From v.ferreira at gmx.de Sat Sep 1 11:22:32 2007 From: v.ferreira at gmx.de (Vera Ferreira) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:22:32 +0200 Subject: "In-Devir": A portal for science and culture Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I would like to present you the Portal "In-Devir" (http://www.in-devir.com/) - a site mainly dedicated to science and culture. You can use it as a place to publish and divulge your works, projects, opinions, events, news, etc. or visit it just for entertainment. This portal was created by four PhD-students from Portugal and Germany with the intention to promote and divulge the research works of new scientists in a variety of areas and consequently create a database of scientific works, which can be used for further research. Linguistics (mainly Cognitive Linguistics), Psycholinguistics, History, and Communication Sciences are the most represented research areas till now - but we are at the beginning! In-Devir is in Portuguese but we are working on an English version of the site available very soon. In-Devir accepts texts in English, German, and French. Please circulate this information to your friends, colleagues, and students. Best wishes, Vera Ferreira Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 München From segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr Mon Sep 3 16:10:44 2007 From: segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr (Guillaume Segerer) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:10:44 +0200 Subject: Workshop 'Typology of African Languages' / Atelier 'Typologie des langues africaines' Message-ID: Here is the definitive program for the workshop on the Typology of African Languages (Paris, sept. 24, 2007), an adjacent event to the 7th conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. Information about the location is to be found on the ALT7 website : http://www.alt7.cnrs.fr/us/accueil-us.html. The workshop being held in a ministry, for security reasons it is recommanded to arrive no later than 9 in the morning. It will probably be impossible to welcome participants after 9.20. Voici le programme définitif de l'atelier "Typologie des langues africaines" qui se tiendra à Paris le lundi 24 septembre prochain, en marge du 7e congrès de l'Association de Linguistique Typologique. Les informations pratiques sont accessibles sur le site ALT7 : http://www.alt7.cnrs.fr/fr/accueil-fr.html. L'atelier ayant lieu dans un ministère, il est recommandé de ne pas arriver après 9h. Les portes seront probabalement closes vers 9h20. 9h00 : Accueil des participants / Welcome 9h15 : Ouverture / Opening MATIN / MORNING session Structure informationnelle et prosodie / Information structure and prosody 9h30 Invitée : Laura Downing, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung (ZAS), Berlin 10h15 Lameen Souag : The Decay of Clitic Attraction across Berber: A Typological Overview 10h45 : pause session Typologie aréale en Afrique / Areal typology in Africa 11h15 Invité : Tom Güldemann, Université de Leipzig 12h00 A. Rialland & N. Clements : Typologie aréale en Afrique: systèmes vocaliques avec deux séries contrastives de voyelles hautes 12h30 déjeuner APRES-MIDI / AFTERNOON session Typologie du changement linguistique / Typology of linguistic change 14h30 Invité : Konstantin Pozdniakov, LLACAN-INALCO, Paris 15h15 Marteen Mous : The Middle Derivation in African Languages 15h45 : pause session Typologie linguistique et généalogie / Linguistic typology and genealogy 16h15 Invité : Zygmund Frajzyngier, Université de Boulder, Colorado 17h00 Harald Hammarström : Numerals in Africa: Typology, Inheritance and Borrowing 17h30 discussion générale / general discussion 18h00 clôture / end of the workshop -- __________________________________________ Guillaume SEGERER LLACAN - UMR 8135 (CNRS, INALCO) 7 rue Guy Môquet, 94801 Villejuif +33 (0)1 49 58 36 96 From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Sep 5 06:29:59 2007 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:29:59 +0300 Subject: Agentive verbs Message-ID: I believe this is the right forum for this question: Is it an empirically confirmed fact that agentive verbs constitute the majority of verbs in (a particular?) language? By "agentive verbs" I mean verbs that require a human subject exercising volition/intention in performing the action of the verb. Any statistics? Ron Kuzar =============================================== Dr. Ron Kuzar Address: Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa IL-31905 Haifa, Israel Office: +972-4-824-9826, Fax: +972-4-824-9711 Home: +972-77-94-00-876, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Sep 5 07:37:26 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:37:26 +0200 Subject: Agentive verbs In-Reply-To: <1188973799.46de4ce799907@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear Ron, it would perhaps be good to know which type of empirical facts you refer to. First: Do you think of a lexicon-based or of a usage-based distribution? By the first I mean a distributional pattern that is built upon the lexical entries of a given language. Usage-based refers to the actual use of (here:) verbal concepts in texts and conversation etc. My own impression is that the number of say "non-agentive" verbs is much higher with respect to lexicon-based data than to usage-based data. Nevertheless, the patterns showing up in usage-based data naturally depends from the type of texts at issue. Second: Do you think of a purely semantic analysis, that is a classification of verbs based on their semantic properties (which always is a bit risky), or do you mean a 'visible' classification that emerges from the analysis of morphosyntactic behavioral patterns (such as S-Split, causativization constraints, TAM-constraints, agreement patterns, case marking etc.)? As for concrete data: I can only give you a rough calculus for usage-based data from Udi (East Caucasian, corpus size: 100.000 words): Here, we have roughly 75 % agentive verbs (in your sense) and 20 % non-agentive verbs (the rest is constituted by copula constructions). Best wishes, Wolfgang kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I believe this is the right forum for this question: > Is it an empirically confirmed fact that agentive verbs constitute the majority > of verbs in (a particular?) language? By "agentive verbs" I mean verbs that > require a human subject exercising volition/intention in performing the action > of the verb. > Any statistics? > Ron Kuzar > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *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 /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /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 dcyr at yorku.ca Wed Sep 5 20:03:27 2007 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:03:27 -0400 Subject: Agentive verbs In-Reply-To: <1188973799.46de4ce799907@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: In Micmac (Eastern Algonquian) the transitive verbs have animate subjects, with either animate or inanimate objects. They are thus to be considered agentive. The figures are as such: Transitive animate verbs: 1116 Transitive inanimate verbs: 1095 Intransitive animate verbs: 3352 Intransitive inanimate verbs: 1113 We have to keep in mind that Algonquian languages don't have a category adjective. That semantic role is carried out by intransitive verbs mostly. That fact can play a role on the proportion of agentive verbs versus non-agentive verbs Best, Danielle Cyr P.S. These data are drawn from the "Metallic Migmaq-English Reference Dictionary", (Metallic, Cyr, Sevigny 2005) which has 11,000 words in entry. Anyone interested in the dictionary can order it at http://www.ulaval.ca/pul ___________________________________________________________________________ "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's languages. Only then can we truly hope to understand one another." (Who wrote this?) Professor Danielle E. Cyr Department of French Studies York University Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3 Tel. 1.416.736.2100 #310180 FAX. 1.416.736.5924 dcyr at yorku.ca From meri.larjavaara at abo.fi Thu Sep 6 07:37:01 2007 From: meri.larjavaara at abo.fi (Meri Larjavaara) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:37:01 +0300 Subject: Representations du sens linguistique IV - mai 2008, Helsinki Message-ID: Colloque REPRÉSENTATIONS DU SENS LINGUISTIQUE IV Helsinki, du mercredi 28 mai au vendredi 30 mai 2008 L'objectif du colloque est d'examiner les rapports entre les différents modèles de description linguistique et le traitement du sens. Nous proposons comme thème du colloque les articulations complexes entre la langue et les paramètres contextuels. Les linguistes distinguent, entre autres, les usages écrits/oraux de la langue, les usages privés/institutionnels, les discours interactionnels/monologaux... La question que nous nous posons est de savoir en quoi diffèrent les représentations du sens linguistique d'après le contexte d'utilisation ; est-ce que par exemple 'l'oralité' s'exprime de la même manière dans une publicité écrite et dans un dialogue spontané ? Quelles sont les réalisations concrètes de l'interactivité dans deux types d'écrits différents, tels le blog et le chat ? Comment se concrétise la confidentialité dans des contextes d'utilisation de la langue très différents (le journal intime et la session thérapeutique, par exemple) ? De quelle manière s'utilisent certaines structures grammaticales dans un texte littéraire et dans un texte journalistique, à l'oral et à l'écrit ? La