From mehrarbeite at gmail.com Mon Sep 1 03:20:56 2008 From: mehrarbeite at gmail.com (K Cumberbatch) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:20:56 -0400 Subject: Deontic modality Message-ID: While we're on the topic of modality, I know Givon (2001) points out several tests for epistemic modality since this kind is often expressed grammatically but does anyone know of tests for deontic modality? Keren Cumberbatch From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Mon Sep 1 11:04:29 2008 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:04:29 +0200 Subject: epistemic modality and evidentiality inbrazilianportuguese In-Reply-To: <16513211.32401220054784546.JavaMail.root@Sakhir.uem.br> Message-ID: Dear Juliano D. Antonio and all Funknetters, My view of the relationship between epistemic modality and evidentiality is that they are two different conceptual categories. Both concern the reliability of the information: epistemic modality covers the degree of certainty about an SoA being or becoming true, and evidentiality covers the nature (kind and source) of the evidence for or against the truth of an SoA. In spite of being different conceptual categories, there is a high degree of overlap in the linguistic expression of both, in that there are many words and expressions whose meaning points to the degree of certainty as well as to the evidence on which it is based. For instance, this is the case of OBVIOUSLY, which expresses a high degree of certainty (epistemic) and that this certainty is based on accessible evidence to the speaker/writer as well as to others (evidentiality), so that it can be said that OBVIOUSLY is both epistemic and evidential. CERTAINLY shares the epistemic meaning with OBVIOUSLY, but not the evidential meaning. The epistemic modals WILL and MUST, for instance in That will be the milkman (old example!) or That must be the milkman said after hearing the doorbell, are similar in degree of certainty (high probability), but differ in the kind of evidence in which this high probability is based: common-sense or repeated experience in the case of WILL (e.g. the milkman rings every day at the same time), and more immediate evidence in the case of MUST (e.g. the sight of bottles of milk at your neighbour’s door). So, I would also say that both modal auxiliaries are epistemic as well as evidential expressions. >>From all this, it is easy to infer that I don’t believe that there is a drastic separation of the linguistic expression of epistemic modality and of evidentiality. Actually, I argue that there is an epistemic modality-evidentiality continuum. There are some cases, though, in which separation of both categories might be advisable for practical purposes, as in the design of pedagogic material or of a model for stylistic analysis of texts. In these cases, it has to be decided whether the evidential or the epistemic component is stronger, in order to assign different expressions to one category or the other. I would consider I THINK in examples like yours (‘I think that mentally disabled people go through a lot of prejudice’) as epistemic in the broad sense of the term (I interpret it as an expression of opinion, not of probability as it would be in ‘I think he is abroad now’). To me, the fact that a given expression presents an inference of the speaker is no reason for considering it as evidential. In fact, although I admit I have to go deeper into the issue, I’m not happy with the category of ‘inferential evidentiality’, as described in Fitneva (2001, Journal of Pragmatics) and many other works, since sensory evidence is not involved in the same way as in the other categories of evidentiality (visual, hearsay, etc.). I believe that both I think he is abroad and He is probably abroad involve the making of an inference by the speaker, even though only the first is usually considered as evidential. Therefore, in my view I THINK (as well as PROBABLY) are epistemic, since they expresses degree of certainty (or opinion), but not evidential, since they do not point to the source or kind of evidence on which the degree of certainty is based. Hope I haven’t been too messy. I would welcome discussion of these issues. Regards, Marta Carretero ----- Mensaje original ----- De: Juliano Desiderato Antonio Fecha: Sábado, Agosto 30, 2008 2:07 Asunto: [FUNKNET] epistemic modality and evidentiality in brazilianportuguese A: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Hi all. > I have a doubt about items like "eu acho que..." (I think > that...), "é óbvio que..." (it's obvious that...". It seems to > me that these items are markers of epistemic modality, but there > are papers which treat them as evidentiality markers because > they might present an inference of the speaker. > > . é óbvio que não tem colesterol, > . porque é de origem vegetal. > > (... it's obvious that it does not contain cholesterol > . because it comes from plant.) > > . eu acho que o deficiente mental sofre muito preconceito, > > (... I think that mentally disabled people go through a lot of > prejudice) > I'd like to know if it is possible to consider these items only > epistemic modality markers. > > Thanks. > > Juliano > > -- > Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antiv??us e > acredita-se estar livre de perigo. > > Marta Carretero Departamento de Filología Inglesa I Facultad de Filología Universidad Complutense de Madrid From Salinas17 at aol.com Mon Sep 1 20:37:18 2008 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:37:18 EDT Subject: epistemic modality and ev identiality=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=A0?= Message-ID: In a message dated 9/1/08 9:31:07 AM, mcarrete at filol.ucm.es writes: > < involve the making of an inference by the speaker, even though only the first is > usually considered as evidential. Therefore, in my view I THINK (as well as > PROBABLY) are epistemic, since they expresses degree of certainty (or opinion), > but not evidential, since they do not point to the source or kind of evidence > on which the degree of certainty is based.>> > Marta - Aren't you pointing here to the inherent difficulty with distinguishing between 'epistemic' and 'evidential'? Take for example: 1) The bridge is washed out. Others have come back and said so. 2) The bridge is washed out. You should believe me. 3) I think the bridge is washed out. 4) The bridge is washed out, because I opened the dam. 5) The bridge is washed out, because I heard them say so. 6) The bridge is washed out, because that is my opinion. 7) The bridge is washed out, because I am certain of it. 8) The bridge is washed out. Turn around. Take a look at how much these statements tell us about the reason the sta tement is being made at all. In each, I could be telling you this in the expectation of some action on your part, ie, turning around. But when we look at these statements from the point of view of disambiguation, only the last one tells us what the objective of the statement is. In the others, I could be asking you to build a new bridge, etc. So, we are already deep into implication no matter how we approach those first seven statements. And in the last, the evidential basis is not expressed -- you might be unclear about whether I am deluded or lying, but not about what I want you to do. What stand out, of course, are 5) and 6) above. But the semantic disjoint only appears to be the problem. Look a little deeper and you'll see I think is that the real problem is that, for most of us, belief or certainty simply does not operate in the world that way. But, if I say, "the world is flat because I believe the world is flat," you might not be surprised that I'm expressing a point of view about the physical laws of the universe, not misconstructing a sentence. So too there is a circumstance where 5) and 6) do make sense. The trouble with splitting epistemic and evidential is that the evidential is always implied -- it's just deeply hidden in some statements. "I'm always right. So you should believe me when I say the bridge is washed out," looks like it's addressing the credibility of the speaker, but in fact it is all about whether the bridge is in fact washed out or not -- and what action should be taken on the basis of that statement. This clearly implies the speaker either has evidence or reason to say so, or it is not a meaningful statement. >>From this point of view, any epistemic statement carries a identifiable implication of the evidential. This is most evident when we speak of the 'strength' of such statements. regards, steve long ************** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) From asanso at gmail.com Tue Sep 2 09:06:54 2008 From: asanso at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andrea_Sans=F2?=) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:06:54 +0200 Subject: International Spring School - Standard and non-standard languages in Europe - Italy, April 2009 Message-ID: ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** ------------------------- INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCHOOL 2009 "Standard and non-standard languages in Europe: future and vitality of dialects, language contacts and new linguistic scenarios in today's Europe" LETiSS - Center for Postgraduate Education and Research Pavia, 6-10 April 2009 ------------------------- Dear list members, the newborn Center for Postgraduate Education and Research on "Languages of Europe: Typology, History and Sociolinguistics" (LETiSS) ANNOUNCES the International Spring School 2009 on "Standard and non-standard languages in Europe: future and vitality of dialects, language contacts and new linguistic scenarios in today's Europe", to be held in Pavia (Italy), 6-10 April 2009. The LETISS Center has been launched within the frame of an institute for advanced studies called IUSS (Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori - http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/index.php). It is the first center in Italy (and in Europe) specifically dedicated to the linguistic situation of Europe, approached from a variety of perspectives. More information on the aims, the research topics and the activities of the Center can be found at the following URL: http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/centri.php?id=23 The first activity organized by LETiSS is the Spring School on "Standard and non-standard languages in Europe: future and vitality of dialects, language contacts and new linguistic scenarios in today's Europe". The aim of the spring school is to enhance dialogue among young linguists interested in the topics announced in the title, under the guide of leading specialists. This is why the number of participants has been limited to 20, in order to facilitate interactions among them. The Spring School will last one week, from Monday the 6th until Friday the 10th of April 2009, at the IUSS Institute in Pavia. The school will offer four courses that will last five days, according to the (provisional) timetable provided below. The courses will be taught by four scientists who have specific expertise in the topics of the school. The everyday schedule, from Monday to Friday, will be as follows: 9-11: 1st course 11.15-13.15: 2nd course 15-17: 3rd course 17.15-19.15: 4th course Friday evening there will be a farewell dinner at 20.00 THE COURSES: 1st course – Bernd Kortmann (Universität Freiburg i.Br.) topic: Dialectology and Typology ------- 2nd course – Thomas Stolz (Universität Bremen) topic: Standard Average European ------- 3rd course – Davide Ricca (Università di Torino) topic: Dialects as Endangered languages ------- 4th course – Suzanne Romaine (University of Oxford) topic: Endangered languages and varieties in Europe The exact titles and a preliminary bibliography will be online approximately next October. APPLICATIONS 20 advanced students in linguistics and related fields will be selected by the Scientific Committee of the School (see LETiSS website). The main criterion will be the degree of relatedness/pertinence of their research interests with the topics of the School. In particular: * applicants must have achieved at least the B.A. + M.A. level (= a five years cycle); therefore the students may be Ph.D. students, Post-docs, and young researchers; * in the CV applicants should indicate any research activity and publication that may be relevant for the admission; * applicants should also attach a short description (one/two pages) of their past and ongoing research projects. NO TUITION FEE IS REQUIRED!! Each participant will receive 250 Euros as partial refund for his/her travel and accommodation expenses, and a certificate of attendance will be issued at the end of the school. IMPORTANT DATES - 31st October 2008: application deadline. Applications must be sent to letiss at iusspavia.it by the 31st October through the form that will be downloadable from the LETiSS website. At this stage, the CV + short description of the research projects must be attached. - 30th November 2008: notification of acceptance. The applicants who have been accepted will receive a communication with all the relevant informations. - 15th December 2008: the list of the accepted participants will be online. ORGANIZERS: Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sansò, Paolo Ramat Please send your application and any questions to: letiss at iusspavia.it More information can be found on the following websites: LETiSS Center: http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/centri.php?id=23 International Spring School 2009: http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/centri.php?id=23&sez=2 Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sansò, Paolo Ramat From a.foolen at let.ru.nl Tue Sep 2 20:31:32 2008 From: a.foolen at let.ru.nl (Ad Foolen) Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:31:32 +0200 Subject: epistemic modality an d evidentiality  Message-ID: Hi Marta, the Journal of Semantics has a special issue on Modality and Evidentiality: 25:3 (August 2008). I copy the table of contents below, so that you can check whether it contains something useful for you. Ad Foolen Takao Gunji, Stefan Kaufmann, and Yukinori Takubo Modality and Evidentiality J Semantics 2008 25: 221-227; doi:10.1093/jos/ffn006 [Full Text] [PDF] [Request Permissions] Yurie Hara Evidentiality of Discourse Items and Because-Clauses Journal of Semantics Advance Access published on June 20, 2008 J Semantics 2008 25: 229-268; doi:10.1093/jos/ffn001 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Request Permissions] James Isaacs and Kyle Rawlins Conditional Questions J Semantics 2008 25: 269-319; doi:10.1093/jos/ffn003 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Request Permissions] Tim Fernando Branching from Inertia Worlds Journal of Semantics Advance Access published on June 3, 2008 J Semantics 2008 25: 321-344; doi:10.1093/jos/ffn002 [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Request Permissions -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] Namens Salinas17 at aol.com Verzonden: maandag 1 september 2008 22:37 Aan: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Onderwerp: Re: [FUNKNET] epistemic modality and evidentiality In a message dated 9/1/08 9:31:07 AM, mcarrete at filol.ucm.es writes: > < involve the making of an inference by the speaker, even though only the first is > usually considered as evidential. Therefore, in my view I THINK (as well as > PROBABLY) are epistemic, since they expresses degree of certainty (or opinion), > but not evidential, since they do not point to the source or kind of evidence > on which the degree of certainty is based.>> > Marta - Aren't you pointing here to the inherent difficulty with distinguishing between 'epistemic' and 'evidential'? Take for example: 1) The bridge is washed out. Others have come back and said so. 2) The bridge is washed out. You should believe me. 3) I think the bridge is washed out. 4) The bridge is washed out, because I opened the dam. 5) The bridge is washed out, because I heard them say so. 6) The bridge is washed out, because that is my opinion. 