 500 words in length. Text of abstract should fit on one page, with a second page for examples, figures, or references. Abstracts longer than 500 words will be rejected without being evaluated. * Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. Note that word counts should not include the abstract title, figure or table titles, examples, or the list of references. * A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/template.html * Three examples of how to formulate the content of the abstract can be found at: http://www.lsadc.org/info/dec02bulletin/model.html http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/bucholtz/sociocultural/abstracttips.html http://www.ulcl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=5&c=124 * The criteria used by the reviewers to evaluate abstracts can be found at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html#rate * All abstracts must be submitted as PDF documents. Specific instructions for how to create PDF documents are available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/pdfinfo.html. If you encounter a problem creating a PDF file, please contact us for further assistance. Please use the first author's last name as the file name (eg. Smith.pdf). No author information should appear anywhere in the contents of the PDF file itself. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS * Electronic submission: To facilitate the abstract submission process, abstracts will be submitted using the form available at the conference website at http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm. * Specific instructions for abstract submission are available on this website. * Abstracts will be accepted between April 1 and May 15. * Contact information for each author must be submitted via webform. No author information should appear anywhere in the abstract PDF. * At the time of submission you will be asked whether you would like your abstract to be considered for a poster, a paper, or both. Note that this preference is not revealed to the reviewers, and thus is not considered in the review process. * Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation by each author: (a) a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster, and (b) a maximum of 2 papers/posters in any authorship status. Note that no changes in authorship (including deleting an author or changing author order) will be possible after the review process is completed or for publication in the conference proceedings. DEADLINE * All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2007. * Late abstracts will not be considered, whatever the reason for the delay. * We regret that we cannot accept abstract submissions by fax or email. * Submissions via surface mail will only be accepted in special circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. Please contact us well in advance of the submission deadline (May 15, 2007) to make these arrangements. ABSTRACT SELECTION * Each abstract is blind reviewed by 5 reviewers from a panel of approximately 140 international scholars. Further information about the review process is available at http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/reviewprocess.html. * Acknowledgment of receipt of the abstract will be sent by email as soon as possible after receipt. Notice of acceptance or rejection will be sent to first authors only, in early August, by email. Pre-registration materials and preliminary schedule will be available in late August, 2007. * If your abstract is accepted, you will need to submit a 150-word abstract including title, author(s) and affiliation(s) for inclusion in the conference handbook. Guidelines will be provided along with notification of acceptance. * Abstracts accepted as papers will be invited for publication in the BUCLD Proceedings. * Abstracts accepted as posters will be invited for publication online only, but not in the printed version. * All conference papers will be selected on the basis of abstracts submitted. Although each abstract will be evaluated individually, we will attempt to honor requests to schedule accepted papers together in group sessions. * No schedule changes will be possible once the schedule is set. Scheduling requests for religious reasons only must be made before the review process is complete (i.e. at the time of submission). A space is provided on the abstract submission webform to specify such requests. FURTHER INFORMATION Information regarding the conference may be accessed on the BUCLD website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 e-mail: langconf at bu.edu From Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl Fri Apr 20 21:50:16 2007 From: Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl (Sanders, Ted) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:50:16 +0200 Subject: ph.d and postdoc positions at Utrecht University: Causality in di scourse Message-ID: The Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS offers three research positions in the programme ?Causality and Subjectivity as Cognitive principles of discourse representation?. 1 Postdoc position Discourse processing 1 PhD position in Discourse processing 1 PhD position in Text Linguistics, Discourse analysis and Prosody (0,8-1,0 fte for all positions) Programme. The five-year research programme, awarded to prof. dr. Ted Sanders by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), studies human cognition by investigating the mechanisms underlying discourse coherence. Starting from the challenging idea of a direct link between linguistic categorization and cognition, causal connectives are investigated. The project focuses on the analysis, acquisition and processing of causal relations in discourse. The hypothesis is that the cognitive principles of causality and subjectivity play a crucial role; they explain for the organization of the lexicon of connectives in different languages, as well as for the order in which children acquire connectives and the way in which experienced language users interpret causal relations. The program has started in September 2006. The team consists of the program leader, a postdoc working on the cross-linguistic realization of connectives and a ph.d.-student working on connective acquisition. At present, there are three vacancies in the program. The preferred starting date for all positions is September 2007. POSITION 1: a postdoc researcher will investigate the cognitive processes involved in the processing of causal coherence relations. POSITION 2: a ph.d.-student will investigate the processing and interpretation of various types of causal connectives. POSITION 3: a ph.d.-student will investigate the linguistic categorization of causal relations with connectives in Dutch and English, in spoken and written discourse. Goals. The postdoc researcher will be involved in the supervision of ph.d. position 2, and has a coordinating function in the project, including the collection, analysis, and interpretation of research data. The postdoc-project should result in a series of papers in international journals, in collaboration with the project supervisor. The PhD projects involve a research training and aim at a dissertation within maximally four years. As part of their training, PhD students will take courses offered by the National Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT). Qualifications. Applicants for the postdoc project should hold a doctoral degree (completed by 1 September 2007), as well as demonstrated capacities as an independent researcher, in the form of publications. The successful candidate has a background in psycholinguistics or discourse studies, with expertise in the on-line study of reading processes, preferably eye-tracking techniques. Good knowledge of Dutch is an advantage, and excellent mastering of English is preferable. Applicants for the PhD position 2 have graduated in (psycho)linguistics, language and communication, or discourse studies, or expect to graduate before 1 September 2007. Candidates are near-native speakers of English. Further desirable qualifications are: thorough knowledge of Dutch, experience with experimental and corpus-based methods and enthusiasm for language processing. Applicants for the PhD position 3 have graduated in (psycho)linguistics, language and communication, phonetics or discourse studies, or expect to graduate before 1 September 2007. Candidates are native speakers of Dutch. Further desirable qualifications: near-native in English, experience with prosodic analysis and corpus-based methods and enthusiasm for discourse analysis. Work conditions. For position 1, we offer a 2.5 to 3-year postdoc position, preferably 0.8-1.0 fte. Salary depends on qualifications and experience, and amounts to minimally ? 2.934,- and maximally ? 4.027,- (level 11 Collective Employment Agreement of the Dutch Universities) gross per month, for 1.0 fte. For position 2 and 3, we offer a full-time 1-year PhD position (to be extended with a maximum of two more years upon positive evaluation) with gross monthly salary starting at ? 1.956,- increasing to maximally ? 2.502 in the fourth year (for 1.0 fte). For further information, contact dr. Ninke Stukker, postdoc-researcher; telephone +31 30 253 6228, e-mail Ninke.Stukker at let.uu.nl, the project supervisor, Prof. dr. Ted Sanders, e-mail Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl . For information regarding the ph.d.-positions, you can also contact the UiL-OTS PhD coordinator dr. Maaike Schoorlemmer, telephone +31-30-2536183, e-mail Schoorlemmer at let.uu.nl. Also consult our institute's website: http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/ How to apply? We prefer applications by e-mail. E-mail applications should be sent in pdf or doc format to PenO at let.uu.nl and should specify your name and vacancy number in the message as well as in the subject header. Also, include a list of attachments in the message, and specify your name in every attachment. Deadline for application is June 4, 2007. Interviews are planned in the week of August 20. The positions are only officially open after publication of the full and official text of the job openings on the following internet sites, expected on May 5, 2007: Utrecht University (http://www.uu.nl/uupublish/homeuu/homeenglish/1757main.html ), UiL OTS (http://www-uilots.let.uu.nl/) or the program leader?s website (http://www.let.uu.nl/~ted.sanders/personal/en.php/index.html). Candidates should react on the official text. -------------------------------------------------------- Ted Sanders Onderwijsinstituut Nederlandse Taal en Cultuur / Utrecht institute of Linguistics UiL OTS Universiteit Utrecht Trans 10 NL-3512 JK Utrecht The Netherlands T +31 30 2536080 / 8000 F +31 30 2536000 E Ted.Sanders at let.uu.nl http://www.let.uu.nl/~ted.sanders/personal/index.php ------------------------------------------------------ From eitkonen at utu.fi Mon Apr 23 14:14:40 2007 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:14:40 +0300 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: Dear Friends: On Funknet, in the mid and late 90's, I had some delightful discussions with Dan Everett concerning the relative weaknesses and strengths of generativism. When speaking of my then-forthcoming article 'Concerning the generative paradigm' (Journal of Pragmatics 1996, 471-501) I remember saying, among other things, that "history holds the key" for properly understanding the nature of the current situation. "His brow in deep furrows", Dan responded: "I don't understand." By now, however, it has become evident that he does understand. As much is evident from the New Yorker article (April 2007) where he declares that, having in the late 90's discovered Edward Sapir, the long-forgotten genius of American linguistics, he now understands that it will take 20 years to for us to get out of the hole that Chomsky has dug. Surely he would have reached this insight earlier if, instead of going directly from SIL to MIT, he had devoted some time to history (of linguistics) whic h indeed seems to hold the key. Esa P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 15:18:22 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:18:22 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I happily accept Esa's admonishment and judgements. Dan On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:14 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Friends: On Funknet, in the mid and late 90's, I had some > delightful discussions with Dan Everett concerning the relative > weaknesses and strengths of generativism. When speaking of my then- > forthcoming article 'Concerning the generative paradigm' (Journal > of Pragmatics 1996, 471-501) I remember saying, among other things, > that "history holds the key" for properly understanding the nature > of the current situation. "His brow in deep furrows", Dan > responded: "I don't understand." By now, however, it has become > evident that he does understand. As much is evident from the New > Yorker article (April 2007) where he declares that, having in the > late 90's discovered Edward Sapir, the long-forgotten genius of > American linguistics, he now understands that it will take 20 years > to for us to get out of the hole that Chomsky has dug. Surely he > would have reached this insight earlier if, instead of going > directly from SIL to MIT, he had devoted some time to history (of > linguistics) whic > h indeed seems to hold the key. > > Esa > > P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last > page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of > their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In > another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive > remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 18:13:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:13:54 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <18C367C6-5889-4977-9760-E0183A751F53@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: >> >> Esa >> >> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the >> last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 >> of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In >> another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive >> remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >> >> > The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead of Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In any case, I should say that I have read in the history of linguistics regularly since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong since 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any good ideas on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar research program until about 2003 or so. Dan ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 21:21:50 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:21:50 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Jagdish Jain wrote: > Hi Funknet members, > > I have read the buzz created by Dan Everett's claim that PirahaN is > an exceptional language. He also claims that it poses a challenge > to Comsky's linguistics. I have a few observations to make. > > 1. I assume that PirahaN people are cognitively modern human > beings, not chimps or bonobos or rhesus macaques. Their brains (as > physical organs) are like ours. They are genetically endowed with > modern human capabilities --- cognitive recursiveness, metaphoric > mappings, metonymic mappings, etc. Their expression for a foreign > language, according to Everett, is "crooked head." A wonderful > expression! The "head" (rather than "tongue") stands for language > through metonymy, and "crooked" is metaphorically mapped to "bad." > This is very similar to the 19th century British imperialists' > attitude to the languages of India - they were vulgar and inferior > to English. The PirahaN people are good imperialists! > We all are. Yes. > 2. Chomsky has identified the following two traits of language > design as very important: > > (i) Discrete infinity: We can use a small number of discrete > elements (e.g. 8 consonants, 3 vowels, a few tones as in PirahaN to > generate an infinite number of utterances. Dan Everett has given no > evidence to challenge Chomsky on this point. Nor has anybody else. > This is now a noncontroversial point. > This is not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory principles that has been around forever. Languages are not infinite though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor. But these issues will be discussed at the Recursion Conference this week here at ISU. > (ii) Recursiveness: This trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. If a > language does not exploit this trait in one linguistic construction > (e.g. a clause-within-a-clause construction), it may do so in some > other construction (e.g. a NP within a NP, as in "my brother's > son's wife's sister"). It is possible that PirahaN does not use > clause embedding as exemplified by the English sentence, "I know > (that) he lied." They might say, " I know (it). He lied." In Hindi > we cannot embed a small clause as we can in English, " He kicked > the door open." In Hindi we have to say, "He kicked the door. The > door opened." We need to examine other constructions where PirahaN > may use recursion. If we do not find any recursion in any > construction, the only thing we can say that PirahaN has not > exploited this feature of language design. It would be a surprising > fact but it will not disprove the Chomskyan hypothesis that this > trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. > This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages too. The fact that something is available to languages could either follow because it is part of Universal Grammar or because it is part of general human cognitive abilities. That is the question. The lack of recursion in Piraha syntax alongside the clear evidence for recursion in Piraha thought and discourse interpretation and compositional semantics indicates that it is very strange, at the least, to call recursion a fact about grammar or the Faculty of Language, whether FLB or FLN. In fact, Herbert Simon noted years ago (1962) that recursion characterizes all information processing systems, human or not. This cannot be so easily linked to UG, etc. And if I am correct that recursion is absent in Piraha (experiments are on-going) then the simplest hypothesis is that recursion is a fact about brains and not about language. It adds nothing to any debate to say that it is 'available'. Available where, how, and why? In the brain generally due to greater intelligence or in a specialized language compartment, language organ, etc? The evidence suggests the former over the latter. And if I am also correct (maybe not, I grant) that recursion is absent for cultural reasons, then this is culture affecting core grammar in ways that are very difficult to reconcile with the view of recursion as part of the biology. Culture doesn't affect whether hair grows, for example, only how that growth is managed. > 3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation > (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units. cultural > meanings enter the language through its lexicon, metaphors, > metonymies, conceptual blends, etc., NOT through syntax. > Communication involves exchange of ideas, emotional states, etc. > between two parties; it can be done without language, as it seems > that the PirahaN people communicate with each other by prosodic > means only ( humming without using any vowels and consonants of > their language, using nasal whines, popping or flipping their > lips,etc.) The syntax is in fact the claim I have made - the culture affecting the syntax. We all know it can affect the language. > > I am afraid I do not understand this excitement about Dan Everett's > "exceptional findings" about PirahaN. I do not either, since I believe that on closer examination many languages will be found that show similar characteristics. The excitement is not about whether Piraha is exceptional, but whether it and many other languages show that Universal Grammar is an unnecessarily baroque and empirically inadequate hypothesis. Dan From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 23 23:36:50 2007 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:36:50 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken-egg. Cheers, TG ============ Daniel L. Everett wrote: >>> >>> Esa >>> >>> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the last >>> page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. 