problématique pourra être abordée d'un point de vue contrastif (différences entre deux langues ou entre deux genres), synchronique (un seul genre/type de texte dans une langue définie) ou diachronique (nouveaux sens donnés aux mots/structures dans un genre défini au cours de l'évolution). Propositions de communications au plus tard le 28 septembre 2007 Pour tous les renseignements, veuillez consulter le site du colloque http://www.helsinki.fi/romaanisetkielet/congres/RSL/ From mark.turner at case.edu Thu Sep 6 12:35:17 2007 From: mark.turner at case.edu (Mark Turner) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:35:17 -0400 Subject: Case Department of Cognitive Science: Faculty Search Message-ID: CASE.EDU: HOME | DIRECTORIES | SEARCH COGNITIVE SCIENCE Home News and Events Department Calendar Department Colloquium Courses Undergraduate Major Undergraduate Minor People Resources Career Possibilities Center for Cognition and Culture Support Cognitive Science Contact Us SEARCH COGSCI: RELATED SITES: Admissions Office Registrar Faculty Positions in Cognitive Science The Department of Cognitive Science in the College of Arts & Sciences at Case Western Reserve University invites applications for one or more faculty positions in Cognitive Science, to begin July 2008. Further particulars are available at http://case.edu/artsci/cogs/. Rank is open and commensurate with qualifications. Field open. The department seeks to expand its program in cognitive neuroscience, focusing on higher-order human cognition. It otherwise seeks candidates who will help the department pursue its mission to create an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to the study of the human mind. Accordingly, we have interests in research projects that combine and advance various fields of study, such as the evolution and development of human beings, theoretical neuroscience, computation, engineering, design, politics, economics, law, art, religion, philosophy, the social sciences, and any aspect of human higher-order cognition. Applicants should demonstrate the potential for research, publication, and extramural funding. Teaching includes undergraduate and graduate courses and participation in the university's SAGES program. Applicants must hold a Ph.D. or equivalent by date of appointment. The application process will continue until the available positions are filled. Complete applications received by 1 November 2007 will receive full consideration. Applications should consist of a letter of application, a curriculum vitae, a statement of research interests and plans, a statement of teaching experience, and the names, addresses, and email addresses of four referees to whom we may write. Please apply electronically if at all possible to cs- facultysearch at case.edu, with a copy to turner at case.edu. If electronic submission is impossible, a print application can be submitted to Search, Department of Cognitive Science, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44106. Case Western Reserve University is committed to diversity and is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. Applications from women or minorities are especially encouraged. Case has received an NSF ADVANCE grant to increase the participation of women in science and engineering. Cognitive Science is a new department at Case, dedicated to organizing a cognitive science initiative with connections across the university. Its undergraduate programs are established. Graduate programs are in development. The department is designed to connect research and teaching activities across the College of Arts and Sciences, the other schools of the university (including Medicine, Engineering, Law, and Management), and the many cultural institutions adjacent to the university (including the Cleveland Museum of Art, the Cleveland Institute of Art, the Cleveland Institute of Music, the Cleveland Museum of Contemporary Art, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Cleveland Clinic, the University Hospitals, and the Cleveland Playhouse). There are rich possibilities for integration with new initiatives in media, technology, and networked arts and humanities. The programmatic and research agendas of these institutions are entering an era of unprecedented collaboration, and the Department of Cognitive Science is charged to serve as a principal designer and leader of these collaborations. College of Arts & Sciences | 10900 Euclid Avenue | Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7068 | Phone: 216.368.4413 © 2004 Case Western Reserve University | Cleveland, Ohio 44106 | 216.368.2000 | legal notice From thuumo at utu.fi Fri Sep 7 12:12:20 2007 From: thuumo at utu.fi (Tuomas Huumo) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:12:20 +0300 Subject: 2nd CFP: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages May 29 to June 1, 2008, Tartu, Estonia Message-ID: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages http://www.fl.ut.ee/kttdk/ecla To be held at the University of Tartu, Estonia From May 29 to June 1, 2008 KEYWORDS cognitive and functional studies on grammar grammaticalization dynamics of language synchronic and diachronic language change language contact: aspects of grammar usage-based approaches and models emergent grammar language typology language evolution Uralic languages Confirmed plenary speakers: Bernd Heine Ronald Langacker Ewa Dabrowska Martin Haspelmath Description The aim of the conference is to bring together linguists working in the functional and cognitive linguistic paradigms. We invite linguists who take a functional and/or cognitive perspective in describing and explaining linguistic phenomena in the language(s) they are researching and those working on language dynamics from a functional or cognitive perspective to participate. We especially encourage linguists working on the Uralic languages to submit papers, in the hope of expanding the Cognitive Linguistic paradigm with data from these languages; researchers involved with other languages and language families are, of course, also most welcome. We also encourage papers on grammaticalization and the role of oral and written forms and different language varieties in language change, as well as changes in grammar resulting from language contact. Furthermore, presentations dealing with different usage-based models, including construction grammar, are also welcome. Organizers University of Tartu Estonian Cognitive Linguistics Association Important dates First call for papers and theme sessions: June 29, 2007 Second call for papers and theme sessions: September 7, 2007 Deadline for theme session submissions: October 1, 2007 Notification of acceptance for theme sessions: December 15, 2007 Third call for general session papers: January 7, 2008 Deadline for general session papers: January 15, 2008 Notification of acceptance for general session papers: February 15, 2008 Program available at the website: April 15, 2008 Conference dates: May 29 - June 1, 2008 For theme session organizers: On October 1, 2007 we will be expecting your session title and the number of papers expected to be presented at the session. On February 15, 2008 we will be expecting a description of your theme session and the participants’ abstracts. Submission guidelines Abstracts (max. 500 words (including references)) should be submitted electronically to ecla at lists.ut.ee Conference website http://www.fl.ut.ee/kttdk/ecla From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Sep 8 15:56:19 2007 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:56:19 +0300 Subject: Agentive verbs Message-ID: Many thanks to all of you who have replied on and off list. I was mainly interested in discursive (rather than lexicological) data, and the replies indicate that wherever distinctions between verbal and other (copular) sentences apply, verbal sentences with agentive verbs (agentive in their particular usage, not as a lexical fact) constitute a clear majority. Ron Kuzar =============================================== Dr. Ron Kuzar Address: Department of English Language and Literature University of Haifa IL-31905 Haifa, Israel Office: +972-4-824-9826, Fax: +972-4-824-9711 Home: +972-77-94-00-876, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk Mon Sep 10 16:39:41 2007 From: c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:39:41 +0100 Subject: 2nd CFP: Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2008 Message-ID: Dear all, Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (CADAAD) is an ongoing project which aims to foster and promote cross-disciplinary communication in critical discourse research. Following the success of the project's first international conference hosted at the University of East Anglia in 2006, we are pleased to announce the second international conference CADAAD'08, to be hosted at the University of Hertfordshire, 10-11 July 2008. In line with the general aims of the project, we welcome papers both from CDA and neighbouring disciplines such as communication studies, media studies, narrative studies, sociology, philosophy and political science. Abstracts are invited which assess the state of the art and offer new directions for critical discourse research. By new directions we mean i) theoretical/methodological development and/or ii) analysis of contemporary discourses. Theoretical/methodological frameworks sourced from all areas of the social and cognitive sciences are welcome. Papers exploring the following frameworks in linguistics are particularly welcome: Cognitive Linguistics (Blending, Construction Grammars, Framing, Metaphor) Corpus Linguistics (Corpus Construction, Data Extraction, Semantic Prosody) Pragmatics (Presupposition, Relevance Theory, Speech Acts) Systemic Functional Linguistics (Cohesion and Coherence, Grammatical Metaphor) Analyses of all contemporary discourses are welcome, including those within applied and professional areas such as education, environmental policy, health, and law. Papers applying critical analysis to discourses used in the construction of 'minority' vs. 