7) The bridge is washed out, because I am certain of it. 8) The bridge is washed out. Turn around. Take a look at how much these statements tell us about the reason the sta tement is being made at all. In each, I could be telling you this in the expectation of some action on your part, ie, turning around. But when we look at these statements from the point of view of disambiguation, only the last one tells us what the objective of the statement is. In the others, I could be asking you to build a new bridge, etc. So, we are already deep into implication no matter how we approach those first seven statements. And in the last, the evidential basis is not expressed -- you might be unclear about whether I am deluded or lying, but not about what I want you to do. What stand out, of course, are 5) and 6) above. But the semantic disjoint only appears to be the problem. Look a little deeper and you'll see I think is that the real problem is that, for most of us, belief or certainty simply does not operate in the world that way. But, if I say, "the world is flat because I believe the world is flat," you might not be surprised that I'm expressing a point of view about the physical laws of the universe, not misconstructing a sentence. So too there is a circumstance where 5) and 6) do make sense. The trouble with splitting epistemic and evidential is that the evidential is always implied -- it's just deeply hidden in some statements. "I'm always right. So you should believe me when I say the bridge is washed out," looks like it's addressing the credibility of the speaker, but in fact it is all about whether the bridge is in fact washed out or not -- and what action should be taken on the basis of that statement. This clearly implies the speaker either has evidence or reason to say so, or it is not a meaningful statement. >>From this point of view, any epistemic statement carries a identifiable implication of the evidential. This is most evident when we speak of the 'strength' of such statements. regards, steve long ************** It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) From c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk Thu Sep 4 08:57:43 2008 From: c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:57:43 +0100 Subject: textbook? Message-ID: Colleagues, Does anyone know of a good text book for level one undergraduates which would cover the basics in analysing conversation transcripts and written texts? Best, Chris -- Christopher Hart Lecturer in English Language and Communication School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire www.go.herts.ac.uk/cjhart From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Sep 4 17:34:34 2008 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:34:34 -0700 Subject: textbook? In-Reply-To: <48BFA307.1000908@herts.ac.uk> Message-ID: There is a good book entitled Discourse and Identity by Bethan Benwell and Elizabeth Stokoe which describes several approaches to analyzing transcripts, including CA. It also deals with CDA--can't remember if it includes written texts. Barbara Johnstone's Discourse Analysis is wonderful this way (for written text). Also, there is a British text which deals with analyzing spoken language (and has some application for teaching)--can't remember the name. It is in my office. I think it's Analyzing Spoken Language. Christopher Hart wrote: > Colleagues, > > Does anyone know of a good text book for level one undergraduates > which would cover the basics in analysing conversation transcripts and > written texts? > > Best, > Chris > From kemmer at rice.edu Sun Sep 7 20:39:20 2008 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 15:39:20 -0500 Subject: Special issue on the Legacy of John Sinclair Message-ID: International Journal of Lexicography (Oxford Univ. Press) Special Issue: The Legacy of John Sinclair Guest edited by Patrick Hanks John Sinclair was the most radical thinker on the lexicon of the 20th century. His insights into the nature of collocations and discourse structure have inspired new ways of analysing meaning. He was never afraid to face up to awkward questions such as the vague and probabilistic nature of meaning and of evidence of word use. His insistence on close, detailed analysis of evidence played a major role in the development of the emerging discipline of corpus linguistics, now universally recognised as a cornerstone of modern lexicography. In this memorial issue, some of his leading former colleagues and admirers from Asia, Africa, and America as well as Britain and Europe, present a broad spectrum of papers inspired by the Sinclairian approach, ranging from practical dictionary making to new developments in linguistic theory. This special issue is now available online. Visit the links below to read article abstracts. If your institution has a subscription, you will be able to access the full text. Table of contents Volume 21, Issue 3 http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/1 FREE ARTICLE: The Lexicographical Legacy of John Sinclair Patrick Hanks http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/2 Corpus-driven Lexicography Ramesh Krishnamurthy http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/3 Sinclair, Phraseology, and Lexicography Rosamund Moon http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/4 A Multilingual Matter: Sinclair and the Bilingual Dictionary Geoffrey Williams http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/5 Why Does Africa Need Sinclair? Gilles-Maurice de Schryver http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/6 Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position Michael Hoey and Matthew Brook O'Donnell http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/7 The Lexis of Electronic Gaming on the Web: A Sinclairian Approach Vincent B.Y. Ooi http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/8 Approximate Lexicography and Web Search Kenneth W. Church http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/9 Between Chaos and Structure: Interpreting Lexical Data Through a Theoretical Lens James Pustejovsky and Anna Rumshisky http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/10 More information For more information about the International Journal of Lexicography, visit http://www.oxfordjournals.org/page/3284/11 From djh514 at york.ac.uk Mon Sep 8 10:53:18 2008 From: djh514 at york.ac.uk (Damien Hall) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 11:53:18 +0100 Subject: textbook? Message-ID: There's also the following one, reviewed in the latest issue of _Language and Society_: Anthony J. Liddicoat, An introduction to conversation analysis. London & New York: Continuum, 2007. Pp. 333. Pb $39.95, Hb $150 Reviewed by Tyler Kendall I am not a conversation or discourse analyst, so can say nothing about the book, but the review is available online now. Of course, since it's a new book, the price may prove prohibitive anyway. Damien Hall University of York >There is a good book entitled Discourse and Identity by Bethan Benwell >and Elizabeth Stokoe which describes several approaches to analyzing >transcripts, including CA. It also deals with CDA--can't remember if it >includes written texts. Barbara Johnstone's Discourse Analysis is >wonderful this way (for written text). Also, there is a British text >which deals with analyzing spoken language (and has some application for >teaching)--can't remember the name. It is in my office. I think it's >Analyzing Spoken Language. > >Christopher Hart wrote: >> Colleagues, >> >> Does anyone know of a good text book for level one undergraduates >> which would cover the basics in analysing conversation transcripts and >> written texts? >> >> Best, >> Chris From amnfn at well.com Thu Sep 11 13:39:35 2008 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:39:35 -0700 Subject: Hubpage about the nature of language written for a general audience Message-ID: Fellow Funknetters, I've just published a hubpage article about language from a functional perspective. The URL is: http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned This piece is written for a general audience, so it goes light on the jargon and explains things in ordinary terms accessible to everyone. However, it does touch on the same issues that we like to discuss on funknet, issues such as: * innateness versus learned behavior * the brain wiring itself for language * conditions necessary for a child to develop language * variations in the physical structure that processes language * variations in native speakers' ability to parse complex sentences * competence versus performance * language instruction in the schools I would very much appreciate your looking over this article and offering comments. Also, if you think this material would be helpful to your introductory linguistics students, you could offer it as suggested reading. There is no charge