242 of >>> their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 [1975]). In >>> another context (= p. 160) they quote the following perceptive >>> remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >>> >>> >> > > The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I > believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead of > Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In any > case, I should say that I have read in the history of linguistics > regularly > since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong since > 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any good ideas > on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar research program > until about 2003 or so. > > Dan > > > > ********************** > Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and > Biological Sciences > and > > Chair, > Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures > Campus Box 4300 > Illinois State University > Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 > OFFICE: 309-438-3604 > FAX: 309-438-8038 > > Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp > Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ > Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ > > Honorary Professor of Linguistics > University of Manchester > Manchester, UK > *********** > ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most > clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are > universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or > that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in > the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that > some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be > generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) > > > From dlevere at ilstu.edu Mon Apr 23 23:53:59 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:53:59 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <462D4312.4090400@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin Joos maybe was. D On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which > one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I > could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in > the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme > universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I > would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere > mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- > egg. Cheers, TG > > ============ > > > Daniel L. Everett wrote: > >>>> >>>> Esa >>>> >>>> P.S. The point of my 1996 paper (arrived at, literally, on the >>>> last page) was anticipated by Dell Hymes & John Fought on p. >>>> 242 of their book American Structuralism (Mouton, 1981 >>>> [1975]). In another context (= p. 160) they quote the following >>>> perceptive remark: "You can't fight arrogance with humility." >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> The remark by Hymes and Fought, which I read years ago, is, I >> believe about why Chomsky won over the linguistic world instead >> of Ken Pike. I don't know that I agree with their assessment. In >> any case, I should say that I have read in the history of >> linguistics regularly >> since the 80s and that my appreciation of Sapir has been strong >> since 1979, as I was beginning my PhD, though I didn't have any >> good ideas on how to integrate that into my own ethnogrammar >> research program until about 2003 or so. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> ********************** >> Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and >> Biological Sciences >> and >> >> Chair, >> Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures >> Campus Box 4300 >> Illinois State University >> Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 >> OFFICE: 309-438-3604 >> FAX: 309-438-8038 >> >> Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp >> Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ >> Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ >> >> Honorary Professor of Linguistics >> University of Manchester >> Manchester, UK >> *********** >> ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most >> clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are >> universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people >> or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may >> be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities >> ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to >> be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) >> >> >> > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Tue Apr 24 03:03:40 2007 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David B. Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:03:40 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist either, even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially when linked with a popular reading of Whorf. David At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone >would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin >Joos maybe was. > >D > >On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >>Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- >>egg. Cheers, TG >> >>============ >snip snip From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 05:13:45 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:13:45 EDT Subject: On Everett & Piraha & Pre-Darwinism Message-ID: In a message dated 4/23/07 5:22:47 PM, Dan Everett quoted Jagdish Jain: <<3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units.>> I'm sorry for interjecting at this point with this reaction, and I hope it won't be taken as too antagonistic. I know its not the issue Dan was addressing or how relativist Sapir was. But reading the above paragraph is a shock. I'm wondering how many on this list agree with that statement. It would be just as easy to be contrary, and say that someone here has confused "language" with "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units." The description seems to describe language as some kind of ever-expanding cognitive Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc. -- or why one bit of computation, merging, adjoining, moving might be preferrable to any another. But that's not the especially troubling part. Especially troubling is how it is even possible to think of separating language from communication. If communication is NOT inherent in this definition of language, then I take it that language can exist independent of communication. I would love to see such an animal, not described in generativist analysis, but actually in operation -- stripped of any semblence of communication, speaking to no one and saying nothing, but nevertheless clicking away madly in a vacuum, doing "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units." (And please don't say I've described a computer. Computer operations are entirely shaped and designed to generate an output. Input and output are the defining attributes of any computer process or operation. They determine what the process will be, not the other way around.) <> Will someone please tell me what kind of meanings there are besides "cultural" meanings? What is the addition of the word "cultural" supposed to add to this? And by the way which kind of meaning is it that syntax supplies? Or is it that syntax is meaningless? Wait, don't syntactical changes change meaning? Then, what kind of meaning is changing, if not cultural? One gets the feeling that all this has not been well thought out. <> Communication depends first of all and most of all on common reference. If I don't know what you are talking about, there will be no exchange. If anybody here has any argument against this premise, please, I'd love to hear it. How does syntax, grammar, "generativeness" contribute to a common reference? Well what happens when there's a flaw in syntax, in grammar? For one thing, there's a loss of common reference. Could it be that simple? Separating language from communication is a violation of the Origin of Species. It dates back to the idea that human organs were made prefab before they were ever put to use. The capacity to use language -- to speak -- depended on having someone to speak to, who could understand that speech. Speaking to no one or for no reason was not how human language started. Human language was either about communication or it would have had no survival value and would have been junked by natural selection as an extravagant trait a long time ago. And of course if evolution of language capacity was driven by the need to communicate, then the productive aspects of language -- grammar, syntax, "verbal cognition" -- developed to advance communication. Otherwise, human language capacity is a case of divine intervention or alien contribution -- and its not for naturalistic science to entertain either possibility at this time. <> This is precisely what I heard when I first heard French being spoken out loud in a class room a long time ago-- nasal whines, popping and flipping lips. The reason for the complete failure of communication had nothing to do with my innate language mechanism. The reason was because in the real world there is no such thing as "language." There are only languages. And what I lacked -- as listener -- was commonality with the speaker. To learn French, I had to overcome that lack of common reference. But prosody didn't hurt in the mean time. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 24 06:44:40 2007 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 09:44:40 +0300 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <2A3F1B97-598F-4B00-824C-203898DA4FA4@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Let me say that I have always thought that Dan's work was interesting even before he 'saw the light.' And in the same vein, whatever relativism Sapir had, as far as I'm concerned he didn't let in get in the way of his linguistics; Chomsky's ideology, on the other hand, affects practically everything he does (I say 'practically' because I have always thought 'On wh-movement' was a very interesting article whatever framework you were operating in). But I'm afraid 20 years is not going to be enough to dig ourselves out of the Chomsky hole. I have long maintained that Chomskyism is a sociological phenomenon sustained by Chomsky's apparent charisma and fed by confusion about what linguistics is supposed to be. So even if Chomsky were to pass from the scene tomorrow,* people would still be getting tenure on the basis of association with him for another 10 years or so, and then they would work for another 30 years until they retire gnashing their teeth at new developments and wondering what The Master would have said about the latest problems they're addressing. So I think we're looking at an absolute minimum of 40 years more recovery time. John *PLEASE DON'T FLAME IF THIS SUGGESTION OFFENDS YOU! (this happened when I posted a similar message like 8 years ago) Quoting "Daniel L. Everett" : > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Jagdish Jain wrote: > > > Hi Funknet members, > > > > I have read the buzz created by Dan Everett's claim that PirahaN is > > an exceptional language. He also claims that it poses a challenge > > to Comsky's linguistics. I have a few observations to make. > > > > 1. I assume that PirahaN people are cognitively modern human > > beings, not chimps or bonobos or rhesus macaques. Their brains (as > > physical organs) are like ours. They are genetically endowed with > > modern human capabilities --- cognitive recursiveness, metaphoric > > mappings, metonymic mappings, etc. Their expression for a foreign > > language, according to Everett, is "crooked head." A wonderful > > expression! The "head" (rather than "tongue") stands for language > > through metonymy, and "crooked" is metaphorically mapped to "bad." > > This is very similar to the 19th century British imperialists' > > attitude to the languages of India - they were vulgar and inferior > > to English. The PirahaN people are good imperialists! > > > > We all are. Yes. > > > > 2. Chomsky has identified the following two traits of language > > design as very important: > > > > (i) Discrete infinity: We can use a small number of discrete > > elements (e.g. 8 consonants, 3 vowels, a few tones as in PirahaN to > > generate an infinite number of utterances. Dan Everett has given no > > evidence to challenge Chomsky on this point. Nor has anybody else. > > This is now a noncontroversial point. > > > > This is not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory > principles that has been around forever. Languages are not infinite > though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor. But > these issues will be discussed at the Recursion Conference this week > here at ISU. > > > (ii) Recursiveness: This trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. If a > > language does not exploit this trait in one linguistic construction > > (e.g. a clause-within-a-clause construction), it may do so in some > > other construction (e.g. a NP within a NP, as in "my brother's > > son's wife's sister"). It is possible that PirahaN does not use > > clause embedding as exemplified by the English sentence, "I know > > (that) he lied." They might say, " I know (it). He lied." In Hindi > > we cannot embed a small clause as we can in English, " He kicked > > the door open." In Hindi we have to say, "He kicked the door. The > > door opened." We need to examine other constructions where PirahaN > > may use recursion. If we do not find any recursion in any > > construction, the only thing we can say that PirahaN has not > > exploited this feature of language design. It would be a surprising > > fact but it will not disprove the Chomskyan hypothesis that this > > trait is AVAILABLE to all languages. > > > > This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages > too. The fact that something is available to languages could either > follow because it is part of Universal Grammar or because it is part > of general human cognitive abilities. That is the question. The lack > of recursion in Piraha syntax alongside the clear evidence for > recursion in Piraha thought and discourse interpretation and > compositional semantics indicates that it is very strange, at the > least, to call recursion a fact about grammar or the Faculty of > Language, whether FLB or FLN. In fact, Herbert Simon noted years ago > (1962) that recursion characterizes all information processing > systems, human or not. This cannot be so easily linked to UG, etc. > And if I am correct that recursion is absent in Piraha (experiments > are on-going) then the simplest hypothesis is that recursion is a > fact about brains and not about language. It adds nothing to any > debate to say that it is 'available'. Available where, how, and why? > In the brain generally due to greater intelligence or in a > specialized language compartment, language organ, etc? The evidence > suggests the former over the latter. And if I am also correct (maybe > not, I grant) that recursion is absent for cultural reasons, then > this is culture affecting core grammar in ways that are very > difficult to reconcile with the view of recursion as part of the > biology. Culture doesn't affect whether hair grows, for example, only > how that growth is managed. > > > > 3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation > > (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units. cultural > > meanings enter the language through its lexicon, metaphors, > > metonymies, conceptual blends, etc., NOT through syntax. > > Communication involves exchange of ideas, emotional states, etc. > > between two parties; it can be done without language, as it seems > > that the PirahaN people communicate with each other by prosodic > > means only ( humming without using any vowels and consonants of > > their language, using nasal whines, popping or flipping their > > lips,etc.) > > > The syntax is in fact the claim I have made - the culture affecting > the syntax. We all know it can affect the language. > > > > > I am afraid I do not understand this excitement about Dan Everett's > > "exceptional findings" about PirahaN. > > > I do not either, since I believe that on closer examination many > languages will be found that show similar characteristics. The > excitement is not about whether Piraha is exceptional, but whether it > and many other languages show that Universal Grammar is an > unnecessarily baroque and empirically inadequate hypothesis. > > Dan > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From skopetea at rz.uni-potsdam.de Tue Apr 24 12:20:26 2007 From: skopetea at rz.uni-potsdam.de (Stavros Skopeteas) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:26 +0200 Subject: Book Announcement: Quesada 2007, The Chibchan Languages Message-ID: Quesada, J. Diego. 