'normality' and other dichotomies are especially welcome. Areas of particular interest include: Discourse on gender Discourse of International Law Discourse on immigration Discourse of the war on terror European Union discourse United Nations and foreign aid discourse Reflecting our commitment to multiplicity in critical approaches to discourse analysis, the following plenary speakers have confirmed their participation: Professor Piotr Cap (University of Lódz', Poland) Professor Jonathan Charteris-Black (University of West England, UK) Professor Teun van Dijk (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain) Professor Ruth Wodak (Lancaster University, UK) Abstracts of no longer than 400 words should be submitted as MS Word attachment to discourse at cadaad.org by 30 November 2007. Authors should include their name, affiliation and email address. Successful authors will be notified via email by 15 February 2008. Papers will be allocated twenty minutes plus ten minutes for questions. We also invite proposals for theme sessions and satellite events. A theme session should consist of four or five thematically related papers. Satellite events, such as workshops and tutorials, may take place on 9 July 2008. Please send proposals to discourse at cadaad.org by 1 October 2007. Selected proceedings will be published. Selected papers from CADAAD'06 were published in the inaugural issue of the journal Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines (http://www.cadaad.org/ejournal) and additional papers from the Cognitive Linguistics theme session were published by Cambridge Scholars Press as ''Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application and Theory'' (Hart & Lukes, eds., 2007). Please visit http://cadaad.org/cadaad08 for further conference details. Kind regards, Christopher Hart and Dominik Lukes -- Christopher Hart Lecturer in English Language and Communication School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire From hougaard at language.sdu.dk Tue Sep 11 10:16:28 2007 From: hougaard at language.sdu.dk (Anders Hougaard) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:16:28 +0200 Subject: LCM III: 1st CfP Message-ID: CONFERENCE: LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND MIND 3 1ST CALL FOR INDIVIDUAL PAPERS The LCM committee and local organizers call for theme session proposals for the third conference in the series Language, Culture and Mind. The conference will be held in modern and comfortable conference facilities in ODENSE 14TH-16TH JULY, 2008. The conference aims at establishing an interdisciplinary forum for an integration of cognitive, social and cultural perspectives in theoretical and empirical studies of language and communication. The special theme of the conference is Social Life and Meaning Construction. We call for contributions from scholars and scientists in anthropology, biology, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, semiotics, semantics, social interaction, discourse analysis, cognitive and neuroscience, who wish both to impart their insights and findings, and learn from other disciplines. Preference will be given to submissions which emphasize interdisciplinarity, the interaction between social life, culture, mind and language, and/or multi-methodological approaches in language and communication sciences. Description of the LCM conference series: see bottom. DATES *First call for Theme Sessions: April 1, 2007 * Second call for Theme Sessions: May 1, 2007 * Third call for Theme Sessions: August 1, 2007 * Deadline for Theme Sessions submissions: September 1, 2007 * Notification for Theme Sessions : October 1, 2007 * Deadline for individual paper submissions : January 1, 2007 * Notification for Individual Papers : March 1, 2007 SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: Max. 500 words (including references) To be submitted to lcm at language.sdu.dk Submissions will be evaluated according to their * Relevance * Quality * Coherence * Originality * Organization Once your suggestion is approved, you will need to arrange for Theme Session Contributors for your theme. They will need to submit abstracts for their contributions and as Theme Session Organizer you will be responsible for their review. More than one person may organize a theme. NOTICE: The LCM reserves the right to reject papers accepted by Theme Session reviewers. However, this right will only be exercised if accepted papers deviate too far from the goals of LCM with respect to their content and/or quality. PLENARY SPEAKERS: Michael Chandler (University of British Columbia) Alessandro Duranti (University of California at Los Angeles) Derek Edwards (University of Loughborough) Marianne Gullberg (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics) Esa Itkonen (University of Turku) CONFERENCE WEBSITE: http://www.lcm.sdu.dk EARLIER LCM CONFERENCES: 1st LCM conference: Portsmouth 2004 2nd LCM conference: Paris 2006 THE INTERNATIONAL LCM COMMITTEE: Raphael Berthele Carlos Cornejo Caroline David Merlin Donald Barbara Fultner Anders R. Hougaard Jean Lassègue John A Lucy Aliyah Morgenstern Eve Pinsker Vera da Silva Sinha Chris Sinha THE LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: Center for Social Practises and Cognition (SoPraCon): Rineke Brouwer Dennis Day Annette Grindsted Anders R. Hougaard Gitte R. Hougaard (Director) Kristian Mortensen SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Anne Salazar Orvig Meredith Williams Todd Oakley Jonathan Potter Robin Wooffitt Alan Cienki Cornellia Müller Ewa Dabrowska Edy Veneziano Shaun Gallagher Edwin Hutchins THE LCM CONFERENCES: The goals of LCM conferences are to contribute to situating the study of language in a contemporary interdisciplinary dialogue, and to promote a better integration of cognitive and cultural perspectives in empirical and theoretical studies of language. Human natural languages are biologically based, cognitively motivated, affectively rich, socially shared, grammatically organized symbolic systems. They provide the principal semiotic means for the complexity and diversity of human cultural life. As has long been recognized, no single discipline or methodology is sufficient to capture all the dimensions of this complex and multifaceted phenomenon, which lies at the heart of what it is to be human. Theories of cognition and perception, and their neural foundations, are central to many current approaches in language science. However, a genuinely integrative perspective requires that attention also be paid to the foundations of cultural life in social interaction, empathy, mimesis, intersubjectivity, dialogicality, normativity, agentivity and narrativity. Significant theoretical, methodological and empirical advancements across relevant disciplines now provide a realistic basis for such a broadened perspective. This conference will articulate and discuss approaches to human natural language and to diverse genres of language activity which aim to integrate its cultural, social, cognitive, affective and bodily foundations. We call for contributions from scholars and scientists in anthropology, biology, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, semiotics, semantics, discourse analysis, cognitive and neuroscience, who wish both to share their insights and findings, and learn from other disciplines. Preference will be given to submissions which emphasize interdisciplinarity, the interaction between culture, mind and language, and/or multi-methodological approaches in language sciences. ***** Anders R. Hougaard Assistant professor, PhD Institute of Language and Communication University of Southern Denmark, Odense hougaard at language.sdu.dk Phone: +45 65503154 Fax: + 45 65932483 From segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr Wed Sep 12 08:34:02 2007 From: segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr (Guillaume Segerer) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:34:02 +0200 Subject: Workshop 'Typology of African Languages' - organisation Message-ID: Dear participants to the workshop "Typology of African Languages" Due to security reasons, people willing to attend the workshop finally have to pre-register (the entrance is still free of charge). You can send an e-mail to segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr (subject: ATLA). Thanks for your understanding. Guillaume Segerer Cher participants à l'Atelier "Typologie des langues africaines" Pour des raisons de sécurité, les participants à l'atelier doivent finalement se pré-inscrire (l'entrée est toujours gratuite). Vous pouvez m'envoyer un courriel à segerer at vjf.cnrs.fr (sujet : ATLA). Merci de vorte compréhension. Guillaume Segerer -- __________________________________________ Guillaume SEGERER LLACAN - UMR 8135 (CNRS, INALCO) 7 rue Guy Môquet, 94801 Villejuif +33 (0)1 49 58 36 96 From language at sprynet.com Mon Sep 17 17:43:05 2007 From: language at sprynet.com (Alexander Gross2) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:43:05 -0500 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... Message-ID: Some of you are likely to find the cover article