for viewing the article. The site is paid for by Google Adsense and Kontera ads. Revenue from the article goes to fund Project Bow, a language acquisition research project with a six year old chimpanzee as the subject. If you are interested in learning more about Project Bow, there are also some hubs about that, the most recent of which is: http://hubpages.com/hub/Bows-Development-Age-Three-Through-Five Looking forward to your input, --Aya Katz From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Sep 12 10:35:47 2008 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:35:47 +0200 Subject: Hubpage about the nature of language written for a general audience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I found this piece admirably clear and useful in understanding the functional perspective. However, I would like to make one small quibble. I am not a Chomskyan linguist but I do think that in our haste to distance ourselves from that paradigm I see many linguists of various schools misrepresenting it, no doubt unintentionally. I think that there is a mistake for example in the following sentence: "Even when it is shown that the same people make the same grammatical mistakes over and over again consistently while others do not, many linguists still maintain that all people have the same grammatical competence, just by virtue of being human." My understanding is that 'grammtical competence' or 'linguistic competence' (same thing to a Chomskyan) is competence in a specific language, NOT the postulated innate language faculty. Those two things are being conflated in the above. I also think that the following claim is less than adequately supported by the text in question: "Language is not a hardwired capacity that humans are born with." What you have very clearly explained is that (a) there is no part of the brain that is specific to linguistic ability and (b) due to the way people are socialised into language they end up with differential competences. Both of these are slightly different points to the one in the quote. In fact some of your points about development up to the age of puberty do seem to rely on certain brain functions that are specifically human. In other words your quotation above is rather extravagant when seen in relation to the data that you cite. The argument for the evolutionary development of the capacity for language in hominisation remains compelling; I see nothing in your text to convince me otherwise. And one does not have to be a Chomskyan to recognise this. But thank you for an interesting piece and I would be keen to hear from anyone as to whether my reasoning is flawed. Tahir >>> "A. Katz" 09/11/08 3:39 PM >>> Fellow Funknetters, I've just published a hubpage article about language from a functional perspective. The URL is: http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned This piece is written for a general audience, so it goes light on the jargon and explains things in ordinary terms accessible to everyone. However, it does touch on the same issues that we like to discuss on funknet, issues such as: * innateness versus learned behavior * the brain wiring itself for language * conditions necessary for a child to develop language * variations in the physical structure that processes language * variations in native speakers' ability to parse complex sentences * competence versus performance * language instruction in the schools I would very much appreciate your looking over this article and offering comments. Also, if you think this material would be helpful to your introductory linguistics students, you could offer it as suggested reading. There is no charge for viewing the article. The site is paid for by Google Adsense and Kontera ads. Revenue from the article goes to fund Project Bow, a language acquisition research project with a six year old chimpanzee as the subject. If you are interested in learning more about Project Bow, there are also some hubs about that, the most recent of which is: http://hubpages.com/hub/Bows-Development-Age-Three-Through-Five Looking forward to your input, --Aya Katz -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm From amnfn at well.com Fri Sep 12 14:38:25 2008 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:38:25 -0700 Subject: Hubpage about the nature of language written for a general audience In-Reply-To: <48CA6223020000690003C83A@gwia5.uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Tahir, Thanks for the input! I intentionally left out any specific reference to Chomsky or Chomskyanism in the piece, as I didn't think that was necessary when trying to explain the issues to a general audience. About the sentence you quoted, you are right that I should have been more specific. When I wrote of "the same people" making the same "grammatical mistakes", I should instead have said "the same native speakers" and "grammatical mistake in their native language". I agree that it's not very interesting that foreigners make mistakes while native speakers do not. But it turns out that native speakers of the same language who have come from the same social background and have had the same educational training show variable capacity to parse complex sentences. Ngoni Chipere's work that I cited is about that. I think the brain functions that all people use to acquire language are innate to humans, but they are not specifically geared toward language. We have a brain that doesn't come pre-wired for much of anything, but has a consistent tendency to adapt to the information present in the environment. We are system-builders, and our brain is good for that. However, what specific system we end up building depends on the input we get. Also, no two people build exactly the same system, even when they are raised in the same environment. There is no pre-built structure in the brain to ensure that we do. System-building brains are very much the norm with humans, but they are not uniquely human, as other animals have similar system-building capacities. Best, --Aya Katz On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Tahir Wood wrote: > I found this piece admirably clear and useful in understanding the > functional perspective. However, I would like to make one small quibble. > I am not a Chomskyan linguist but I do think that in our haste to > distance ourselves from that paradigm I see many linguists of various > schools misrepresenting it, no doubt unintentionally. I think that there > is a mistake for example in the following sentence: > > "Even when it is shown that the same people make the same grammatical > mistakes over and over again consistently while others do not, many > linguists still maintain that all people have the same grammatical > competence, just by virtue of being human." > > My understanding is that 'grammtical competence' or 'linguistic > competence' (same thing to a Chomskyan) is competence in a specific > language, NOT the postulated innate language faculty. Those two things > are being conflated in the above. I also think that the following claim > is less than adequately supported by the text in question: > > "Language is not a hardwired capacity that humans are born with." > > What you have very clearly explained is that (a) there is no part of > the brain that is specific to linguistic ability and (b) due to the way > people are socialised into language they end up with differential > competences. Both of these are slightly different points to the one in > the quote. In fact some of your points about development up to the age > of puberty do seem to rely on certain brain functions that are > specifically human. In other words your quotation above is rather > extravagant when seen in relation to the data that you cite. The > argument for the evolutionary development of the capacity for language > in hominisation remains compelling; I see nothing in your text to > convince me otherwise. And one does not have to be a Chomskyan to > recognise this. > > But thank you for an interesting piece and I would be keen to hear from > anyone as to whether my reasoning is flawed. > > Tahir > > >>> "A. Katz" 09/11/08 3:39 PM >>> > Fellow Funknetters, > > I've just published a hubpage article about language from a functional > perspective. The URL is: > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned > > This piece is written for