2007. The Chibchan Languages. Cartago: Editorial Tecnol?gica. 262 pages. ISBN 9977-66-186-3 Paperback Price: US$ 30.00 + shipping. Orders: e-mail: editorial at itcr.ac.cr Fax: 00-506-552-5354 Relatively little is known about the languages spoken at the heart of the American continent, at least in the English-speaking (and hence most widespread) linguistic literature. As a result, confusion about the typological, areal and even genetic relationships existing among those languages and language families is rampant. The languages of Central America are more often than not regarded as residual languages of either Mesoamerica or Amazonia, the surrounding linguistic areas of Central and northern South America, respectively; and within this tradition, the name Chibchan has played the role of a ?ragbag?; the terms Macro-Chibchan, Chibchan-Paezan among others represent a case in point. Thus, in the past, languages as disparate as Paez (Ecuador), Tarasco (Mexico), isolate Warao (Venezuela), as well as members of other language families (e.g. Carib or Aztec), and even languages from as far as Chile (e.g. Atacama) or Argentina (e.g. Allentiac) have been given the label of ?Chibchan?. Such an easy-going attitude shows not only the lack of a strong Chibchan linguistics tradition, but, especially, the need for an up to date, coherent, and modern linguistics-oriented description of this language family. Prefaced by W. Adelaar (University of Leiden), the book offers a thorough presentation of the Chibchan family of languages, with data from all living members of the family, plus extinct Muisca. Chapter 1, The Chibchan languages in areal perspective, introduces this language family in its wider areal dimension, a necessary step given the widespread ignorance in the mainstream literature about both the family per se and its areal affiliation. Chapters 2 and 3, The languages of Central America and The languages of Colombia (and Venezuela), respectively, offer a thorough description of the main structural features of these languages. Each of these chapters opens with a brief description of the main phonological aspects, followed by a comparative description of morphological (e.g. word classes, nominal and verbal categories) and syntactic (word order, grammatical relations, syntactic operations) patterns. The division of the family into Central America and Colombia has to do with important differences that recent archaeological, anthropological and linguistic research has established between these two geographic zones of the Chibchan world. Chapter 4, Relevant topics in Chibchan linguistics, treats in considerable detail three of the most relevant themes of Chibchan: ergativity, participant-highlighting (how prominence is expressed in Chibchan), and intermittent marking of grammatical categories. Chapter 5 wraps up the conclusions of the book in terms of the likely relation between the lack of prominence of grammatical relations and the wealth of participant-encoding and highlighting strategies. From amnfn at well.com Tue Apr 24 15:37:34 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:37:34 -0700 Subject: On Everett & Piraha & Pre-Darwinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The relationship between language and communication is similar to the relationship between sex and procreation. There can be procreation without sex and sex without procreation, although undoubtedly sex has survived because it was of benefit in facilitating the continuation of species. There is a strong causal relationship between the use of language and communication, but language and communication are distinct. We can communicate without language, and we can use language without communicating. There are aspects of language and its structure that can be studied apart from their effect on communication. An even more interesting distinction is that between transfer of information through language and intentional linguistic acts whose purpose is the changing of another's state of mind. Encoding a proposition in a language, and getting someone to believe the truth of that proposition are two different things. Which of them is communication? Transmission of information or changing someone's mind? We can talk to ourselves or to a friend and be overheard by someone that we didn't even know existed. Our speech transmits that information to the unobserved stranger without our ever intending to communicate. On the other hand, we can speak nonsense to an intended audience with the result of making some kind of impression on them, without actually encoding any proposition with our words. Language doesn't have an objective. It's just a phenomenon. Speakers have objectives, but they have many alternate ways of achieving them. Language, as a phenomenon, sometimes helps transmit information despite lack of intention to communicate on the part of speakers. --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/23/07 5:22:47 PM, Dan Everett quoted Jagdish Jain: > <<3. Dan Everett confuses "language" with "communication." Language, > especially syntax, is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, > moving,etc.) with word-sized units.>> > > I'm sorry for interjecting at this point with this reaction, and I hope it > won't be taken as too antagonistic. I know its not the issue Dan was addressing > or how relativist Sapir was. > > But reading the above paragraph is a shock. I'm wondering how many on this > list agree with that statement. > > It would be just as easy to be contrary, and say that someone here has > confused "language" with "computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with > word-sized units." > > The description seems to describe language as some kind of ever-expanding > cognitive Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that > merging, adjoining, moving, etc. -- or why one bit of computation, merging, > adjoining, moving might be preferrable to any another. > > From Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 24 16:33:15 2007 From: Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:33:15 -0600 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <200704240302.l3O32ERA030282@flpi102.sbcis.sbc.com> Message-ID: Indeed, Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full chapter (Chapter 10, Language, Race, and Culture) to the independence of language and culture. The description of the chapter in the first edition reads: Native tendency to consider linguistic, racial, and cultural groupings as congruent. Race and language need not correspond. Cultural and linguistic boundaries not identical. Coincidences between linguistic cleavages and those of language [sic] and culture due to historical, not intrinsic psychological, causes. Language does not in any deep sense "reflect" culture. Don't forget that this was written at a time when nationalistic invocations of the 'spirit of the folk' and its embodiment in language had been going on for some decades in Europe, culminating, of course, in the pseudo-scholarly ditherings that supported national socialism, and that are probably still to be found among apologists for 'ethnic cleansing'. On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:03 PM, David B. Kronenfeld wrote: > Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist either, > even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially when > linked with a popular reading of Whorf. > David > > At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >> I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if anyone >> would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >> was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. Martin >> Joos maybe was. >> >> D >> >> On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>> one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>> could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>> the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>> universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>> would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>> mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or chicken- >>> egg. Cheers, TG >>> >>> ============ >> snip snip > > > > Lise Menn Office: 303-492-1609 Linguistics Dept. Fax: 303-413-0017 295 UCB Hellems 293 University of Colorado Boulder CO 80309-0295 Professor of Linguistics, University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] From dlevere at ilstu.edu Tue Apr 24 17:58:19 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:58:19 -0500 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" In-Reply-To: <978A472C-F904-4568-A6A5-DF90EB2D20FB@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Yes, that is a very important chapter and, as usual, Sapir illustrates his care as a linguist in writing it. It is difficult to find a more balanced approach to language in the history of American linguistics than Sapir. One that combines function, form, culture, society, etc. so well. Dan On Apr 24, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Lise Menn wrote: > Indeed, Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full > chapter (Chapter 10, Language, Race, and Culture) to the > independence of language and culture. The description of the > chapter in the first edition reads: > > Native tendency to consider linguistic, racial, and cultural > groupings as congruent. > Race and language need not correspond. > Cultural and linguistic boundaries not identical. > Coincidences between linguistic cleavages and those of language > [sic] and culture due to historical, not intrinsic psychological, > causes. > Language does not in any deep sense "reflect" culture. > > Don't forget that this was written at a time when nationalistic > invocations of the 'spirit of the folk' and its embodiment in > language had been going on for some decades in Europe, culminating, > of course, in the pseudo-scholarly ditherings that supported > national socialism, and that are probably still to be found among > apologists for 'ethnic cleansing'. > > > > On Apr 23, 2007, at 9:03 PM, David B. Kronenfeld wrote: > >> Yeah, I never thought of Sapir as that extreme a relativist >> either, even though he sometimes was spoken of as such--especially >> when linked with a popular reading of Whorf. >> David >> >> At 04:53 PM 4/23/2007, Daniel L. Everett wrote: >>> I won't comment on the first choice. On the second, I doubt if >>> anyone >>> would disagree with you either. But I don't think that Sapir himself >>> was an extreme relativist. I don't know anyone who is in fact. >>> Martin >>> Joos maybe was. >>> >>> D >>> >>> On Apr 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Of course, if I had to choose between Chomsky and Pike as to which >>>> one was more arrogant, insulated and selef-centered, I'm not sure I >>>> could make a principled decision; maybe flip a coin? Not quite in >>>> the same vein, if I were forced to choose between Chomskian extreme >>>> universalism/innatism and Sapirian extreme relativism/inputism, I >>>> would consider it a bad intellectual choice. I'd bet on somewhere >>>> mid-way between the two; sort of like nature-nurthure or >>>> chicken- egg. Cheers, TG >>>> >>>> ============ >>> snip snip >> >> >> >> > > Lise Menn Office: 303-492-1609 > Linguistics Dept. Fax: 303-413-0017 > 295 UCB Hellems 293 > University of Colorado > Boulder CO 80309-0295 > > Professor of Linguistics, University of Colorado > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From jjain at sfsu.edu Tue Apr 24 19:03:28 2007 From: jjain at sfsu.edu (Jagdish Jain) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:03:28 -0700 Subject: PirahN Message-ID: Dear Funknet members, A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, 2007 I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - Dan Everett) Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's major contribution. It seems even now linguists like Dan Everett do not understand the significance of it. ("Languages are not infinite though, not in practice, so this is to some degree a metaphor." - - Dan Everett) This statement of Dan Everett shows that he is not making a distinction between "the finiteness of an individual user of a language" and "the discrete infinity of language." An individual user of a language has finite time on this planet: he/she is able to speak/understand or write/read only a finite (although very large) number of linguistic expressions. The finiteness is the property of the language user, not that of language. And "recursion" is the key to 'discrete infinity." In response to my statement that recursiveness/recursion is "AVAILABLE to all languages," Dan Everett says, "This says nothing. Facial recognition is available to all languages too." Dan Everett's statement that "FACIAL RECOGNITION is available to all languages" (=is a trait of language design on par with the Chomskyan notion of discrete infinity) is astonishing. If he had intended to say "facial expressions, gestures, etc.," I could have made some sense of it. As far as I am concerned, facial expressions, gestures, etc. are part (very important part) of communication through language, but they are not traits of language design. The are, of course, indispensable in communication through dance in India. Dan Everett's hypothesis that "recursion is a fact about brains and not about language" would astound students of Neural Sciences. The location of the language is inside the human brain in a very important sense (I-language of Chomsky). A response to Steve Long's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, 2007 I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound and meaning (in spoken languages). These are not blind processes. They are highly constrained. For example, the thematic roles (agent, experiencer, theme, etc.) and the conceptual frame of a lexical item are vital for merging operations. If I choose the English lexical item "put." I have to satisfy its conceptual frame, as was pointed out by Charles Fillmore a long time ago : it needs "an entitity that performs the action of putting (agent), "an entitity that is put" (theme) and a place (location). The merging operations must satisfy the thematic roles and language particular principles of the location of complements and subjects. The speaker may produce an expression like "She put the food on the table." But the computation " The food put her on the table" or " It is hard to put food on your family" will not be acceptable because it cannot relate sound and meaning (the primary objective of language). I hope this will answer Steve Long's question, "why one bit of computation, merging, adjoining, moving might be preferable to any other." See a representative sample of English when the computational processes have gone awry. All the examples are from the desk calendar "George W. Bushisms." No disrespect to President Bush is intended. 1. A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness. 2. It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get them out of harm's way. 3. It's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life. 4. I know how hard it is to put food on your family. 5. Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis. 6. We don't want to discourage the innovations and those who take risks because they're afraid of getting sued by a lawsuit. I hope Steve Long will come out of his "shock" that he experienced because of my earlier e-mail note. Jagdish Jain From Salinas17 at aol.com Tue Apr 24 19:38:53 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:38:53 EDT Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: In a message dated 4/24/07 12:47:34 PM, Lise.Menn at Colorado.EDU writes: << Sapir's 1921 very accessible book 'Language' devotes a full chapter...to the independence of language and culture. >> Just so that this is not misunderstood, Sapir was addressing anthropological cultures, not "human culture" in general. He was fundamentally addressing the issue brought on by the 19th Century version of "cultural evolution" theory, which said that "superior races or cultures" showed themselves in having "superior languages." This didn't really go to the relativistic question. Sapir concluded in the chapter mentioned: "From this it follows that all attempts to connect particular types of linguistic morphology with certain correlated stages of cultural development are vain. Rightly understood, such correlations are rubbish.... Both simple and complex types of language of an indefinite number of varieties may be found spoken at any desired level of cultural advance. When it comes to linguistic form, Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the head-hunting savage of Assam."