of yesterday's New York Times Magazine of some interest. Its brief summary runs as follows: "Much of what we’re told about diet, lifestyle and disease is based on epidemiologic studies. What if it is just bad science?" I wonder how some of you might feel if that summation were changed to read as follows: "Much of what we’re told about language and linguistics is based on theoretical and statistical studies. What if it is just bad science?" All the best to everyone! alex gross PS--for those of you who may have missed the article, it can be found in the online Times at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all From ekapia at bu.edu Mon Sep 17 18:16:16 2007 From: ekapia at bu.edu (ekapia at bu.edu) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:16:16 -0400 Subject: BUCLD 32 Pre-registration Announcement Message-ID: Dear Colleague, We are pleased to announce that online pre-registration for BUCLD 32 is now available at: https://www.bu.edu/phpbin/bucld/ The 32nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development will be held at Boston University, November 2-4, 2007. Our invited speakers are: Ellen Bialystok, York University ?Cognitive Effects of Bilingualism Across the Lifespan? Keynote address, Friday, November 2 at 8:00 pm William O?Grady, University of Hawai?i at Manoa "Does Emergentism Have a Chance?" Plenary address, Saturday, November 3 at 5:45 pm Katherine Demuth, Brown University Anne Fernald, Stanford University Lee Osterhout, University of Washington Discussant: Virginia Valian, Hunter College, and CUNY Graduate Center ?The Production and Processing of Grammatical Morphemes? Lunchtime symposium, Saturday, November 3 at 12:15 pm The Society for Language Development (SLD) will be holding its fourth annual symposium on "Generalization in Language Learning" on Thursday, November 1, in conjunction with the BUCLD meeting. BUCLD 32 is offering online pre-registration and on-site registration for this event. Speakers: Janet Pierrehumbert of Northwestern University, Josh Tenenbaum of MIT, Steven Pinker of Harvard University More information on the SLD symposium can be found at: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/sld/symposium.html BUCLD and SLD online pre-registration information is available at: https://www.bu.edu/phpbin/bucld/ The full conference schedule is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/schedule_temp.html More information about BUCLD is available at our website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD We look forward to seeing you at BUCLD 32! Sincerely, Heather Jacob, Harvey Chan, and Enkeleida Kapia BUCLD 32 Co-organizers From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon Sep 17 18:56:50 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:56:50 +0200 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... In-Reply-To: <001601c7f952$3403fea0$41ead718@v7t0g4> Message-ID: Dear Alexander, In the context of your posting: What about Giambattista Vico's dictum (one of my most favorite ones): "Scientia ipsa humana nihil aliud sit ubi efficere ut res sibi pulchra proportione respondeant [some sources read: respondiant]." :-) Best wishes, Wolfgang Alexander Gross2 wrote: > Some of you are likely to find the cover article of yesterday's New York Times Magazine of some interest. Its brief summary runs as follows: > > "Much of what we're told about diet, lifestyle and disease is based on epidemiologic studies. What if it is just bad science?" > > I wonder how some of you might feel if that summation were changed to read as follows: > > "Much of what we're told about language and linguistics is based on theoretical and statistical studies. What if it is just bad science?" > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *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 /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /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 rjacobs at townesquare.net Mon Sep 17 19:17:02 2007 From: rjacobs at townesquare.net (R. A. Jacobs) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:17:02 -0400 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... In-Reply-To: <46EECDF2.1050804@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: With respect to Taubes' account of epidemiology, my epidemiologist son comments that his article covers almost exactly the same topics as one he wrote a few years back. The points are reasonable but overblown and highly selective. Some things are twisted. My son comments: For example, when Richard Peto talked about all the rubbish published, he almostly certainly didn't mean ALL observational studies, as Taubes said he did. Peto is probably very unhappy about this right now. Note that Taubes also implies that epidemiology hasn't figured anything out about why Japanese have lower rates of breast cancer - in fact it's almost certain that obesity has a lot to do with it. And it's not as if we have no clue about what causes obesity, as Taubes later implies. Few if any working in obesity doubt that it's a combination of eating too much and not having enough physical activity. When Taubes did this a few years ago, my son vaguely remembers a lot of quoted senior epidemiologists being unhappy about having their statements quoted out of context and strung put together with a bunch of other selected self-critical statements from epidemiologists, to form an overly damning picture of the field as a whole. Even given the natural desire to defend one's own field, the above points surely indicate the dangers of using material in a field in which one lacks expertise to score points about one's own field. Best, Roderick A. Jacobs -- Roderick A. Jacobs, Author/Linguistic Consultant Recent Articles: [Georgia State University] Review of 'Handbook of English Linguistics Em.Prof. Linguistics & 2nd Language Studies in JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, , Past Dean, College of Languages, Linguistics, 35:2 (June 2007), 188-193. & Literature, University of Hawai'i Books recent or in process: Review of 'Mental Spaces in Grammar: English Syntax (Oxford University Press) Conditional Constructions' in COGNITIVE Valhalla's Daughter (with agent) LINGUISTICS, 17-4 (2006), pp.567-574. Hands Across Time (in process) Tel: 404-378-7365 "Apih, the little dragon", in OKI NIRMALA, Jakarta, Indonesia: 12/2006 From tpayne at uoregon.edu Wed Sep 19 00:01:26 2007 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:01:26 -0700 Subject: North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad 2008 Message-ID: The second annual North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad (NACLO) will take place in February and March of 2008. Earlier this year, 195 high school students from around the USA participated in the first NACLO competition. Eight of the top winners went on to compete at the International Linguistics Olympiad in St. Petersburg, Russia, and came home with several awards, as well as many fond memories (see www.namclo.org). In the coming year, NACLO winners will be eligible for the International Linguistics Olympiad to be held in the Summer of 2008 in Bulgaria. The success of any Linguistics Olympiad program such as NACLO depends on the collaborative efforts of many in the linguistics and computational linguistics communities throughout the world. At this point you can participate by: 1. Hosting a 'site' for the North American Open competition in February. 2. Serving on a NACLO committee. 3. Creating problems, or ideas and data for problems to be used in future Olympiads. Hosting a site involves inviting high school students from your area to your university on a given day in February (exact date to be determined). Your students and faculty will then administer the contest for two to four hours, and then forward the high-school students' solutions to the judges for scoring. Committees in need of members at this point are: Program: Creating, evaluating and scoring problems used for publicity, practice and the actual competition for 2008. Publicity: Creating flyers, writing and distributing press releases and other publicity materials. Development: Identifying and approaching potential funding sources. Follow up: Obtaining and distributing prizes and certificates, evaluating the program and organizing mentoring programs, summer schools, and summer internships. ILO team: Making travel arrangements, researching legal issues, corresponding with competitors and families, conducting coaching sessions, and traveling with the team to Bulgaria in the Summer of 2008. Challenging and engaging linguistics and computational linguistics problems are the centerpiece of any Linguistic Olympiad program. Guidelines for problem creation can be found at http://www.uoregon.edu/~tpayne/ProblemCreation.pdf. Thank you very much for your help in raising the profile of our discipline among secondary school students. Please contact any of the executive team members below if you have any questions or would like to participate in 2008. Local contests or general volunteering: Lori Levin (General co-chair 2007-2008) lsl at cs.cmu.edu Thomas E. Payne (General co-chair 2007-2008) tpayne at uoregon.edu Problem ideas or registration: Dragomir Radev (Program chair 2007-2008) radev at umich.edu No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.22/1015 - Release Date: 9/18/2007 11:53 AM From language at sprynet.com Thu Sep 20 01:02:34 2007 From: language at sprynet.com (Alexander Gross2) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:02:34 -0500 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... Message-ID: Taubes makes it