a general audience, so it goes light on the > jargon and explains things in ordinary terms accessible to everyone. > However, it does touch on the same issues that we like to discuss on > funknet, issues such as: > > * innateness versus learned behavior > * the brain wiring itself for language > * conditions necessary for a child to develop language > * variations in the physical structure that processes language > * variations in native speakers' ability to parse complex > sentences > * competence versus performance > * language instruction in the schools > > I would very much appreciate your looking over this article and > offering > comments. Also, if you think this material would be helpful to your > introductory linguistics students, you could offer it as suggested > reading. > > There is no charge for viewing the article. The site is paid for by > Google > Adsense and Kontera ads. Revenue from the article goes to fund Project > Bow, a language acquisition research project with a six year old > chimpanzee as the subject. > > If you are interested in learning more about Project Bow, there are > also > some hubs about that, the most recent of which is: > > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Bows-Development-Age-Three-Through-Five > > > Looking forward to your input, > > > --Aya Katz > From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Sat Sep 13 22:21:24 2008 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Shoichi Iwasaki) Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:21:24 -0700 Subject: Linguistics Conf on Southeast Asian Language at UCLA Message-ID: UC Berkeley & UCLA JOINT CONFERENCE on SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES CALL FOR PAPERS LANGUAGES OF SOUTHEAST ASIA January 30 - February 1, 2009 Keynote speakers: Bernard Comrie (Max Planck / University of California, Santa Barbara) Andrew Simpson (University of Southern California) John Hartmann (Northern Illinois University) The linguistic map of Southeast Asia is extraordinarily rich, embracing a wide range of ethnic and typological groups, including Austronesian, Hmong-Mien, Mon-Khmer, Tai-Kadai, Tibeto-Burman, and many language families of New Guinea. The shifting boundaries of Southeast Asian polities over time, historic cross-regional migration, and colonization have all added to the complexity of language genealogies in the region, making Southeast Asia a particularly fertile field not only for the study of specific language types and groups but also for the testing and development of theoretical frameworks and models of linguistic analysis. Recent outward migrations to the USA, Europe and elsewhere, and the concomitant rise in Hmong, Khmer, Lao, Tagalog and other heritage language groups, present further opportunities for the study of Southeast Asian languages. Despite the critical place of language studies in the development of area studies, and the diverse implications and applications of linguistics for other fields, the conversation between scholars of Southeast Asian linguistics and specialists in Southeast Asian area studies is surprisingly thin. And, within the U.S., Southeast Asian language communities such as Hmong, Khmer, Vietnamese, Lao and Tagalog risk being sidelined in the emerging body of scholarship on Heritage Language learning and teaching, whose focus gravitates towards larger communities such as Spanish and Chinese speaking communities. This conference aims to bridge this gap. By providing a forum for presentations of new research and the exchange of ideas, we aim to create fresh conversations between scholars and teachers of Southeast Asian languages. Building on the 2000 UCLA Conference on Heritage Language Research Priorities, we also hope to stimulate new research linkages with scholars and teachers working among Heritage language communities. We invite papers on Southeast Asian languages in any area of linguistics-phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, typology, diachronic and comparative linguistics, sociolinguistics, anthropological linguistics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis-or language teaching. We particularly encourage papers that engage with other disciplines. Submissions from early career researchers and graduate students are strongly encouraged. In addition, a special poster session for undergraduate research will be held. Limited competitive financial assistance for travel is available. Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be sent to the UCLA Center for Southeast Asian Studies by Monday, November 3, 2008. Please indicate whether the submission is for a talk or for the undergraduate poster session. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by December 1, 2008. For more info please contact: Barbara Gaerlan 310-206-9163 cseas at international.ucla.edu From langconf at bu.edu Mon Sep 15 18:11:55 2008 From: langconf at bu.edu (BUCLD BUCLD) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:11:55 -0400 Subject: BUCLD 33 pre-registration Message-ID: Pre-registration for BUCLD 33 is now available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/prereg.htm The 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development will be held at Boston University, October 31 - November 2. Our invited speakers are: Barbara Landau, Johns Hopkins University "Spatial Language and Spatial Cognition: Origins, Development, and Interaction" Keynote address, Friday, October 31 at 8:00 pm Tom Roeper, University of Massachusetts - Amherst "From Input to Mind: How acquisition work captures the heart of linguistic theory and the soul of practical application " Plenary address, Saturday, November 1 at 5:45 pm Dick Aslin, University of Rochester Debra Mills, Bangor University Colin Phillips, University of Maryland Helen Tager-Flusberg, Boston University € “Brain Mechanisms of Language Development: The promise and pitfalls of neuroimaging” Lunchtime symposium, Saturday, November 1 at 12:00 pm The Society for Language Development (SLD) will be holding its fifth annual symposium on “Slow mapping, fast mapping: children's word learning 30 years after Carey & Bartlett (1978)" on Thursday, October 30, in conjunction with the BUCLD meeting. BUCLD 33 is offering online pre-registration and on-site registration for this event. Speakers: Susan Carey, Linda Smith, and Susan Gelman More information on the SLD symposium can be found at: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/sld/symposium.html The full conference schedule is available at: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/schedule_temp.html From coulson at CogSci.ucsd.edu Tue Sep 16 23:46:59 2008 From: coulson at CogSci.ucsd.edu (Seana Coulson) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:46:59 -0700 Subject: ucsd cogsci jobs Message-ID: FACULTY POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE AT UCSD The Department of Cognitive Science at the University of California, San Diego invites applications for two faculty positions. The department has a preference for top-caliber junior researchers in cognitive science to be appointed at the assistant professor level, but may consider candidates who qualify for a higher rank. Appointments begin July 1, 2009. Salary is commensurate with the experience and based on the University of California pay scale. The UCSD Department of Cognitive Science was the first of its kind in the world, and, as part of an exceptional scientific community, continues to influence the field it helped to create. The department is truly interdisciplinary, with a faculty whose interests span anthropology, computer science, human development, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Applicants must have a Ph.D. (or ABD). We seek one applicant with a research focus on human computer interaction, and one in language and cognition. For both positions an interdisciplinary perspective and experience with multiple methodologies is highly valued. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. UCSD is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer with a strong institutional commitment to excellence through diversity. Although we will accept applications until the positions are filled, we encourage application by November 15, 2008 for full consideration. Candidates should submit, via online application, a vita, reprints of up to four representative publications, a short cover letter describing background and interests, and at least three references (name, title, address and email). Applicants are welcome to include in their cover letter a statement summarizing their contributions to diversity. To apply, please see "NEW Faculty Positions" at http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/ From bergen at hawaii.edu Wed Sep 17 00:04:56 2008 From: bergen at hawaii.edu (Benjamin K Bergen) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:04:56 -1000 Subject: Assistant Professor position in Sociolinguistics, University of Hawaii In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Assistant Professor of Linguistics The Department of Linguistics at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa invites applications for a full-time tenure-track position (position no. 83008), to begin August 1, 2009 pending availability of position and funding. Typical teaching arrangements are two courses, either graduate or undergraduate, per semester. Minimum Qualifications: PhD in linguistics or a related area, with a specialization in sociolinguistics (applicants presently pursuing a PhD must offer evidence that all degree requirements will have been completed before date of hire). The successful applicant will be expected to have conducted high quality research, including empirical work, in sociolinguistics. Applicants must be willing and able to teach undergraduate and graduate courses in the area(s) of specialization. Desirable Qualifications: An ability to contribute to and complement the department's existing strengths in language documentation, language acquisition, psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics and/or theoretical linguistics; experience with and an interest in languages of Asia and/or the Pacific; a desire and ability to cultivate connections with other departments and programs within the university (e.g., sociology, anthropology, gender studies, ethnic studies); an aptitude for linking teaching and research at the undergraduate and graduate levels; a demonstrated ability to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods in research. Salary: Salary will be competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience. To apply: Send letter of application, copies of key publications, and three letters of reference to the application address listed below. Inquiries: Same address as applications. We regret that we cannot accept applications via fax. E-mailed applications are acceptable but must be followed by hard copy postmarked (priority mail) by October 1, 2008. (E-mail address: linguist at hawaii.edu). Please note that we cannot ensure that all e-mail or fax communications in regard to this position will be answered. The University of Hawai'i is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. We welcome applications from minorities and women. Application Deadline: 01-Oct-2008 Application Address: Personnel Committee Department of Linguistics, University of Hawaii at Manoa 1890 East-West Road, Moore 569 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA Contact Information: Professor Amy Schafer (aschafer "at" hawaii.edu) Phone: (808) 956-8602; Fax: (808) 956-9166 +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ Benjamin K. Bergen Associate Professor Department of Linguistics University of Hawai`i, Manoa bergen at hawaii.edu http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Associate Editor Cognitive Linguistics http://www.cogling.group.shef.ac.uk/ Series Editor Advances in Cognitive Linguistics http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/browse.asp?serid=28 +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ From paul at benjamins.com Fri Sep 19 17:00:16 2008 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 13:00:16 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title - Josephson/Shrm an: Interdependence of Message-ID: Diachronic and Synchronic Ana lyses Comments: To: FUNKNET at rice.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses Edited by Folke Josephson and Ingmar S�hrman University of Gothenburg Studies in Language Companion Series 103 2008. viii, 350 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0570 4 / EUR 110.00 / USD 165.00 The focus of this volume is the interdependence of diachrony and synchrony in the investigation of syntactic structure. A diverse set of modern and ancient languages is investigated from this perspective, including Hittite, the Classical languages, Old Norse, Coptic, Bantu languages, Australian languages and Creoles. A variety of topics are covered, including TAM, diathesis, valency, case marking, cliticization, and grammaticalization. This volume should be of interest to syntacticians, typologists, and historical linguists with an interest in syntax and morphology. Table of contents Contributors vii�viii Introduction 1�11 Synchronic and diachronic evidence for parallels between noun phrases and sentences Jan Rijkhoff 13�42 The development of tense, mood, and aspect in the creole languages, and the typology of affix order Peter Bakker 43�59 Aspectual oppositions from Proto-Indo-European to Latin Dag Haug 61�72 On the development of actionality, tense, and viewpoint from Early to Late Latin Gerd V.M. Haverling 73�104 Continuity and change: The history of two Greek tenses Eva-Carin Ger� and Hans Ruge 105�129 Actionality and aspect in Hittite Folke Josephson 131�147 Imperfectivity and complete events Atle Gr�nn 149�165 Predicative verbs of transition in Portuguese and Spanish: A cognitive approach to aspect, aktionsart, and tense Ingmar S�hrman and K�re Nilsson 167�184 The Old Nordic Middle Voice in the pre-literary period: Questions of grammaticalisation and cliticisation Kjartan Ott�sson 185�219 The relevance of tense and aspect in Semitic Languages: The case of Hebrew and Arabic Sven-Olof Dahlgren 221�247 The verb phrase in the Kerebe language Christina Thornell 249�281 Comparative TAM morphology in Niger-Congo: The case of persistive, and some other markers in Bantu Jouni Filip Maho 283�298 Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages William B. McGregor 299�321 Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic �ke Engsheden 323�344 Index 345�350 Paul Peranteau (paul at benjamins.com) General Manager John Benjamins Publishing Company 763 N. 24th St. Philadelphia PA 19130 Phone: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 John Benjamins Publishing Co. website: http://www.benjamins.com From gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr Mon Sep 22 10:50:13 2008 From: gdesagulier at univ-paris8.fr (Guillaume Desagulier) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:50:13 +0200 Subject: CFP: AFLiCo 3, 'Grammars in construction(s)', May 27-29, 2009, Paris 10-Nanterre (France) Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings) FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS (version en francais plus bas) Third International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association (AFLiCo 3) “Grammars in construction(s)”. Organized by MoDyCo (http://www.modyco.fr) University of Paris 10, Nanterre, France 27-29 May 2009 http://www.modyco.fr/aflico3 PLENARY SPEAKERS Hans C. BOAS (University of Texas at Austin, USA) Gilles FAUCONNIER (University of California, San Diego, USA) Jacques FRANCOIS (University of Caen, France) Adele GOLDBERG (Princeton University, USA) Stephane ROBERT (LLACAN, CNRS, France) Bernard VICTORRI (Lattice, ENS, France) Richard WATTS (University of Bern, Switzerland) OBJECTIVES The conference aims at bringing together cognitive linguists working in France and abroad, and strengthening the network of discussion and collaboration set in motion by the first two AFLiCo conferences held in Bordeaux (2005) and Lille (2007). The concept of grammar is of crucial importance to the cognitive linguistics framework and forms the basis for numerous research topics. As a constructed cognitive entity (by linguists or speakers), and/or an emergent one, grammar lies at the heart of considerable theoretical issues. The core position currently held by grammar is thus one to be questioned. Drawing on the themes from the last two AFLiCo conferences, we will examine the concept of grammar in regard to its place in cognitive linguistics, as