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 24 19:57:01 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 15:57:01 -0400 Subject: PirahN Message-ID: Given the possible emotional and social consequences of the messages being passed back and forth here, I'm starting to feel that the Puzzle Box from the movie Hellraiser inspires more accurate functionally-oriented imagery than the simple structuralist implications of 'the ever-expanding Rubik's Cube'. Have I hit the nail(s) on the head? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 24 20:16:50 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:16:50 -0400 Subject: On Everett & Piraha: "history holds the key" Message-ID: Plato and Confucius- may hap so.... but might not different language types correlate with different strategies of backgrounding versus foregrounding information, which itself may say something about the stability of the generic lifestyles of speakers? Fixity of combination, in polysynthesis, for instance, may imply reliance on formula, deep backgrounding, communicative efficiency, perhaps less willingness to experiment in long-term straitened circumstances. Do analytical/isolating languages tend to come from 'easier' environments allowing for more leisure and play, both in living and communicating? Has anyone ever done a study to ascertain whether anything like this might be the case? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From Arie.Verhagen at let.LeidenUniv.nl Tue Apr 24 20:52:13 2007 From: Arie.Verhagen at let.LeidenUniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:52:13 +0200 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important contributions to the field (where would syntax be without him?) - let me address at least one of the misunderstandings in Jagdish Jain's response to Dan Everett and Steve Long. Surely the concept of 'discrete infinity' (perhaps not the term) as characteristic of human language has been around long before Chomsky. It is present, for example, in pre- Chomskyan structuralism such as Martinet's (1949) notion of "double articulation" ("articulation" equals discreteness), and Hockett's (1958) equivalent "duality of patterning" (a somewhat less felicitous phrase). These are about a finite, in fact very limited, set of phonemes mapping onto a basically unlimited number of signals, actually already a lexicon of in principle unlimited length (there being no non-arbitrary boundary to the number of phonemes in a word). Chomsky could have said something like: "Hockett is right that language provides finite means for non-finite ends, but he is wrong in restricting it to phonology and lexicon; in fact the same applies (again), independently, in syntax, taking a finite set of words into an infinite number of messages." - it would certainly have been a major contribution. Instead, he said something like "People have not appreciated that language uses finite means for non-finite ends, and it is syntax that is the source of this very special property." It may have driven the message home more forcefully than a more moderate and nuanced way of putting it, but it has also laid the foundation for a lot of confusion and misunderstandings since then. As to other things, such as different applications and notions of recursion - well, I hope we will have a chance to discuss these in an open-minded and respectful way, in the conference at the end of the week as well as on the list. Best, --Arie Verhagen ---------------- Message from Jagdish Jain 24 Apr 2007, 12:03 Subject: [FUNKNET] PirahN > Dear Funknet members, > > A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, > 2007 > > I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN > people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - > Dan Everett) > > Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact > about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete > infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had > existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of > structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of > linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's > major contribution. [...] ---------------------------------------- Arie Verhagen Opleiding Nederlands/LUCL P.N. van Eyckhof 1 2311 BV Leiden tel. +31 (0)71 527-4152 www.arieverhagen.nl ---------------------------------------- From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Tue Apr 24 23:24:34 2007 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David B. Kronenfeld) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:24:34 -0700 Subject: was PirahN Message-ID: I don't want to get into the present discussion (the part I snipped out, and the trail it replied to)--probably don't know enough to do it. But on Chomsky's role and effects I do have some thoughts. I think it is important to separate Chomsky's linguistics, narrowly taken from the philosophic affiliations and the psychological imperatives that he adduces his linguistic work in support of. The former flows very smoothly from his teacher, Zellig Harris, and then develops from there. Working through SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES was a a eureka experience for me when I encountered it in an undergraduate linguistics course; some particularly previously confusing parts of English syntax all of a sudden became totally clear. And then, later, I valued ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX. And, still, today, I find the ideas of "base structure" and "deep structure" different, each useful (for very different purposes), and not at all incompatible. I haven't much kept up with what he's subsequently done--since, as a professional anthropologist interested in semantics and pragmatics, I've moved away from any ongoing interest in the subsequent development of Transformational/Generative approaches to syntax (or phonology). Chomsky's philosophy and psychology--including the details implied by his discussions of "innatism" and "Language Acquisition Device" and so forth--are not at all necessarily entailed by his linguistics work, his apparent claims notwithstanding. For those who might be curious, this set of problems is one that I have discussed in a couple of papers--one quite old and one recent. Kronenfeld, David B. 1979 Innate Language? Language Sciences 1:209-239. 2006 Formal Rules, Cognitive Representations, and Learning in Language and Other Cultural Systems. Language Sciences Vol 28: 424-435. I can provide hard copy reprints of the former. The latter is available on line in one of two forms (same text)--preface either line below with "http:" e-copy of article on formal rules and cognition: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.06.001 or as typescript //repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/1721 David At 01:52 PM 4/24/2007, Arie Verhagen wrote: >With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important >contributions to the field (where >would syntax be without him?) - snip snip David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu From amnfn at well.com Wed Apr 25 05:23:10 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:23:10 -0700 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <462E8A1D.28138.76A951@Arie.Verhagen.let.LeidenUniv.nl> Message-ID: Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or inanimate, recursion is everywhere. Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the song. It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. Best, --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Arie Verhagen wrote: > > With all due respect, also for Chomsky and his important contributions to the field (where > would syntax be without him?) - let me address at least one of the misunderstandings in > Jagdish Jain's response to Dan Everett and Steve Long. > > Surely the concept of 'discrete infinity' (perhaps not the term) as characteristic of human > language has been around long before Chomsky. It is present, for example, in pre- > Chomskyan structuralism such as Martinet's (1949) notion of "double articulation" > ("articulation" equals discreteness), and Hockett's (1958) equivalent "duality of > patterning" (a somewhat less felicitous phrase). These are about a finite, in fact very > limited, set of phonemes mapping onto a basically unlimited number of signals, actually > already a lexicon of in principle unlimited length (there being no non-arbitrary boundary > to the number of phonemes in a word). Chomsky could have said something like: > "Hockett is right that language provides finite means for non-finite ends, but he is wrong > in restricting it to phonology and lexicon; in fact the same applies (again), independently, > in syntax, taking a finite set of words into an infinite number of messages." - it would > certainly have been a major contribution. Instead, he said something like "People have > not appreciated that language uses finite means for non-finite ends, and it is syntax that > is the source of this very special property." It may have driven the message home more > forcefully than a more moderate and nuanced way of putting it, but it has also laid the > foundation for a lot of confusion and misunderstandings since then. > > As to other things, such as different applications and notions of recursion - well, I hope > we will have a chance to discuss these in an open-minded and respectful way, in the > conference at the end of the week as well as on the list. > > Best, > --Arie Verhagen > > ---------------- > Message from Jagdish Jain > 24 Apr 2007, 12:03 > Subject: [FUNKNET] PirahN > > > Dear Funknet members, > > > > A response to Dan Everett's comments on my e-mail note of April 23, > > 2007 > > > > I am happy to read that Dan Everett recognizes that the PirahaN > > people are cognitively modern human beings. ("We all are, yes." - > > Dan Everett) > > > > Dan Everett says that discrete infinity is "not a Chomskyan principle. Just a fact > > about combinatory principles that has been around for ever." The phrase " discrete > > infinity" is Chomsky's. It is true that the notion of "combinatory principles" had > > existed in all forms of linguistics, for example, in Immediate-Constituent Analysis of > > structural linguistics. But the idea that you can generate an infinite number of > > linguistic expressions by using a finite number of linguistic elements was Chomsky's > > major contribution. [...] > > ---------------------------------------- > Arie Verhagen > Opleiding Nederlands/LUCL > P.N. van Eyckhof 1 > 2311 BV Leiden > > tel. +31 (0)71 527-4152 > www.arieverhagen.nl > ---------------------------------------- > > > From Mike_Cahill at sil.org Wed Apr 25 14:11:25 2007 From: Mike_Cahill at sil.org (Michael Cahill) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:11:25 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In response to Aya Katz below, Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object or event or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these subparts into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a molecule is composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each atom of a molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms within atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. Repetition is not recursion. Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. Mike Cahill ************************************************************** Dr. Michael Cahill International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. Dallas, TX 75236 USA email: mike_cahill at sil.org phone: 972-708-7328 fax: 972-708-7380 ************************************************************** ***************************************************************************** Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or inanimate, recursion is everywhere. Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the song. It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. Best, --Aya Katz From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 14:16:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:16:54 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is roughly correct, Mike. However, as the papers at the first international conference on Recursion in Human Language, to begin here at ISU on Friday April 27 show, there are various potential understandings and applications of recursion. Some forms of recursion are equivalent formally to nothing more than iteration. Others require embedding. Some definitions make it the basis for hierarchical structures (so hierarchy and recursion are the same in these views), others equate it more with embedding. A lot of clarification is needed. If you cannot make the conference on recursion, we hope to publish a book afterwards. But people should try to be there. Funny that in spite of how important it has become in recent months, there are so few attempts to reach consensus on what it is. Many people think it is self-evident. Not so. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object > or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these > subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a > molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and > electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each > atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms > within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. > Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** > ******* > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- > or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion > runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are > composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of > magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is > animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if > there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, > then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch > patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content > of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is > not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It > is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, > that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From Mike_Cahill at sil.org Wed Apr 25 14:24:20 2007 From: Mike_Cahill at sil.org (Michael Cahill) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:24:20 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <5883B1F8-5096-4723-9593-31C32A91DC62@ilstu.edu> Message-ID: Well, good luck on getting everyone on the same page! I must confess I had no idea anyone would talk of iterations as "recursion." If you do nothing more at the conference than agreeing on a common definition, that will still be a significant accomplishment. Mike "Daniel L. Everett" Mike_Cahill at sil.org Sent by: cc funknet-bounces at m Arie Verhagen ailman.rice.edu , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu, 04/25/2007 09:16 "A. Katz" AM Subject Re: [FUNKNET] PirahN This is roughly correct, Mike. However, as the papers at the first international conference on Recursion in Human Language, to begin here at ISU on Friday April 27 show, there are various potential understandings and applications of recursion. Some forms of recursion are equivalent formally to nothing more than iteration. Others require embedding. Some definitions make it the basis for hierarchical structures (so hierarchy and recursion are the same in these views), others equate it more with embedding. A lot of clarification is needed. If you cannot make the conference on recursion, we hope to publish a book afterwards. But people should try to be there. Funny that in spite of how important it has become in recent months, there are so few attempts to reach consensus on what it is. Many people think it is self-evident. Not so. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object > or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these > subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a > molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and > electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each > atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms > within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. > Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ********************************************************************** > ******* > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- > or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion > runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are > composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of > magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is > animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if > there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, > then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch > patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content > of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is > not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It > is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, > that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > ********************** Daniel L. Everett, Professor of Linguistics, Anthropology, and Biological Sciences and Chair, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures Campus Box 4300 Illinois State University Normal, Illinois 61790-4300 OFFICE: 309-438-3604 FAX: 309-438-8038 Dept: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/default.asp Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ Personal: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/dlevere/ Honorary Professor of Linguistics University of Manchester Manchester, UK *********** ?The notion that the essence of what it means to be human is most clearly revealed in those features of human culture that are universal rather than in those that are distinctive to this people or that is a prejudice that we are not obliged to share... It may be in the cultural particularities of people ? in their oddities ? that some of the most instructive revelations of what it is to be generically human are to be found.? Clifford Geertz (1926-2006) From wilcox at unm.edu Wed Apr 25 14:36:44 2007 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 08:36:44 -0600 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm with Mike on this one. I can't make the conference, but here's my vote for a definition of recursion (from a computer scientist): ?Recursive structures are built of components that are structurally identical to themselves? (Gelernter 1998: 59). Gelernter, D. (1998). Machine beauty: Elegance and the heart of technology. NY: Basic Books. -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 14:41:57 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:41:57 -0500 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: <65D797B8-D09D-4A9E-A0C3-29A1AB925E7D@unm.edu> Message-ID: There will be computer scientists, linguists, psychologists, biologists, and anthropologists at the conference. A number of twists in the typology, definition, etc. The conference website is at the bottom of this message. Dan On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > I'm with Mike on this one. I can't make the conference, but here's > my vote for a definition of recursion (from a computer scientist): > > ?Recursive structures are built of components that are structurally > identical to themselves? (Gelernter 1998: 59). > Gelernter, D. (1998). Machine beauty: Elegance and the heart of > technology. NY: Basic Books. > > > > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > > ********************** Recursion: http://www.llc.ilstu.edu/rechul/ From andreamates at gmail.com Wed Apr 25 17:33:07 2007 From: andreamates at gmail.com (Andrea Mates) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:33:07 -0700 Subject: Jain & neuroscience Message-ID: Jain: > "Dan Everett's hypothesis that "recursion is a fact about brains and not > about language" would astound students of Neural Sciences. The location of > the language is inside the human brain in a very important sense (I-language > of Chomsky)." > You may take the following for whatever grain of salt seems appropriate since I'm not entirely clear on "recursion" or "I-language"; however, I am a student of neuroscience. The neuroscience community does not support LAD or an innatist position on language. By neuroscience, I do not mean psychologists using ERPs as a measurment device. Joaquin Fuster who works with single cell studies of working memory cells and Marco Iacoboni a brain mapper who has worked on the mirron neuron system both find claims of a LAD or innate language untenable. They report that they know no colleagues who believe otherwise. Of course, language use is an embrained activity but one that depends on domain general mechanisms. Insofar as this is recursive we can say there is general recursivity in the brain. But since it appears that recusivity is not an agreed upon term, who knows what is where. Andrea -- Andrea W. Mates Neurobiology of Language Research Group Department of Applied Linguistics & TESL University of California, Los Angeles Please pardon the multiple email addresses, they all forward to the same inbox. From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 18:00:24 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:00:24 EDT Subject: PirahN Message-ID: n a message dated 4/25/07 10:13:30 AM, Mike_Cahill at sil.org writes: <> Well, there's another approach that adds some functional emphasis, rather than just observing this structural feature without direct concern with why it would be there.? Some "hierarchical" repetitive patterns serve the purpose of reducing uncertainty (e.g., Fibonacci).? Information theory would call such an element "redundancy" whether it is "recursive" or not. I hope this kind of approach will be at your conference, Dan. Steve Long ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From dlevere at ilstu.edu Wed Apr 25 18:24:54 2007 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:24:54 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [FUNKNET] PirahN Message-ID: I was asked to post this on behalf of Fred Karlsson Dan Begin forwarded message: > From: fgk at mappi.helsinki.fi > Date: April 25, 2007 12:42:12 PM CDT > To: Mike_Cahill at sil.org > Cc: "Daniel L. Everett" , Arie Verhagen > , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu, "A. Katz" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] PirahN > > It is common knowledge in computer science (and should be > it in linguistics) that **tail-recursion**, i.e. recursion > leftwards as in English stacked genitives (Sue's mother's ...), > or rightwards as in stacked final embeddings (.. said > that ... thought that ... claimed that ...), is formally > equivalent to iteration. See Aho et el. (1986: 53) for details. > > Center-embedding is another matter: this is full-blown recursion, > requiring a stack for everything to be properly wound up. > > Fred Karlsson > > > Aho, A. V., Sethi, R. & Ullman, J. D. (1986). Compilers. Reading, > Mass.: > Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. > > > Citerar Mike_Cahill at sil.org: > >> Well, good luck on getting everyone on the same page! I must >> confess I >> had >> no idea anyone would talk of iterations as "recursion." If you do >> nothing >> more at the conference than agreeing on a common definition, that >> will >> still be a significant accomplishment. >> >> Mike >> >> From amnfn at well.com Wed Apr 25 19:03:30 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:03:30 -0700 Subject: PirahN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Things composed of atoms don't look like giant atoms, but the subcomponents of trees -- trunks, branches, twigs, etc. -- do look like each other. I'm talking about real trees, not the abstract kind used by Chomsky. It's as if the program for making a tree had a subroutine that said "grow a branch". It looks as if the tree growing program called on the same subroutine many times during the life of the tree. This type of iteration is found throughout nature. It is more than hierarchy, and the effect is not redundancy. It's getting a lot of mileage out of the same pattern. --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 Mike_Cahill at sil.org wrote: > In response to Aya Katz below, > > Isn't this conflating recursion and hierarchy? Of course an object or event > or polymorphemic word can be broken down into subparts, and these subparts > into other subparts. Hierarchy is indeed built into nature: a molecule is > composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, > and these can be broken down as well. The difference is that each atom of a > molecule is on the same level as other atoms - we don't have atoms within > atoms. Recursion is embedding - clause within clause, etc. Repetition is > not recursion. > > Just so we're clear on what we're discussing. > > Mike Cahill > > ************************************************************** > Dr. Michael Cahill > International Linguistics Coordinator, SIL International > 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd. > Dallas, TX 75236 > USA > > email: mike_cahill at sil.org > phone: 972-708-7328 > fax: 972-708-7380 > ************************************************************** > ***************************************************************************** > Of course language uses finite means to achieve non-finite ends -- or at > least, indeterminately long ends. So does DNA code and computer code, > without the intermediary of the human mind. That kind of recursion runs > throughout nature, just in the way a flower's patterns are full of the > repetition of the same subpatterns and just as snowflakes are composed of > tiny miniature patterns that repeat at different levels of magnification to > form the whole. It doesn't matter whether the item we examine is animate or > inanimate, recursion is everywhere. > > Even if a language doesn't have a very complex syntax, even if there are > not any dependent clauses or embedding, the language has recursion > in its phonology and morphology. Surely the words of PirahaN are not > monolithic wholes with no subparts that recur in other words. Even if > Keren Everett is correct in her assessment that the real grammar of > PirahaN is in the prosody and not in the non-prosodic segments, then still > there must be something that recurs -- musical notes or pitch patterns. > > After all, even if you listen to songbirds, a song is composed of > recurring musical phrases whose arrangement is the specific content of the > song. > > It is impossible to get away from that kind of recursion, but it is not > necessarily hardwired in the human brain in a language module. It is built > into the mathematics of reality. If you want to encode information, that is > how you are going to have to do it. There is no other way. > > Best, > > > --Aya Katz > > > > > > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Wed Apr 25 22:00:00 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:00:00 EDT Subject: Recursion Message-ID: In a message dated 4/25/07 2:26:28 PM, dlevere at ilstu.edu writes: << It is common knowledge in computer science (and should be in linguistics) that **tail-recursion**... is formally equivalent to iteration. See Aho et el. (1986: 53) for details. Center-embedding is another matter: this is full-blown recursion, requiring a stack for everything to be properly wound up. >> Fred Karlson has effectively argued that multiple center-embedding of clauses has been constrained in Standard Average European, that it developed with writing and that it has not become more complex since. (This raises the question of what exactly recursiveness is supposed to bring to language -- what possible survival value it would have, how it improves language? I suppose that it might contribute gradual compactness. Or disambiguation -- but in a way that is what any kind of added complexity is to language -- more disambiguation at the price of added complexity.) Last year, Timothy Gentner et al demonstrated recursive syntactic pattern learning in starlings. That these songbirds are "vocal learners" was considered as a key determinant in the experiments -- as opposed to non-human primates who did not perform well in similar experiments. This is a particularly interesting quote from the above report: "There might be no single property or processing capacity that marks the many ways in which the complexity and detail of human language differs from non-human communication systems... It may be more useful to consider species differ ences as quantitative rather than qualitative distinctions in cognitive mechanisms." It is also worth noting that there are those who consider the whole recursion issue a red herring. Philip Lieberman, who is professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown and recently authored the book "Toward an evolutionary biology of language" had the following to say in a yet-unpublished letter: "Tecumseh Fitch, no doubt will be able to convince himself and Chomsky?s other acolytes that the Piraha language involves recursion, but that won?t salvage Universal Grammar There is no Universal Grammar specific to language that specifies the possible rules of syntax of every language that is, was, or will be spoken. We don?t have to debate whether recursion marks Piraha to rule out Universal Grammar. The ever present occurrence of genetic variation, which as Charles Darwin noted is the key to Natural Selection, makes any form of Universal Grammar problematic." Some may come to the conclusion that, even if it makes or breaks Universal Grammar, recursiveness in language may in the end be a kind of a parlour trick -- a test of pattern generation and recognition or a vestige of Ciceronian verbosity, which little to do with the basic nature of language. Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From Salinas17 at aol.com Fri Apr 27 05:05:19 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:05:19 EDT Subject: Language and Communication Message-ID: In a message dated 4/25/07 11:40:16 AM, jjain at sfsu.edu writes: << I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound and meaning (in spoken languages). >> So, putting the elements together we have: "Language... is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, moving,etc.) with word-sized units... [whose] objective is to relate sound and meaning..." So we have this "object" that's doing all these computations in order to "relate sound and meaning." So my question is... Why relate sound to meaning or meaning to sound? What does sound got to do with this? Let say we leave sound out of this for the moment. Is this computating object still "language" if only meaning is involved? Do we call it language if Jagdish's object is just doing computation to relate meanings to one another or whatever it is computing? If sound is one of the objectives of this "cognitive object" called language, well what is the sound for? All one has to do is talk out loud to oneself to accomplish "language"? Of course, the reason sound is part of the objective is because the word "language" presumes that there are speakers and listeners. This is of course communication. Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that supposedly support the LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone else is supposed to hear it. Now there may be a case where one person talks only to himself in his own personal language. But that could not be how human language started. Defining language without including communication is like defining a motor car without mentioning that it moves and is supposed to take you from place to place. The study of syntax and of the structure of language is extremely valuable. But to say that language itself is not communication is to see only structure and not function. And it is not even remotely plausible that language should be made up of sound (more properly symbol) without any need for those sounds to be heard. These purely structural view of language is pre-Darwinian precisely because it can give no account of how such a thing as human language could have developed. <> It's been officially upgraded to "shocked and appalled." Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From amnfn at well.com Fri Apr 27 08:34:47 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:34:47 -0700 Subject: Language and Communication In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This may be a little tangential to the discussion between Steve Long and and J. Jain about viewing language as a series of computational type moves, but I still think it's an important point: the objectives of speakers and the effect of language on other speakers are not necessarily the same. The motive for sound-to-meaning mapping on the part of speakers can be self-expression, even though the overall effect is communication with others. >>From an evolutionary point of view, it is not clear that language necessarily emerged due to the intent to communicate with others. In all likelihood, self expression was the initial motive of speakers, even though it was communication with others that served as the force that kept that motive a part of our human behavioral repertoire. We eat because we are hungry. The effect of eating is that we have enough energy to continue to live. Copulation is motivated by sexual urges. Procreation is the result. Almost anything necessary for the survival of the species is motivated in the individual by a psychological need, not by a general understanding of what filling that need will achieve. Even when we do understand how things work, the underlying motivation is still the primitive one. Animal calls, from which human language may have derived, map sounds onto meanings: the arrival of a particular kind of predator, the ripening of a particular fruit. However, the reason individuals emit these calls is not necessarily the intent to alert others. It is most likely that they feel an urgent desire to express their fear or joy -- a desire so strong they cannot master it. These cries often endanger the lives of the indviduals emitting them, but they enhance the survival of the group. Sitting at the table with us, Bow, a five year old chimpanzee, cannot help emitting food cries when he gets a food he really likes. The sounds are louder than normal dinner conversation. My seven year old daughter keeps berating him for being rude. Bow, however, can't help himself. The urge to make those sounds is one he cannot master. He is not doing it to communicate with us. However, any chimpanzee within earshot would know that he is eating -- and what. --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/25/07 11:40:16 AM, jjain at sfsu.edu writes: > << I am sorry that Steve Long finds the concept of the computational > processes of merging, adjoining etc, as "a shock" because he thinks I am describing > language "as some kind of ever-expanding Rubik's cube, but leaving out any > mention of the objective of all that merging, adjoining, moving, etc." > > No, I am not leaving out of the objective. The objective is to relate sound > and meaning (in spoken languages). >> > > So, putting the elements together we have: > "Language... is a cognitive object involving computation (merging, adjoining, > moving,etc.) with word-sized units... [whose] objective is to relate sound > and meaning..." > > So we have this "object" that's doing all these computations in order to > "relate sound and meaning." > > So my question is... Why relate sound to meaning or meaning to sound? What > does sound got to do with this? > > Let say we leave sound out of this for the moment. Is this computating > object still "language" if only meaning is involved? Do we call it language if > Jagdish's object is just doing computation to relate meanings to one another or > whatever it is computing? > > If sound is one of the objectives of this "cognitive object" called language, > well what is the sound for? All one has to do is talk out loud to oneself to > accomplish "language"? > > Of course, the reason sound is part of the objective is because the word > "language" presumes that there are speakers and listeners. > > This is of course communication. > > Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language > that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that supposedly support the > LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that > learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not > learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from > another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. > And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone > else is supposed to hear it. > > Now there may be a case where one person talks only to himself in his own > personal language. But that could not be how human language started. > > Defining language without including communication is like defining a motor > car without mentioning that it moves and is supposed to take you from place to > place. > > The study of syntax and of the structure of language is extremely valuable. > But to say that language itself is not communication is to see only structure > and not function. And it is not even remotely plausible that language should > be made up of sound (more properly symbol) without any need for those sounds > to be heard. > > These purely structural view of language is pre-Darwinian precisely because > it can give no account of how such a thing as human language could have > developed. > > < of my earlier e-mail note.>> > > It's been officially upgraded to "shocked and appalled." > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


**************************************
See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Apr 27 16:07:39 2007 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:07:39 -0500 Subject: Language and Communication Message-ID: Though you might have to admit, Steve, that the private language of twins is an interesting case that could possibly relate to language origins. In such a case one has genetically near-identical (near because of genetic changes that occur somatically after the twins split) entities which invent their own communicative system. Twins in the same environment are likely to share much in the way of points of view, personality, etc. that therefore don't have to be negotiated around (even if they will likely differentiate as they get older). I would imagine that social insect communication as in wasps, ants, and bees is like this to some extent, since worker sisters are very close genetically. As for how this might relate to the human story, consider that humans have 46 chromosomes, while all extant apes (including our nearest relatives the chimps and bonobos) have 48. There would have to have been a major chromosomal fusion event, which would make it much more likely that nearest relatives would have had to be mated, since big problems would occur if normal 48'ers tried their luck with 46'ers (or rather the haploid numbers of 24 vs. 23). There have been, in addition, major inversion events as well between humans and apes, where large chunks of genetic material have been turned end for end on chromosomes, which doesn't much disrupt function (though regulation will change), yet again will cause issues when nonidentical varieties are aligned after mating. So more likely nearest relatives will get the job done again. As with *identical* twins, nearest relatives will share a great deal that might facilitate the development of a communication system a bit less fully developed than modern languages, yet more so than the usual systems found in genetically diverse populations of conspecifics. And we know that the founder populations of modern humans went through a tight genetic bottleneck. How many times has this happened? Major genetic events might also have disrupted existing communicative systems as those that are found in extant apes- could such event have created communicative saltations? Opened up the systems for learning rather than instinct, moving control to the cortex? Might it be that it is not primarily the brain that could be *modular* in this regard, but the genome itself? It would be very interesting to see what kind of communication APE twins would come up with. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From Vyv.Evans at brighton.ac.uk Fri Apr 27 16:37:57 2007 From: Vyv.Evans at brighton.ac.uk (Vyvyan Evans) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:37:57 +0100 Subject: 1st CFP: Language, Communication & Cognition: Brighton 4-7 Aug 2008 Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS Conference on LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND COGNITION University of Brighton, August 4th-7th 2008, Brighton, UK Website: www.languageandcognition.net The conference on Language, Communication and Cognition aims to promote an interdisciplinary, comparative, multi-methodological approach to the study of language, communication and cognition, informed by method and practice as developed in Cognitive Linguistics. The objective is to contribute to our understanding of language as a key aspect of human cognition, using converging and multi-disciplinary methodologies, based upon cross-linguistic, cross-cultural, and cross-population comparisons. The conference will address the following themes: -Language, creativity and imagination -Language in use -Meaning and grammar -Communication, conceptualisation and gesture -Language and its influence on thought -Language acquisition and conceptual development -Origins and evolution of language and mind Keynote speakers The following distinguished scholars will be giving keynote lectures relating to the conference themes: Lera Boroditsky, Stanford University Herbert H. Clark, Stanford University Adele Goldberg, Princeton University Sotaro Kita, Birmingham University George Lakoff, University of California, Berkeley Michael Tomasello, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig Theme Sessions In addition to a General Session and a Poster Session, there will be 6 specially-convened theme sessions, with specially invited discussants. These are as follows: 1. The socio-cultural, cognitive and neurological bases of metaphor Discussants: George Lakoff and Vyv Evans 2. Cognitive and social processes in language use Discussants: Herbert Clark and Paul Hopper 3. Constructional approaches to grammar and first language acquisition Adele Goldberg and Eve V. Clark 4. The role of gesture in communication and cognition Discussants: Sotaro Kita and Alan Cienki 5. The social and cognitive bases of language evolution Discussants: Chris Sinha and tbc 6. Linguistic relativity: Evidence and methods Discussants: Lera Borodistsky and tbc Submission of abstracts Submissions are solicited for the general session, the theme sessions, and the poster session. The abstract guidelines for all sessions are as follows: --Abstracts should not exceed 500 words - references are excluded from this count --Abstracts should clearly indicate a presentation title --Abstracts should be anonymous for purposes of blind peer-review --Abstracts should be formatted as Word, RTF or PDF documents --Abstracts should be submitted electronically to LCC at brighton.ac.uk Please include the following information in the main body of your email: --title and name of author(s) --affiliation --email address for correspondence --presentation title --3-5 keywords --preferred session for presentation: either general session, poster session, or theme session (please specify theme session number or title) Please include the following information in the subject header of your email: --"Abstract Submission - author(s) name(s)" ABSTRACT DEADLINE: November 26th 2007 For full details please consult the conference website: http://www.languageandcognition.net Organisers The conference is organised by Vyv Evans and St?phanie Pourcel Contact The conference email address is LCC at brighton.ac.uk Web details are available at: www.languageandcognition.net From dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com Fri Apr 27 20:14:21 2007 From: dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com (Denis Donovan) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:14:21 -0400 Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" Message-ID: At 1:05 AM -0400 4/27/07, Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: >Even Pinker has not gone so far as to "discover" a self-blooming language >that numbers only one person. The pigdins or creoles that >supposedly support the >LAD or UG always involve multiple speakers. I know of no one who claims that >learning a particular language does not involve communication. One does not >learn the rules of the English lexical item "put" without learning it from >another English speaker. Universal Grammar will not supply such information. >And even if it did, why would it have to be turned into sound unless someone >else is supposed to hear it. (emphasis added) Let me throw a pebble into this interesting stream. I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher, the subject of Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli and Neil Smith's book The Mind of a Savant. Smith and Tsimpli's linguistic savant is obsessed with learning new languages very much as one might learn lots of mathematical systems. His interest is in the structure, not the function, of language. To use Alan Watts's felicitous expression, in obsessively "acquiring" new languages, Smith and Tsimpli's linguistic savant consistently mistook the roadmap for the road. Or, more to the point, he can't see the road because he can't take his eyes off the roadmap. This is a beautiful -- and, in my view, revealing -- example of the dissociability of syntax (pattern) and semantics (meaning), making for zero pragmatics. Prodigious pattern-avidity plus prodigious memory do not (necessarily) make for language-as-communication. The other side of the coin, of course, is Williams syndrome. Just a thought. Denis Donovan Bates, E. (1997). "On language savants and the structure of the mind: A review of Neil Smith and Ianthi-Maria Tsimpli, "The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity"." International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2): 163-186. Smith, N. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1997). "Reply to Bates." International Journal of Bilingualism 1(2). Smith, N. V. and I.-M. Tsimpli (1995). The Mind of a Savant: Language Learning and Modularity. Oxford, Blackwell. -- ===================================================== Denis M. Donovan, M.D., M.Ed., F.A.P.S. Medical Director, 1983 - 2006 The Children's Center for Developmental Psychiatry St. Petersburg, Florida Mail: P.O Box 47576 St. Petersburg, FL 33743-7576 Phone: 727-641-8905 Email: dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com 785 - 123rd Avenue Treasure Island, Florida 33706, USA 727-360-1912 (H) 727-641-8905 (C) ===================================================== From kibrik at comtv.ru Fri Apr 27 21:49:00 2007 From: kibrik at comtv.ru (Andrej A. Kibrik) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:49:00 +0400 Subject: The Third International Conference on Cognitive Science Message-ID: The Third International Conference on Cognitive Science "Biennale of Cognitive Science 2008" Moscow, Russia, June 20-25 2008 First call for papers The Interregional Association for Cognitive Studies, Institute of Psychology RAS, and the Center for Russian Language Development announce the Third International Conference on Cognitive Science, to be held in Moscow, Russia, June 20-25, 2008. This conference succeeds the First and the Second Conferences on Cognitive Science held in Kazan' (2004) and in St. Petersburg (2006) (see the Association's website at www.cogsci.ru). The conference aims at organizing a multidisciplinary forum for researchers exploring cognition and its evolution, intellect, thinking, perception, consciousness, knowledge representation and acquisition, language as a means of cognition and communication, brain mechanisms of cognition, emotion and higher forms of behavior. Psychologists, linguists, neuroscientists, specialists in education, artificial intelligence, neuroinformatics and cognitive ergonomics, computer scientists, philosophers, anthropologists, as well as other researchers interested in interdisciplinary research on cognition are invited to participate in the conference. The central topics of the conference are various aspects of and approaches to development: from brain plasticity, genetics and evolutionary anthropology to language acquisition and cross-cultural differences. Within the framework of these problems, the following issues will also be discussed: development of emotions, effects of fatigue on learning and working, affective modulation of cognitive processes, as well as abnormal development of cognition and the corresponding neurogenetic and neuropsychological mechanisms. At the same time, papers on all other major issues in contemporary cognitive studies will be welcomed. The conference program will include invited