quite clear that some epidemiologists and doctors are likely to support his position and others are likely to oppose it. This means that while this correspondent is fortunate in having an epidemiologist for a son, it truly adds nothing to our discussion. I have, together with my wife, followed the ups and downs of epidemiological research over the past twenty years, but more importantly each of us has been quite directly and personally affected by those results where hormone replacement therapy and statins are concerned. Perhaps it needs to be noted, since so many here seem to be almost totally wedded to theory, that the results of Epidemiological Research, unlike the results of Mainstream Linguistics Research, can have an immediate, direct, and practical impact, sometimes touching on life and death. I am of course deeply impressed by the eighteen lines of credentials this professor finds necesary to add to his signature, and this triumph of good taste leads me to believe that it would not have been amiss, since the claim has been made that someone is "using material in a field in which one lacks expertise," if the person making this claim could have at least glanced at the material on my website at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/otherdex.htm#chinmed as well as the opening paragraphs (under the Linguistics menu) of my invited LACUS presentation two years ago. If this had been done, it would have been discovered, along with two papers appearing in a medical review, that I have been concerned with the nexus of medicine and linguistics for at least the last twenty years. I can't help wondering if the apparent bone of contention here has more to do with my perspective on linguistics than anything--actually, nothing that I can think of (though it's always a good idea to try changing the subject)--that I have ever written about epidemiology. With very best to all! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. A. Jacobs" To: Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Yesterday's New York Times... > With respect to Taubes' account of epidemiology, my epidemiologist > son comments that his article covers almost exactly the same topics > as one he wrote a few years back. The points are reasonable but > overblown and highly selective. Some things are twisted. > > My son comments: For example, when Richard Peto talked about all the > rubbish published, he almostly certainly didn't mean ALL > observational studies, as Taubes said he did. Peto is probably very > unhappy about this right now. Note that Taubes also implies that > epidemiology hasn't figured anything out about why Japanese have > lower rates of breast cancer - in fact it's almost certain that > obesity has a lot to do with it. And it's not as if we have no clue > about what causes obesity, as Taubes later implies. Few if any > working in obesity doubt that it's a combination of eating too much > and not having enough physical activity. > > When Taubes did this a few years ago, my son vaguely remembers a lot > of quoted senior epidemiologists being unhappy about having their > statements quoted out of context and strung put together with a bunch > of other selected self-critical statements from epidemiologists, to > form an overly damning picture of the field as a whole. > > Even given the natural desire to defend one's own field, the above > points surely indicate the dangers of using material in a field in > which one lacks expertise to score points about one's own field. > > Best, > > Roderick A. Jacobs > > -- > Roderick A. Jacobs, Author/Linguistic Consultant Recent Articles: > [Georgia State University] Review of 'Handbook > of English Linguistics > Em.Prof. Linguistics & 2nd Language Studies in JOURNAL OF > ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, , > Past Dean, College of Languages, Linguistics, 35:2 (June > 2007), 188-193. > & Literature, University of Hawai'i > Books recent or in process: Review of 'Mental > Spaces in Grammar: > English Syntax (Oxford University Press) Conditional > Constructions' in COGNITIVE > Valhalla's Daughter (with agent) LINGUISTICS, > 17-4 (2006), pp.567-574. > Hands Across Time (in process) > Tel: 404-378-7365 "Apih, the little > dragon", in OKI NIRMALA, > Jakarta, Indonesia: 12/2006 > From rjacobs at townesquare.net Thu Sep 20 02:29:22 2007 From: rjacobs at townesquare.net (R. A. Jacobs) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:29:22 -0400 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... In-Reply-To: <003101c7fb21$ede0e560$41ead718@v7t0g4> Message-ID: I am delighted that Dr. Gross responded so helpfully to my message and blush modestly at his praise for my credentials. The same modesty obliges me to omit them from this missive. I apologize for being unaware of his medical credentials. I've remedied some of that ignorance by consulting his very impressive website. It appears to have two informative entries on Chinese medicine, plus one on alternative diabetes remedies. The entry on Chinese herbs looks very useful and I shall recommend it to a past student of mine presently studying that field. I have also read the paragraphs from his Lacus talk in which he refers to medical experiences. But I still have a failure of understanding. I don't quite understand the point of citing Taubes' claim that "some epidemiologists and doctors are likely to support his position and others are likely to oppose it". I couldn't relate it to what I wrote, perhaps because I have no data to evaluate the degree of likelihood and Taubes cites none on this. I assume that, if such professionals exist, there may be more than one. But I completely agree with Dr. Gross on his claims about life and death. I also failed to perceive the relevance of Dr. Gross's areas of expertise in medical matters to my point that it can be dangerous to use material from a field outside one's expertise to score points about one's own field. Mea culpa! I'm glad to report that my stance on linguistics is probably a lot closer to Dr. Gross's than he suspects. My point had more to do with misleading interpretations of epidemiological discourse, and the risks of relying on less credentialed experts than I or Dr. Gross for arguments about linguistics. The points Dr. Gross makes elsewhere about evidence-based linguistics are infinitely more interesting. Best wishes, Ricky Jacobs >----- Original Message ---------- > Taubes makes it quite clear that some epidemiologists and doctors are likely >to support his position and others are likely to oppose it. This means that >while this correspondent is fortunate in having an epidemiologist for a son, >it truly adds nothing to our discussion. > Perhaps it needs to be noted, since so many here seem to be almost totally >wedded to theory, that the results of Epidemiological Research, unlike the >results of Mainstream Linguistics Research, can have an immediate, direct, >and practical impact, sometimes touching on life and death. > I am of course deeply impressed by the eighteen lines of credentials this >professor finds necesary to add to his signature, and this triumph of good >taste leads me to believe that it would not have been amiss, since the claim >has been made that someone is "using material in a field in which one lacks >expertise," if the person making this claim could have at least glanced at >the material on my website at: > >http://language.home.sprynet.com/otherdex.htm#chinmed > >as well as the opening paragraphs (under the Linguistics menu) of my invited >LACUS presentation two years ago. If this had been done, it would have been >discovered, along with two papers appearing in a medical review, that I have >been concerned with the nexus of medicine and linguistics for at least the >last twenty years. I can't help wondering if the apparent bone of >contention here has more to do with my perspective on linguistics than >anything--actually, nothing that I can think of (though it's always a good >idea to try changing the subject)--that I have ever written about >epidemiology. From language at sprynet.com Thu Sep 20 19:03:17 2007 From: language at sprynet.com (Alexander Gross2) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:03:17 -0500 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... Message-ID: Thanks for that Vico citation, Wolfgang, And thanks also for your two fascinating websites, where I have already wandered a bit & will wander further. Yes, i too enjoy quotes that sum up a great deal in a few words, especially during this era when so many linguists use so many words to say so little. Two of my favorite ones are the Epictetus epigram i used in Greek & English towards the end of my Dartmouth paper: Real things don't cause people trouble, Only ideas about real things. And G.C.Lichtenberg's incisive observation: Language originated before philosophy, and that is what is the matter with philosophy. which I also have in German somewhere. I can't help wishing that the founder of mainstream linguistics had encountered and understood those words back during the 'Fifties. If he had, perhaps we would have been spared the pairing of linguistics with philosophy at the MIT department, all the while also claiming the field as a science, and even as a technology able to spawn switchboxes and parameters. Lichtenberg is in any case one of my heroes, someone who despite a severe physical handicap managed to excel as both a physicist and a "witticist," something not too many scientists have managed. One possible response to Vico has perhaps come from the English biologist T.H. Huxley, grandfather of Aldous, Julian and Andrew: The great tragedy of Science--the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. And here too perhaps a parallel with mainstream linguistics. Thanks again, and all the very best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" To: "Alexander Gross2" Cc: Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:56 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Yesterday's New York Times... > Dear Alexander, > In the context of your posting: What about Giambattista Vico's dictum > (one of my most favorite ones): > "Scientia ipsa humana nihil aliud sit ubi efficere ut res sibi pulchra > proportione respondeant [some sources read: respondiant]." :-) > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > Alexander Gross2 wrote: > > Some of you are likely to find the cover article of yesterday's New York Times Magazine of some interest. Its brief summary runs as follows: > > > > "Much of what we're told about diet, lifestyle and disease is based on epidemiologic studies. What if it is just bad science?" > > > > I wonder how some of you might feel if that summation were changed to read as follows: > > > > "Much of what we're told about language and linguistics is based on theoretical and statistical studies. What if it is just bad science?" > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *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 > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > /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 W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Sep 21 06:00:11 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:00:11 +0200 Subject: Yesterday's New York Times... In-Reply-To: <46F2FBB0.8080901@smtp.uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Tom, frankly said I do not fully understand your negative assessment of recent Funknet postings. Sure, any forum is likely to be misused in terms of - as you say - "negative insinuations, constant carping, posturing, ego-tripping and plain hate". But is this really the case if someone makes public a quote from an Italian philosopher, historian and jurist whose work has influenced - among many others - the thinking of e.g. Benedetto Croce and Bertram Russell? Lenin's appeal to self-criticism as a precondition for criticism should in fact not only be relevant to public communication as such, but also to our way of scientific argumentation. The Vico quote goes in just that direction (note the conjunctive /sit/ in "Scientia ipsa humana nihil aliud /sit/ ubi efficere ut res sibi pulchra proportione respondeant"). In my eyes, the constant self-criticism with respect to one's own scientific approach is part of a sound scientific methodology. For instance, if someone starts from the basic (ontological) hypothesis that language has some kind of 'nature' or is an objective reality of its own, (s)he will have to corroborate this hypothesis by again and again checking it against the reverse argument, according to which the 'nature' of language is a secondary qualification of something fully different based on cognitive processes to construe the world. As far as I understand Vico, it is just this methodological prerequisite that underlies the quote given above. I do not think that reminding people on this forum of this problem is an expression of "these repeated ever-so-subtle insinuations and negativity about linguistics, and science, and linguists", to again use your wording. By the way, after by now nearly 30 years of work as a professional linguist (sure, with his own idiosyncrasies, no doubt), I think that I am allowed to claim that I, too, DO linguistics... :-) Very best wishes, Wolfgang Tom Givon wrote: > I am, frankly, sick and tired of hearing all these repeated > ever-so-subtle insinuations and negativity about linguistics, and > science, and linguists. As anyone who has read my works over the years > may recall, I have never been all that sanguine about the state of our > discipline. It is far from ideal. So are we all, present company > included. (Pulling a leaf out of Lenin's work, self-criticism is how > we earn the right to criticize others). But, just for the record, I > founded FUNKNET 14 years ago as a forum for professional discussion > of substantive issues, for people who actually--maybe, sometime, be > it in their spare time--DO linguistics. So I am disgusted at how it > is slowly transforming itself into a forum for negative insinuations, > constant carping, posturing, ego-tripping and plain hate. The people > at Rice who run FUNKNET nowadays seem to not care about what has > become of it. But I can't help still caring. A character flaw, I'm sure. > > Y'all be good, TG > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *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 /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /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 tgivon at smtp.uoregon.edu Fri Sep 21 11:13:52 2007 From: tgivon at smtp.uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:13:52 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [FUNKNET] Yesterday's New York Times...] Message-ID: From Salinas17 at aol.com Sat Sep 22 01:46:37 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:46:37 EDT Subject: test Message-ID: test ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Sep 28 10:32:05 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 12:32:05 +0200 Subject: Criticizing Linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Steve, in your response to my posting you wrote (among others): > If I were as interested in criticizing the field of linguistics as Alex > appears to be, I think I'd start with any view of language that leaves out the idea > of communication, as Wolfgang's apparently does. Well, I think that things are bit more difficult. Naturally, I do not negate the fact of communication, but the question is how we can explain communication and which effects such an explanation would have on assumptions about the ontology of language. Let me put it into very brief and simple words. It probably is an uncontroversial fact that all we can observe (for now) are various types of language output. But it seems likewise uncontroversial to assume that a language output would never come into existence without a cognition producing this output (as we're used to say: 'language happens in the brain'). This type of Counterfactual Conditional Operator (in the sense of David Lewis) suggests a causal relationship between cognition and language, whereby language cannot be without cognition (in the sense of weak emergence). Accordingly, *all* properties of language, be it symbolization via articulation (and breath disturbance), be it morphosyntax, pragmatics, or lexical issues etc., are ultimately grounded in and structured by cognition. Again nothing new. Naturally, a non-modular hypothesis has to assume that various layers in cognition and various layered processes (networking together) are responsible for what we find in a language output. But again these layers are not hazardously working together, but (from a bottom-up perspective) in terms of motivated 'chains' and networking processes. All this brings us to the basic question whether we should describe the ontology of language in terms of a causa finalis or a causa efficiens (plus causa formalis, I think), hence whether to ask 'why is language' (efficiens) or 'what is language for?' (finalis). Sure, it is a matter of conviction to decide from which of these two 'forensic questions' we have to start. Here, much is preshaped by corresponding scientific and (alas) ideological paradigms that can be related to the two key terms 'mythic' ('why') and 'utopic' ('what for'). The 60ies-80ies strongly favored the 'utopic' view, whereas the (second) cognitive turn is strongly related to 'myth' (both terms are here used as applied in science theories). Personally, I think that we cannot describe a telic ontology of language without referring to the causa efficiens before. Hence, we must know 'why' language 'is' in order to describe what it is for. This brings me back to cognition. There is sufficient evidence stemming from Radical Constructvism that cognition is a biological apparatus to guarantee the interaction of an individual with its environment. A cognition that does not in which way so ever interact (not: communicate!) with its environment is said to be 'dead'. The main point now is that much of what cognition 'does' happens in terms of 'unconscious' processes (poiematic, in my words). This is the difference between thinking as a cognitive process (German: Denken) and thinking as a conscious process, usually based on (fragments of) language (German: Nachdenken = intraindividual 'communication'). In English, we can refer to the distinction Thought (pre-language) and Reflection (among others: language-based). It is common assunmptioon in Constructivism that Thought encompasses cognitive processes to make sense (what ever this means) of all the un-ordered, chaotic set of world stimuli that constantly effect a cognition via perception (turning it into experience). One of these stimuli - I think - is what cognition construes as 'language'. A cognition thus interprets the corresponding input (which may likewise be cognition-internal [the experience of reflection]) as some kind of 'system' (basically as a part of the overall experience building and experience storing process). In addition, a cognition experiences its own expressive behavior as the same kind of 'syystem' as it experiences it via the Outer World (naturally, we have to add the recursive and engrammaticizing processes initiated by learning). As an effect, a cognition combines this complex set of experience (among others) as communication. Hence, 'communication' is an epiphenomenon of 'language' (better of its preconditions) rather than an ontological need of human beings. The main task naturally is to find some evidence for these hypotheses (that I assemble under the framework of 'Radical Experiantialism', RadEx) in the output of linguistic behavior. I'm working on this in a project (called 'Cognitive Typology'). Anybody wishing to learn a bit more about RadEx and CogTyp can contact me. I would guide him/her to some of the relevant publications.... 