well as in regard to its place in variants of the model, which range from Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar to so-called construction grammars. This year, the focus will be on the latter. In the wake of Charles Fillmore and Paul Kay’s work, construction grammars endeavor to describe grammar not in terms of “words and lists” (as in generative grammar) but in terms of grammatical constructions whose overall meanings are not predictable from their respective component structures. This enterprise was initially limited to idiomatic constructions (e.g., throw in the towel, kick the bucket, etc.) but swiftly developed to deal with more general constructions (cf. Adele Goldberg’s work on meaningful argument structure). The idea that grammar is composed of constructions – previously identifiable in the works of George Lakoff and Ronald Langacker – currently fuels a vast paradigm and applies to a large variety of linguistic phenomena in morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. GENERAL SESSIONS The 3rd AFLiCo conference will also provide the occasion to address more general points of discussion in relation to the question of grammar (non-exhaustive list): - The notion of linguistic units as linked to other concepts such as entrenchment or frequency of occurrence - Comparisons between different traditions (American and European) regarding the establishment of a linguistic unit as a cognitive routine, lexicalization, the symbolic thesis, etc. - The acquisition of grammar (L1, L2) - Constructions and diachrony - The grammaticalization of constructions - Methodological concerns (constitution and use of corpora) - Grammars of gesture and kinesic systems - The role of conceptual integration and grammatical blending in grammar - The extension of cognitive linguistics into socio-pragmatics In line with one of the main goals of AFLiCo, we welcome papers elaborating the affinities between cognitive linguistics and related theories (Gustave Guillaume, Antoine Culioli, Henri Adamczewski). The organizers further encourage young researchers to submit an abstract. It is to be noted that papers can bear on any language (not just English or French) THEMATIC SESSIONS Organizers of theme sessions are kindly asked to provide the following information: - a short description of their session topic (300-500 words); - an indication of the structure proposed for the whole session: order of presentations, discussant contributions, breaks, and general discussion by the audience; - the abstracts from all of their speakers, accompanied by all the information requested in the abstract specifications above. Proponents can choose the internal structuring of their Theme Session provided that the overall timetable of the conference (notably coffee and lunch breaks) is kept intact. Ideally, a theme session should take no longer than a whole morning or afternoon. For any further detail you may need in the organization of your theme session, please do not hesitate to contact the organizers (aflico3 at u-paris10.fr). SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Abstracts will be submitted to a double, blind review. They should be fully anonymous and not exceed 500 words (references excluded). To be sent via email as attachment (MS-WORD doc or rtf, OpenOffice, PDF) to: aflico3 at u-paris10.fr Please put in the subject line: ‘abstract AFLICO 3’ In the body of the mail, please specify: - author(s) - title - affiliation of author(s) - presentation or poster - thematic sessions or general session - 3 - 5 keywords IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline General sessions: December 15th 2008 Theme sessions: December 1st 2008 Notification of acceptance : Early February 2009 REGISTRATION Details about the registration procedure and registration deadlines will be posted on the conference website as soon as they become available. There will be reduced registration fee for AFLiCo members and students. OFFICIAL LANGUAGES French, English Conference website http://www.modyco.fr/aflico3 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Guillaume Desagulier (Associate Professor, MoDyCo-CNRS-Paris 10, Paris 8) Philippe Grea (Associate Professor, MoDyCo, Paris 10), assisted by Simon Harrison (PhD student, ENS-Lyon), Dylan Glynn (Research Fellow, University of Leuven) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE President: Dominique Legallois (Associate Professor, University of Caen) Michel Achard (Professor, Rice University) Cristiano Broccias (University of Genoa) Jose Deulofeu (Professor, University of Provence, Aix-Marseille 1) Pierre Encreve (Directeur d'etudes, EHESS) Gilles Fauconnier (Professor, University of California, San Diego) Michel de Fornel (Directeur d'études, EHESS) Jean-Michel Fortis (CNRS, Paris 7) Jacques François (Professor, University of Caen) Dylan Glynn (Research fellow, University of Leuven) Martin Haspelmath (Prof. Dr., Max-Planck-Institut, Leipzig) Hans-Petter Helland (Professor, University of Oslo) Willem Hollmann (Lecturer, University of Lancaster) Sylvain Kahane (Professor, University of Paris 10) Anne Lacheret (Professor, University of Paris 10) Bernard Laks (Professor, University of Paris 10) Jean-Remi Lapaire (Professor, University of Bordeaux 3) Peter Lauwers (Research fellow, University of Leuven) Maarten Lemmens (Professeur, University of Lille 3) Sarah Leroy (CR, MoDyCo-CNRS, Universite Paris 10) Wilfrid Rotge (Professor, University of Paris 10) Dominique Willems (Prof, Dr., University of Gent) ======== PREMIER APPEL A COMMUNICATIONS 3e Colloque International de l’Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo) « Grammaires en construction(s) » Organise par le laboratoire MoDyCo (http://www.modyco.fr) Universite Paris 10, Nanterre, La Defense, France 27-29 mai 2009 http://www.modyco.fr/aflico3 INTERVENANTS INVITES Hans C. BOAS (Univ. du Texas, Austin, USA) Gilles FAUCONNIER (Univ. de Californie, San Diego, USA) Jacques FRANÇOIS (Univ. de Caen, France) Adele GOLDBERG (Univ. de Princeton, USA) Stephane ROBERT (LLACAN, ENS, France) Bernard VICTORRI (Lattice, ENS, France) Richard WATTS (Univ. de Berne, Suisse) OBJECTIFS DU COLLOQUE Cette conference a pour but de reunir les acteurs de la linguistique cognitive en France et au dela, et de renforcer la collaboration entre chercheurs entamee lors des deux precedentes editions a Bordeaux (2005) et Lille (2007) Le concept de grammaire a une importance cruciale dans le cadre theorique de la linguistique cognitive et de nombreuses problematiques se construisent à partir de lui. Entite cognitive construite (par les linguistes, mais aussi par les locuteurs) et / ou emergente (soumise à la variation et au changement, car regulee par des forces tout à la fois conservatrices et innovantes) la grammaire est au centre d’enjeux theoriques considerables. Elle occupe des lors une position-cle qu’il faut interroger. Dans le prolongement des deux precedents colloques de l’AFLiCo, il s’agit donc de focaliser notre attention sur une nouvelle dimension de la linguistique cognitive, un concept qui se decline de differentes façons, depuis la grammaire cognitive de Langacker jusqu’aux grammaires dites de constructions. Ces dernieres, en particulier, constituent aujourd’hui la branche la plus dynamique de ce cadre general de par le nombre de publications et l’impact de ces recherches sur differents niveaux de la linguistique (syntaxe, semantique, morphologie et pragmatique). SESSIONS GENERALES Le colloque AFLiCo 3 sera aussi l’occasion d’aborder des problematiques reliees à la question de la grammaire (liste non-exhaustive) : -La notion d’unite linguistique en rapport avec d’autres concepts comme l’enracinement (entrenchment) ou la frequence d’occurrence. -Une comparaison entre les differentes traditions (americaines et europeennes) liees au figement, à la lexicalisation, etc. -La question de l’apprentissage de la grammaire (L1, L2) -Un point de vue diachronique sur les constructions et la grammaticalisation des constructions -La question des methodes (constitution et utilisation de corpus) -Les prolongements de la linguistique cognitive dans la socio-pragmatique Dans le sillage des deux precedents colloques, nous encourageons les propositions de communication portant sur les passerelles entre la linguistique cognitive (au sens large) et la Theorie des Operations Enonciatives de Culioli, l’approche adamczewskienne ou la Psychomécanique du Langage. Le comite d’organisation encourage les jeunes chercheurs a envoyer une proposition de communication. Il est a noter que les communications peuvent porter sur toutes les langues, pas seulement le francais ou l’anglais. SESSIONS THEMATIQUES Les responsables de panels pour les sessions thematiques doivent fournir les renseignements suivants : -un resume du theme choisi ; -des precisions concernant la structure globale de la session : ordre des presentations, contributions des intervenants, pauses, debats ; -les resumes des communications de chacun des intervenants, ainsi que les renseignements demandes dans la procedure de soumission ci-dessous. Les intervenants sont libres de choisir la structure interne de leur session thematique des lors qu’elle n’affecte pas la structure generale du colloque (pauses cafe, et dejeuner). Nous recommandons que chaque session thematique ne depasse pas une matinee ou une apres-midi. Pour tout renseignement sur l’organisation d’une session thematique, n’hesitez pas a nous contacter (aflico3 at u-paris10.fr). PROCEDURE DE SOUMISSION Chaque proposition sera evaluee par deux relecteurs. Les textes doivent etre anonymes et ne pas depasser 500 mots (hors bibliographie). Ils sont a envoyer par email en fichier attache (MS-WORD -- doc ou rtf -- OpenOffice, PDF) à l’adresse suivante : aflico3 at u-paris10.fr Dans l’objet de votre message, specifiez : ‘abstract AFLICO’ Dans le corps du message, precisez : - le nom de l’auteur / des auteurs - titre - affiliation et adresse de l’auteur / des auteurs - presentation ou poster - session thematique ou session generale - 3 à 5 mots-cles DATES IMPORTANTES Date limite de soumission : Sessions generales : 15 decembre 2008 Sessions thematiques : 1er decembre 2008 Notification d’acceptation : debut fevrier 2009 INSCRIPTION Des renseignements specifiques concernant la procedure d’inscription et les dates limites seront affiches tres prochainement sur le site. Frais d’inscription reduits pour les membres de l’AFLiCo et les etudiants. LANGUES DU COLLOQUE Anglais, Français SITE DU COLLOQUE http://www.modyco.fr/aflico3 COMITE D’ORGANISATION Guillaume Desagulier, (MCF, MoDyCo-CNRS & Universite Paris 10, Universite Paris 8) Philippe Grea (MCF, MoDyCo - CNRS & Universite Paris 10) Assistes de Simon Harrison (ENS-Lyon), Dylan Glynn (Universite Catholique de Louvain) COMITE SCIENTIFIQUE President : Dominique Legallois, MCF, Universite de Caen Michel Achard (Professeur, Rice University) Cristiano Broccias (MCF, Universite de Genes) Jose Deulofeu (Professeur, Universite de Provence, Aix-Marseille 1) Pierre Encreve (Directeur d'etudes, EHESS) Gilles Fauconnier (Professeur, Universite de Californie, San Diego) Michel de Fornel (Directeur d'etudes, EHESS) Jean-Michel Fortis (CR, CNRS, Paris 7) Jacques François (Professeur, Universite de Caen) Dylan Glynn (Chargé de recherche, Universite Catholique de Louvain) Martin Haspelmath (Professeur, Max-Planck-Institut, Leipzig) Hans-Petter Helland (Professeur, Universite d’Oslo) Willem Hollmann (MCF, University of Lancaster) Sylvain Kahane (Professeur, Universite Paris 10) Anne Lacheret (Professeur, Universite Paris 10) Bernard Laks (Professeur, Universite de Paris 10) Jean-Remi Lapaire (Professeur, Universite de Bordeaux 3) Peter Lauwers (Chargé de recherche, Universite Catholique de Louvain) Maarten Lemmens (Professeur, Universite de Lille 3) Sarah Leroy (CR, MoDyCo-CNRS, Universite Paris 10) Wilfrid Rotge (Professeur, Universite de Paris 10) Dominique Willems (Professeur, Universite de Gand) From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Wed Sep 24 15:52:31 2008 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:52:31 +0100 Subject: Subscribe to 'Language & Cognition' Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Subscriptions for the new journal 'Language & Cognition' are now open. Subscription is achieved by joining the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association (UK-CLA), and is free of charge for the first year (2009). Downloadable registration forms, and full details of how to subscribe, are available from the journal website: www.languageandcognition.net The table of contents for 2009 and 2010 are detailed below. Sincerely, Vyv Evans Bangor University www.vyvevans.net ----------------------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 (2009) Issue 1 How infants build a semantic system. Kim Plunkett (University of Oxford) The cognitive poetics of literary resonance. Peter Stockwell (University of Nottingham) Action in cognition: The case of language. Lawrence J. Taylor and Rolf A. Zwaan (Erasmus University of Rotterdam) Prototype constructions in early language development. Paul Ibbotson (University of Manchester) and Michael Tomasello (MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig) The Enactment of Language: 20 Years of Interactions Between Linguistic and Motor Processes. Michael Spivey (University of California, Merced) and Sarah Anderson (Cornell University) Episodic affordances contribute to language comprehension. Arthur M. Glenberg (Arizona State Universtiy), Raymond Becker (Wilfrid Laurier University), Susann Klötzer, Lidia Kolanko, Silvana Müller (Dresden University of Technology), and Mike Rinck (Radboud University Nijmegen) Reviews: Daniel D. Hutto. 2008. Folk Psychological Narratives: The Sociocultural Basis of Understanding Reasons (MIT Press). Reviewed by Chris Sinha Aniruddh Patel. 2008. Music, Language, and the Brain (Oxford Univeristy Press). Reviewed by Daniel Casasanto Issue 2 Pronunciation reflects syntactic probabilities: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Harry Tily (Stanford University), Susanne Gahl (University of California, Berkeley), Inbal Arnon, Anubha Kothari, Neal Snider and Joan Bresnan (Stanford University) Causal agents in English, Korean and Chinese: The role of internal and external causation. Phillip Wolff, Ga-hyun Jeon, and Yu Li (Emory University) Ontology as correlations: How language and perception interact to create knowledge. Linda Smith (Indiana University) and Eliana Colunga (University of Colorado at Boulder) Toward a theory of word meaning. Gabriella Vigliocco, Lotte Meteyard and Mark Andrews (University College London) Spatial language in the brain. Mikkel Wallentin (University of Aarhus) The neural basis of semantic memory: Insights from neuroimaging. Uta Noppeney (MPI for Biological Cybernetics, Tuebingen) Reviews: Ronald Langacker. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. (Oxford University Press). Reviewed by Vyvyan Evans Giacomo Rizzolatti and Corrado Sinigagalia. Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions and emotions. 2008. (Oxford University Press). Reviewed by David Kemmerer. volume 2 (2010) Issue 1 Adaptive cognition without massive modularity: The context-sensitivity of language use. Raymond W. Gibbs (University of California, Santa Cruz) and Guy Van Orden (University of Cincinnati) Spatial foundations of the conceptual system. Jean Mandler (University California, San Diego and University College London) Metaphor: Old words, new concepts, imagined worlds. Robyn Carston (University College London) Language Development and Linguistic Relativity. John A. Lucy (University of Chicago) Construction Learning. Adele Goldberg (Princeton University) Space and Language: some neural considerations. Anjan Chatterjee (University of Pennsylvania) Issue 2 What can language tell us about psychotic thought? Gina Kuperberg (Tufts University) Abstract motion is no longer abstract. Teenie Matlock (University California, Merced) When gesture does and doesn't promote learning. Susan Goldin-Meadow (University of Chicago) Discourse Space Theory. Paul Chilton (Lancaster University) Relational language supports relational cognition. Dedre Gentner (Northwestern University) Talking about quantities in space. Kenny Coventry (Northumbria University). -- Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From amnfn at well.com Sat Sep 27 14:46:35 2008 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:46:35 -0700 Subject: The grammaticalization of ye3 Message-ID: Does anybody know of any articles about the development of Mandarin ye3 "also" from an ancient clause final particle marking assertions? Thanks, --Aya