lectures by leading experts in multidisciplinary cognitive studies. Invited speakers include the Nobel Prize winners Gerald Edelman and Daniel Kahneman, as well as Antonio Damasio, Marc Hauser, George Lakoff, Michael Tomasello, Anne Treisman, Stella Vosniadou and others. Some of these lectures will be named in honor of such outstanding students of cognition, brain and development as Lev Vygotsky and Alexander Luria. In addition to sessions and workshops with oral presentations, special attention will be given to poster sessions; these are planned to incorporate most of the papers. The working languages of the Conference are English and Russian. Accepted abstracts will be published by the beginning of the Conference. The deadline for abstract submission is December 1, 2007. Abstracts should be submitted online via the conference website: www.cogsci2008.ru Organizers of the Conference hope to keep the registration fee to a minimum. A competition for Student Travel Fellowships is announced. For further details on abstract submission and Travel Fellowships see the conference website. The Program Committee will accept papers on the basis of the criteria of interdisciplinary relevance, novelty and scientific significance. The Program Committee reserves the right to assign accepted papers to particular sessions of the conference. Applicants will be notified of their status by March 1, 2008. Organizing Committee Chair - Yuri I. Alexandrov (Institute of Psychology RAS, Moscow) Program Committee Chair - Boris M. Velichkovsky (Dresden and Moscow Universities) Conference Secretary - Olga E. Svarnik (Institute of Psychology RAS, Moscow) org at cogsci2008.ru From Salinas17 at aol.com Sat Apr 28 03:09:05 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:09:05 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:34:58 AM, amnfn at well.com writes: <> This is an example of how absolutely critical *common reference* is to language. Are Aya and I talking about the same thing when we talk about "self-expression"? I'm not sure what Aya means by "self-expression." I've heard the term of course many times. But I'm unsure what it specifically refers to, in this context. The term "self-expression" has been used in discourse analysis, general sociolinguistics and even marketing research to refer to the individualistic element in language or how something is congruent with one's own sense of identity. In these areas, it's not really separate from communication, but more like the opposite of "group-expression" -- conformity of ideas, styles or ways of thinking. Look up "self-expression" on Google and you'll see that, in the vernacular, it usually doesn't mean anything like "non-communication" -- quite the contrary. I believe Chomsky has used the term in connection with his Free Speech position, which is also inherently about communication. (Nobody has to be concerned about Free Speech if they never intend to express their ideas to anyone else.) Chomsky has also distinguished "self-expression" from communication, but I must confess I don't understand the contrast. "Self-expression" seems to be about the origin of the message, not about who it's meant for. When Lincoln spoke the Gettysburg Address, that was self-expression. If I just quote the Gettyburg Address in a speech, without regard for what the words mean, that is not self-expression -- it's somebody else's. This seems to be a logical understanding of the word. But the context of Aya's message seems to suggest that there is some kind of non-communal use of language called "self-expression." I take it that this means talking to one's-self instead of anyone else. I would call this "self-communication", I guess. There's no doubt it happens all the time, but just as a matter of sequence in the acquisition of language, it can only be a secondary effect. In order to talk to myself in English, I have to learn English first. English is a communal language, shared by billions of people who spoke it before I was born. Every single one of those people without exception were not born speaking English. It had to be shared with them. Communication is how every single person in the world learns a language. No one speaks raw Universal Grammar and that's a good reason to think no one speaks it to himself either. Now, let's say I have another language -- my own private language -- my "self-expression" language. Since I don't use it for communicating with anybody but myself, it is not a normal language. But let's say I constantly violate the rules of grammar in my private language. What is the consequence of my violation? Are those expressions I make to myself "unacceptible", "incomprehensible" or simply "ungrammatical?" In those cases, would I say I do not understand my own private language? Do I rap myself on my knuckles for using bad grammar and correct myself? Of course, there is an advantage to this private language. I don't have to worry about sharing common references with anybody else. In English, I need to call a horse a "horse", or a self-expression a "self-expression" or I will have poor hope of being understood. However, in my private language, I can call a cow a "horse", a spotted dog a "horse" and a self-expression a "horse" and have no problem with understanding myself. I even always know which kind of "horse" I am referring to, and can also use the word as a verb or a pronomial because I always know what I am referring to, even if I'm using the same word all those different ways. And no one's going to correct my "self-expression" because communication with others has no importance. Turning this into audible speech, however, can present a problem. We don't hear such private "self-expression" languages spoken out loud much around town. People who spout incomprehensible "self-expressions" on a regular basis are not treated with much understanding by most folk. They are often diagnosed as having mental problems. Perhaps it would be more enlightened to consider them just people who have choosen to use their LADs and UGs for non-communicative purposes. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 28 03:58:14 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:58:14 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another. Sometimes the vocalization is involuntary. The speaker just couldn't help himself. He might prefer not to communicate, but the need to express his thoughts and feelings overrides his concern about sharing information. At other times, the speaker may be unaware that he has an audience. When someone cries out in pain, everyone who hears understands the message. But it is not a message that the injured party necessarily meant to send out. The urge to cry out is difficult to overcome. We might not want others to know we are suffering. Nature made sure we would let others know, because it might save the lives of our group mates, who would be alerted to the danger. Babies are born with a repertoire of cries that alert caretakers to their needs. But a newborn does not know that there are others. The concept of self versus other develops much later. When a baby cries out, it is self-expression, regardless of the fact that for hearers the cries function as a form of communication, in that the baby supplies them with important information about its needs. If Abraham Lincoln had composed and spoken the Gettysburg Address without intending it for an audience, then it would have been mere self-expression. Since he did intend it for an audience, we can safely say that it was an intentional act of communication. Some people with autistic spectrum disorders master both grammar and its mapping onto meaning, without developing a theory of mind. When they speak, they comment on reality without taking into consideration what others will make of their comments. Their speech is motivated by self- expression, but they are using a language they picked up from their environment, so anybody listening in can understand what was said. Best, --Aya Katz ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/07 4:34:58 AM, amnfn at well.com writes: > < self-expression, even though the overall effect is communication with others. In > all likelihood, self expression was the initial motive of speakers, even > though it was communication with others that served as the force that kept that > motive a part of our human behavioral repertoire.>> > > This is an example of how absolutely critical *common reference* is to > language. Are Aya and I talking about the same thing when we talk about > "self-expression"? > > I'm not sure what Aya means by "self-expression." I've heard the term of > course many times. But I'm unsure what it specifically refers to, in this > context. > > The term "self-expression" has been used in discourse analysis, general > sociolinguistics and even marketing research to refer to the individualistic > element in language or how something is congruent with one's own sense of identity. > In these areas, it's not really separate from communication, but more like > the opposite of "group-expression" -- conformity of ideas, styles or ways of > thinking. Look up "self-expression" on Google and you'll see that, in the > vernacular, it usually doesn't mean anything like "non-communication" -- quite the > contrary. I believe Chomsky has used the term in connection with his Free > Speech position, which is also inherently about communication. (Nobody has to > be concerned about Free Speech if they never intend to express their ideas to > anyone else.) > > Chomsky has also distinguished "self-expression" from communication, but I > must confess I don't understand the contrast. "Self-expression" seems to be > about the origin of the message, not about who it's meant for. When Lincoln > spoke the Gettysburg Address, that was self-expression. If I just quote the > Gettyburg Address in a speech, without regard for what the words mean, that is not > self-expression -- it's somebody else's. This seems to be a logical > understanding of the word. > > But the context of Aya's message seems to suggest that there is some kind of > non-communal use of language called "self-expression." > > I take it that this means talking to one's-self instead of anyone else. I > would call this "self-communication", I guess. There's no doubt it happens all > the time, but just as a matter of sequence in the acquisition of language, it > can only be a secondary effect. > > In order to talk to myself in English, I have to learn English first. > English is a communal language, shared by billions of people who spoke it before I > was born. Every single one of those people without exception were not born > speaking English. It had to be shared with them. Communication is how every > single person in the world learns a language. No one speaks raw Universal > Grammar and that's a good reason to think no one speaks it to himself either. > > Now, let's say I have another language -- my own private language -- my > "self-expression" language. Since I don't use it for communicating with anybody > but myself, it is not a normal language. > > But let's say I constantly violate the rules of grammar in my private > language. What is the consequence of my violation? Are those expressions I make to > myself "unacceptible", "incomprehensible" or simply "ungrammatical?" In those > cases, would I say I do not understand my own private language? Do I rap > myself on my knuckles for using bad grammar and correct myself? > > Of course, there is an advantage to this private language. I don't have to > worry about sharing common references with anybody else. In English, I need > to call a horse a "horse", or a self-expression a "self-expression" or I will > have poor hope of being understood. However, in my private language, I can > call a cow a "horse", a spotted dog a "horse" and a self-expression a "horse" and > have no problem with understanding myself. I even always know which kind of > "horse" I am referring to, and can also use the word as a verb or a pronomial > because I always know what I am referring to, even if I'm using the same word > all those different ways. > > And no one's going to correct my "self-expression" because communication with > others has no importance. Turning this into audible speech, however, can > present a problem. > > We don't hear such private "self-expression" languages spoken out loud much > around town. People who spout incomprehensible "self-expressions" on a regular > basis are not treated with much understanding by most folk. They are often > diagnosed as having mental problems. Perhaps it would be more enlightened to > consider them just people who have choosen to use their LADs and UGs for > non-communicative purposes. > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


**************************************
See what's free at > http://www.aol.com. > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 05:29:08 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:29:08 EDT Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:16:24 PM, dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com writes: << I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher,... >> Denis - The case you refer to, described in "The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity", clearly states not only did Christopher communicates, he did so in multiple languages. The authors state so expressly: "He first came to attention because of his remarkable ability to translate from and communicate in any of a large number of languages." Denis, you also wrote: <> I'm not sure where you got zero "pragmatics" from. But the disassociation of syntax and semantics seem to have little to do with any problems Christopher had with such things as discourse structure or non-literal meanings (if that's what you mean by pragmatics). In fact, the authors claimed that when it came to English, the L1, Christopher's performance was "perfect" on sentence testing for morphological and syntactic violations, but that he ONLY occasionally missed on items that required "semantic and pragmatic" judgments. Being UGists, they ascribed this misses to problems with input from central cognition, not to any "special" diassociation between semantics and syntax. The disassociation of syntax and semantic was rather something that the researchers attempted to do in their research, especially with the L2 languages and the artificial language they had Christopher and the controls learn. >>From my perspective, a distinction between "syntax and meaning" is like the difference between the trees and the forest. Syntax is regularly necessary at the sentence level for communication. I c an't string a run of words together and hope you will understand them unless we share a COMMON understanding of the relationship of the words to one another. If you don't catch the relationships -- differentiate the noun from the verb, etc -- I will be miscommunicating. In that sense, syntax is simply one more form of common reference. With good syntax, we both understand the communication, because syntax disambiguates a string of words that otherwise could be interpreted in any number of ways. Without syntax, you might hear "Spring flower flower run run." What am I saying? Can you guess? There are quite a few possible interpretations. With syntax, you'll hear "It's Spring. Flowers flower, and the run runs." The ambiguoty of the first sentence is substantially reduced. Shared syntax substantially improves communication. There's really no true disassociation between meaning and syntax. In fact, in the sense of acheiving common reference -- so that we both know what we're talking about -- they are fundamentally the same thing. They both mean we are referring at the sentence level to the same things. At least as much as human language permits a common understanding without the aid of either ESP or UG. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 29 15:27:01 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:27:01 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 11:59:21 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: << Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another. >> "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Aya - I am trying to understand what this might mean. So I'll try to do something that promotes common reference between us. I'll ask some questions. Is there a difference between "form-to-meaning mapping" where the intent is self-expression versus where the intent is communication? What is that difference? To put it another way: I presume that we are talking about self-expression that must involve language, since your distinction above doesn't work otherwise. Is this self-expressive "form-to-meaning mapping" in a specific language? (Not Language in general, but in a specific language.) If this self-expression is in a specific language, then is that language changed when used for non-communicative self-expression? How is it changed? If a listener should accidentially overhear this "form-to-meaning mapping" as speech, would he find that it violates grammar or syntax? Would it be a different language than the speaker would otherwise speak in? If the form or structure of the language is not changed, what is the different between speech generated for self-expression versus communication? I appreciate your patience in all this, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Apr 29 15:31:25 2007 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 09:31:25 -0600 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm... > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes > information > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. -- Sherman Wilcox Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 29 18:56:40 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:56:40 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/27/07 11:59:21 PM, amnfn at well.com writes: > << Communication can be intentional or unintentional. Vocalization can be > voluntary or involuntary. In the context of a discussion of the separability of > language structure from communication, "self-expression" means a > form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to > communicate with another. >> > > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." > > Aya - > I am trying to understand what this might mean. So I'll try to do something > that promotes common reference between us. I'll ask some questions. > > Is there a difference between "form-to-meaning mapping" where the intent is > self-expression versus where the intent is communication? What is that > difference? There is no formal or semantic difference between utterances that are distinguished by the itent or lack of intent to communicate. That was my point. Individuals need not be aware that communication is happening in order for transfer of information to take place as a result of one vocalizing and the other hearing the vocalization. One can communicate without intending to. I thought your position was that one couldn't, and that therefore all communication is governed by the intent to communicate, and that syntax could not possibly form without intentional use of the communicative function. My point was that standard mappings from form to meaning can arise under circumstances where neither party intends to communicate. Language and the precursors of language could have evolved before people had developed a strong theory of mind. > > To put it another way: > I presume that we are talking about self-expression that must involve > language, since your distinction above doesn't work otherwise. My distinction works both in the case of human language, and in the case of other non-human or non-linguistic signals. > > Is this self-expressive "form-to-meaning mapping" in a specific language? > (Not Language in general, but in a specific language.) > It can work in specific languages and in specific non-linguistic forms of communication. > If this self-expression is in a specific language, then is that language > changed when used for non-communicative self-expression? How is it changed? > The form does not have to change. The point is that it doesn't have to. The form can be interpreted regardless of whether the speaker had a particular hearer in mind, no hearer in mind -- or even was not aware that other hearers could exist. > If a listener should accidentially overhear this "form-to-meaning mapping" as > speech, would he find that it violates grammar or syntax? Would it be a > different language than the speaker would otherwise speak in? > No. Accidental overhearing is just one example of how communication can occur unintentionally > If the form or structure of the language is not changed, what is the > different between speech generated for self-expression versus communication? > None. No difference. The point is: You need not intend to communicate in order for the message to go through. Use a standard form to meaning mapping to express your thoughts and others will get the message even if you don't know they exist. You just blurted something out without any concern for its effect on others: there still will be an effect, regardless of your intent, if somebody heard. The hearer need not know what you were thinking in order to associate the message with its meaning. A cry of pain from an unknown source spells danger. Everbody pays attention. I gave you many, many specific examples: a) food and predator cries of primates, whose purport does not change regardless of the intent of the speaker. Motive: self expression. Effect: Communication. b) The cries of infants who have not yet made the distinction between self and other, but who communicate their needs without intending to. Motive: Primitive Urge to self-express. Effect: Vital information. c) Involuntary cries of pain by any individual, infant or adult. Motive: Involuntary self-expression. Effect: Warning. d) The fully grammatical, semantically unobjectionable human specific language utterances of high functioning autistics who speak a standard language without having a theory of mind or an intent to comunicate with another individual. When overheard talking by others, their speech transmits information about their state of mind and their observations on reality. Motive: The desire to express one's thoughts. Effect: Transmission of said thoughts to another. Intent to communicate is something that we develop when we start to realize other people have minds separate from our own. But it is possible to communicate with another long before we make that realization. Communication with the help of a standard code of sound to meaning mappings enhances the survival of the group, and it predates the intentional use of language. First we cry because we are sad and we can't help it. Only much later do some people learn to pretend to cry in order to make someone think they are sad. The first was self-expression. The second: intentional communication. Best, --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 29 21:27:06 2007 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:27:06 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think we might be having a bracketing problem. A person intent on self expression does not thereby intend to communicate, but that does not necessarily mean that he intends not to communicate. Communication, if it happens, is incidental. Some concentrate on the message. Others on the hearer. Without a message, there'd be nothing to communicate. Without a hearer... well, the code would never have evolved. That's the difference between the motivation of the individual and the function that this motivation serves in the survival of the species. Best, --Aya ================================================================ Dr. Aya Katz, Inverted-A, Inc, P.O. Box 267, Licking, MO 65542 USA (417) 457-6652 (573) 247-0055 http://www.well.com/user/amnfn ================================================================= On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > Hmmm... > > > "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes > > information > > where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." > > Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. > -- > Sherman Wilcox > Department of Linguistics > University of New Mexico > > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Mon Apr 30 04:54:16 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:54:16 EDT Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/29/07 11:35:06 AM, wilcox at unm.edu writes: << Hmmm... "'Self-expression' means a form-to-meaning mapping that encodes information where the speaker had no intent to communicate with another." Somehow, I can't quite imagine a musician or dancer saying such a thing. >> Sherman - I think this use of the term "self-expression" is very different than the way it's commonly used these days. I believe (but am not sure) that Chomsky got the term from Descartes, who used it to refer to a non-communicative way to use language. I also think that this use of "self-expression" for Descartes was in reference to the "internal dialogue" that he described in his famous Discourse and elsewhere. In that sense it doesn't involve speech or any other kind of "external" communication. It's basically "thinking" or talking to oneself in one's head, and not anything anyone else can share in. Aya, I believe, is using self-expression to include vocalization or other public "access," if I understand him correctly. I'm in no way saying that his definition is incorrect, but it seems to be different. It may be worth noting that Descartes appears to give no indication whether he self-expressed in Latin or French. He wrote in both languages. Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com. From jrubba at calpoly.edu Mon Apr 30 16:24:37 2007 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:24:37 -0700 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in my head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation in the motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that sometimes accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list knows this for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to that effect regarding people who subvocalize when they read. I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirah? thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to post, or post it for me? Thanks! 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 lamb at rice.edu Mon Apr 30 17:51:53 2007 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:51:53 -0500 Subject: Language and "Self-Expression" (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, there is research on slips of the tongue in inner speech. They show the same patterns as slips in audible speech. Done by Peter Reich, or by someone he knows -- I'll copy him on this message. I too have noticed speech errors in my inner speech. All best, - Syd Lamb On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have > made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in > my head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation > in the motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that > sometimes accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list > knows this for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to > that effect regarding people who subvocalize when they read. > > I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirah? > thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single > address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to > post, or post it for me? > > Thanks! > > 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 > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From hopper at cmu.edu Mon Apr 30 18:05:48 2007 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:05:48 -0400 Subject: Language and 'Self-Expression' (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fascinating! I've even caught myself correcting speech errors when I talk to my dog. My speech errors, that is. All this reminds me of David Bloor's definition of conscience: "the internalized image of collective reproach." (I'm afraid I don't have a reference for this. Probably his 'Knowledge and Social Imagery.')) We're constrained by norms even when no one is listening. - Paul > Yes, there is research on slips of the tongue in inner speech. They show > the same patterns as slips in audible speech. Done by Peter Reich, or by > someone he knows -- I'll copy him on this message. I too have noticed > speech errors in my inner speech. > > All best, - Syd Lamb > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> >> As to "talking to oneself", it certainly does involve speech. I have >> made speech errors while talking to myself (not out loud -- solely in my >> head). There is probably research somewhere that shows activation in the >> motor cortex and perhaps even the speech muscles that sometimes >> accompanies talking to oneself -- maybe someone on the list knows this >> for a fact. I believe I have read or heard something to that effect >> regarding people who subvocalize when they read. >> >> I posted a message about language and communication on the Pirah? >> thread, but it never appeared. I wonder if I sent it only to a single >> address. If you received a message, could you send it back to me to >> post, or post it for me? >> >> Thanks! >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive > Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX > > From Salinas17 at aol.com Mon Apr 30 20:18:40 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:18:40 EDT Subject: Language, communication and "meaning" (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/27/07 4:16:24 PM, dmdonvan at ix.netcom.com writes: << I can think of one striking case where learning a particular language didn't involve communication -- indeed, one where communication is of practically no interest to the learner. And the example involves the learning of a number of foreign (new) languages by the same individual. The example is Christopher,... >> Denis - The case you refer to, described in "The Mind of a Savant: Language learning and modularity", clearly states not only did Christopher communicates, he did so in multiple languages. The authors state so expressly: "He first came to attention because of his remarkable ability to translate from and communicate in any of a large number of languages." Denis, you also wrote: <> I'm not sure where you got zero "pragmatics" from. But the disassociation of syntax and semantics seem to have little to do with any problems Christopher had with such things as discourse structure or non-literal meanings (if that's what you mean by pragmatics). In fact, the authors claimed that when it came to English, the L1, Christopher's performance was "perfect" on sentence testing for morphological and syntactic violations, but that he ONLY occasionally missed on items that required "semantic and pragmatic" judgments. Being UGists, they ascribed these misses to problems with input from central cognition, not to any "special" disassociation between semantics and syntax. The disassociation of syntax and semantic was rather something that the researchers attempted to do in their research, especially with the L2 languages and the artificial language they had Christopher and the controls learn. >>From my perspective, a distinction between "syntax and meaning" is like the difference between the trees and the forest. Syntax is regularly necessary at the sentence level for communication. I can't string a run of words together and hope you will understand them unless we share a COMMON understanding of the relationship of the words to one another. If you don't catch the relationships -- differentiate the noun from the verb, etc -- I will be miscommunicating. In that sense, syntax is simply one more form of common reference. With good syntax, we both understand the communication, because syntax disambiguates a string of words that otherwise could be interpreted in any number of ways. Without syntax, you might hear "Spring flower flower run run." What am I saying? Can you guess? There are quite a few possible interpretations. With syntax, you'll hear "It's Spring. Flowers flower, and the run runs." The ambiguity of the first sentence is substantially reduced. Shared syntax substantially improves communication. There's really no true disassociation between meaning and syntax. In fact, in the sense of achieving common reference -- so that we both know what we're talking about -- they are fundamentally the same thing. They both mean we are referring at the sentence level to the same things. At least as much as human language permits a common understanding without the aid of either ESP or UG. Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.