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 /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /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 Salinas17 at aol.com Fri Sep 28 06:38:45 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:38:45 EDT Subject: Criticizing Linguistics Message-ID: In a message dated 9/21/07 2:03:09 AM, W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes: << In my eyes, the constant self-criticism with respect to one's own scientific approach is part of a sound scientific methodology. For instance, if someone starts from the basic (ontological) hypothesis that language has some kind of 'nature' or is an objective reality of its own, (s)he will have to corroborate this hypothesis by again and again checking it against the reverse argument, according to which the 'nature' of language is a secondary qualification of something fully different based on cognitive processes to construe the world. >> To all: I'm not sure I fully understand Alex's comparison of his problems with linguistics to someone else's criticism of a diagnostic biological science, but I was taken aback a bit by Wolfgang's description of our options when it comes to testing "the objective reality" of language. If I were as interested in criticizing the field of linguistics as Alex appears to be, I think I'd start with any view of language that leaves out the idea of communication, as Wolfgang's apparently does. There is certainly an objective reality to language that anyone who listens to language must deal with. I may be interested in the speaker's "cognitive processes to construe the world." But all I have is the physical reality of his speaking or writing or signing. If he is sucessfully misleading me, I most assuredly am not aware of his actual cognitive processes. If I take what he says at "face value," my response is not based on what he is thinking, but what he is objectively saying. Every listener or reader is always in this position. And just like any listener, the linguistic researcher is always separated from the subject's cognition by an ultimately unbridgeable gap. (If we could all truly read each other's minds, maybe we would have no need for language -- or linguistics?) Furthermore, in many cases, I may be much less interested in the speaker's cognition than what he's referring to. If he tells me the bridge is out ahead, it means I'll have to go back and take another road. I can do that without ever seeing the bridge. In comparison, a cat or dog trying to get across a river probably can use enough "cognition" to know they will have to find another way across if the bridge is out. But cats and dogs do not seem to be able to warn one another about bridges being out ahead of time. They can't communicate these kinds of details. The failure would seem to be not in their individual cognitive processes, but in their communal language abilities. And that inability would be another thing that separates the two processes. I guess this isn't so much a criticism of linguistics in the sense of Alex's criticism. It's more of a question about what the subject matter of linguistics is. I'm thinking about the political advisors who carefully test words used in a commercial against the voting behavior of subjects exposed to those commercials. Are these people cognitive scientists or behaviorists? Or are they really linguists? Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com From Salinas17 at aol.com Fri Sep 28 22:33:15 2007 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:33:15 EDT Subject: Criticizing Linguistics (2) Message-ID: In a message dated 9/28/07 6:33:40 AM, W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes: << But it seems likewise uncontroversial to assume that a language output would never come into existence without a cognition producing this output (as we're used to say: 'language happens in the brain')... language cannot be without cognition.... cognition is a biological apparatus to guarantee the interaction of an individual with its environment.>> Wolfgang - Thank you for the reply. I think it might be useful to apply a bit of that "self-criticism" to the statements above -- which I believe fairly well reflect the opinions of most linguists who are involved in this area. When we speak of cognition as a universal, I think we are getting away with an over-reduction of the actual phenomena. There's actually no such thing as one unified "cognition". "Cognition" appears in fact to reflect many different processes and many different states -- and perhaps most importantly -- these occur in many different individuals simultaneously and constantly. Viewing it this way, what we call "cognition" -- or more properly cognitions -- are very private, individual and somewhat ephemeral events. Language, in this sense, is antithetical to cognitions. When spoken, written or signed, language is a public event. Cognitions become communal. In fact, the information stored in the English I am using in this post reflects centuries of cognitions -- not just my individual "interactions with the environment." Looking at it from this point of view -- yes, cognition gave and gives rise to language. But not as an added bonus. Rather, language was and is a solution to a PROBLEM of the private nature of individual cognition. As a matter of evolutionary survival value, SHARED cognitions -- and information about their consequences -- supply the individual with much more useful information than the much smaller set of cognitions he might have on his own. In this view, language would have arisen as an answer to the disadvantage of individual information gathering and storage -- individual cognition, if you prefer. Ontologically speaking, therefore, it would therefore be improper to attempt to reduce language to the "cognition" of a single individual. Language would be a higher order and different entity than simple cognition. It would be like trying to describe what a left tackle does without any reference to what a game of American football is about. Or it would like describing a rose only in terms of the nutrients in the dirt that rose grew in. Now, without saying that the above position is correct or incorrect, let's apply the methodology of "self-criticism" to it. How does one defend saying that communication is merely an "epiphenomena of language" in the event this kind of analysis is correct? How does one prove it wrong? And if it is correct, doesn't it represent an unfortunate blind spot in current linguistic thinking? Regards, Steve Long


**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Sep 29 07:49:47 2007 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:49:47 +0200 Subject: Criticizing Linguistics (2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Steve, just a few words (keeping in mind that we discuss this issue on Funknet, but not on CogLing, we shouldn't go into all the details): > In a message dated 9/28/07 6:33:40 AM, W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de writes: > << But it seems likewise uncontroversial to assume that a language output > would never come into existence without a cognition producing this output (as > we're used to say: 'language happens in the brain')... language cannot be without > cognition.... cognition is a biological apparatus to guarantee the > interaction of an individual with its environment.>> > > (...) > > When we speak of cognition as a universal, I think we are getting away with > an over-reduction of the actual phenomena. There's actually no such thing as > one unified "cognition". > > "Cognition" appears in fact to reflect many different processes and many > different states -- and perhaps most importantly -- these occur in many different > individuals simultaneously and constantly. > > Viewing it this way, what we call "cognition" -- or more properly cognitions > -- are very private, individual and somewhat ephemeral events. There's no doubt about the existence of individual cognitions, all of them instantiations of the same biological dispositions, so to say. The same holds for many, if not most other biology-grounded patterns of human behavior (in the widest sense of the word), such as breathing or (am I allowed to say) sex. The main point is that such behavioral types (I include cognition) share a number of basic features that seem to represent the necessary condition for individual mental and bodily activities (both substrate and functions). Personally, I refer to cognition as the continuum of those neuron-based and perception-guided processes that guarantee the individual's 'orientation' in the Outer World. I do not see any over-reduction here. On the other hand I fear that 'over-individualization' deprives us from any means to reflect common behavioral properties of human beings. This reminds me of the dictum "chaque mot a son histoire" (Jules Gillieron, formulated as such by Karl Jaberg). This dictum went against the Neo-grammarian assumption of systematic sound (and, less obviously, semantic) changes in the lexicon. I admit that some approaches in Radical Constructivism are slightly liable to this kind of solipsism - but this problem can be 'solved' if we assume that a human being normally is unconscious about those factors that reflect the biological grounding of its behavioral patterns. > Language, in this sense, is antithetical to cognitions. When spoken, written > or signed, language is a public event. Cognitions become communal. In fact, > the information stored in the English I am using in this post reflects > centuries of cognitions -- not just my individual "interactions with the > environment." Sure, no doubt! But I wouldn't say that "Cognitions become communal", rather I would formulate: "The output of cognitions becomes communal" (communal in the sense that the output must always be porcessed by other cognitions - else it is 'nothing': A text written down only is (by itself) a more or less chaotic ensemble of strokes or the like. It always needs a cognition to be 'unerstood' (consstrued) as a text. And: It goes without saying that most of what we describe as language structures does not reflect a constant, synchronic appeal to cognitive mechanisms, but rather learned and entrenched patterns that nevertheless are grounded in the architecture of cognition and that cannot go beyond the boundaries of this architecture (this is why I call 'language' an 'anachronistic knowledge system'). > Looking at it from this point of view -- yes, cognition gave and gives rise > to language. But not as an added bonus. Rather, language was and is a > solution to a PROBLEM of the private nature of individual cognition. As a matter of > evolutionary survival value, SHARED cognitions -- and information about their > consequences -- supply the individual with much more useful information than > the much smaller set of cognitions he might have on his own. This model reminds me a bit of the Multiple Instruction Multiple Data architecture of super-computers. Maybe that such a network of shared cognitions had a evolutionary survival value. But this type of network presupposes that all its members are marked for the same basic properties that enable the functioning of the network. > In this view, language would have arisen as an answer to the disadvantage of > individual information gathering and storage -- individual cognition, if you > prefer. Well, this would be the 'standard' model, I think. Accordingly, language would have emerged from processes within the network, but not from processes within its 'components'. But my point is that many (if not most) properties of language can be (in)directly related to the architecture of the components that establish this network, that is to those basic properties of cognition that are universally present in any cognition (such as structuring via perception/experience, symbolization routines, (re)presentational strategies, metaphorical potential and so on). > Ontologically speaking, therefore, it would therefore be improper to attempt > to reduce language to the "cognition" of a single individual. Language would > be a higher order and different entity than simple cognition. It would be > like trying to describe what a left tackle does without any reference to what a > game of American football is about. Or it would like describing a rose only in > terms of the nutrients in the dirt that rose grew in. One the one hand, your examples remind me of the old dictum: "To describe a rose means to BE a rose'. In fact, the diversity of linguistic traditions nicely illustrates that for the time being, a fully holistic approach to language is an utopia. On the other hand, your American football example suggests that 'language' as a 'higher order' entails some kind of 'plan' or implemented rules. Personally, I cannot see the like in language. Moreover, your hypothesis according to which "[l]anguage would be a higher order and different entity than simple cognition" looks like a version of von Ehrenfels' (in fact Aristotelian) formula: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" (changed by Max Wertheimer to: "The whole is not more than, but different from the sum of its parts") [but also recall the opposite option, e.g. Zanforlin, M, G. Vallortigara, and A. Agostini (1991): The whole may be less than the sum of its parts. In: /Gestalt Theory/, Vol. 13 (1991), pp.243-249]. In order to account for your formulation, we should refer to the version "a melody [= language] is more than [or: different from?] the sum of its tones [= cognitions]". Whichever version you prefer: A 'whole' would never function without its 'parts' - that is: Language is not an autonomous higher order entity in terms of a social or communicative system (in Luhmann's sense, as I have said earlier). It may be construed as such and people may behave according to this construction, no doubt, But ultimately, language is fully dependent (un système où tout dépend - turning around the famous dictum by Meillet (only taken up by Saussure(!)): "chaque langue forme un système où tout se tient).... > Now, without saying that the above position is correct or incorrect, let's > apply the methodology of "self-criticism" to it. How does one defend saying > that communication is merely an "epiphenomena of language" in the event this kind > of analysis is correct? How does one prove it wrong? Well, it is a well-known empirical fact that many people use to speak regardless whether their utterances are interpreted as communication by others. This type of "expressive speaking" represnets - in my eyes - the substrate of what *can* be construed as communication. But this is a minor point. Much evidence stems from language itself. I have given an example for this in an article entitled "Communication or Memory Mismatch? Towards a Cognitive Typology of Questions" (in: Radden, Günter, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund (eds.) 2007. Aspects of Meaning Construction, 247--264. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins). > And if it is correct, doesn't it represent an unfortunate blind spot in > current linguistic thinking? > Maybe...., but the qualification of a theoretical approach as an 'unfortunate blind spot' does not prove that it is wrong... Very 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 /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.als.lmu/de/mitarbeiter/index.php Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /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 thuumo at utu.fi Sun Sep 30 06:16:43 2007 From: thuumo at utu.fi (Tuomas Huumo) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:16:43 +0300 Subject: Reminder: Theme sessions for the conference Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages Message-ID: Deadline for the theme session proposals is October 1, 2007! We will be expecting your session title and the number of papers expected to be presented at the session. * Cognitive and Functional Perspectives on Dynamic Tendencies in Languages http://www.fl.ut.ee/kttdk/ecla To be held at the University of Tartu, Estonia From May 29 to June 1, 2008 KEYWORDS cognitive and functional studies on grammar grammaticalization dynamics of language synchronic and diachronic language change language contact: aspects of grammar usage-based approaches and models emergent grammar language typology language evolution Uralic languages Confirmed plenary speakers: Bernd Heine Ronald Langacker Ewa Dabrowska Martin Haspelmath Description The aim of the conference is to bring together linguists working in the functional and cognitive linguistic paradigms. We invite linguists who take a functional and/or cognitive perspective in describing and explaining linguistic phenomena in the language(s) they are researching and those working on language dynamics from a functional or cognitive perspective to participate. We especially encourage linguists working on the Uralic languages to submit papers, in the hope of expanding the Cognitive Linguistic paradigm with data from these languages; researchers involved with other languages and language families are, of course, also most welcome. We also encourage papers on grammaticalization and the role of oral and written forms and different language varieties in language change, as well as changes in grammar resulting from language contact. Furthermore, presentations dealing with different usage-based models, including construction grammar, are also welcome. Organizers University of Tartu Estonian Cognitive Linguistics Association Important dates First call for papers and theme sessions: June 29, 2007 Second call for papers and theme sessions: September 7, 2007 Deadline for theme session submissions: October 1, 2007 Notification of acceptance for theme sessions: December 15, 2007 Third call for general session papers: January 7, 2008 Deadline for general session papers: January 15, 2008 Notification of acceptance for general session papers: February 15, 2008 Program available at the website: April 15, 2008 Conference dates: May 29 - June 1, 2008 For theme session organizers: On October 1, 2007 we will be expecting your session title and the number of papers expected to be presented at the session. On February 15, 2008 we will be expecting a description of your theme session and the participants’ abstracts. Submission guidelines Abstracts (max. 500 words (including references)) should be submitted electronically to ecla at lists.ut.ee Conference website http://www.fl.ut.ee/kttdk/ecla Delete & Prev | Delete & Next Tõsta see kiri kausta: