From M.Norde at rug.nl Wed Apr 1 08:46:33 2009 From: M.Norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:46:33 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization in Groningen 2nd CfP Message-ID: ***apologies for cross-posting*** * * *Current Trends in Grammaticalization Research* University of Groningen, October 8-9, 2009 */Second Call for papers/*** The study of grammaticalization and related phenomena continues to be a thriving branch of historical linguistics. Where the 1990s and the beginning of the 21^st century witnessed a special interest in definitional issues, recent theorizing has been focusing on a synthesis of grammaticalization studies and other disciplines, such as psycholinguistics, contact linguistics, and Construction Grammar. These novel perspectives, based on an increasing body of data (including work from non-Indo-European languages), provoke new and interesting questions about the very nature of grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization. This two-day workshop aims to bring together theoretical and empirical approaches to grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization, and we therefore welcome both theoretical and data-oriented submissions. Topics include (but are not restricted to): * the grammaticalization-lexicalization interface * the status of pragmaticalization * contact-induced grammaticalization * psycholinguistic approaches to directional tendencies * grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization within a constructional framework * grammaticalization and morphological theory * grammaticalization and syntactic theory /Plenary speakers/ We are pleased to announce the following plenary speakers: * Hans-Olav Enger, University of Oslo * Nikolaus Himmelmann, University of Münster * Graeme Trousdale, University of Edinburgh * Jacqueline Visconti, University of Genova /Abstracts/ We invite abstracts for 30-minute papers (including ten minutes discussion time). Abstracts should not exceed a maximum of 400 words, including references. Please note that the deadline for abstract submission is *April 15, 2009*. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by May 15, 2009. Abstracts can only be submitted through the /Easy Abstracts/ facility at Linguist List at http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/CTGR2009. You can upload your abstract as either .doc or .pdf. Please use the latter format if your abstract contains special fonts. ///Registration/ Early registration (until July 1, 2009) is 75 Euro. Late or on-site registration will be 100 Euro. Early registration for (graduate) students is 45 euro, late registration 60 euro. Please bring some kind of identification to prove that you are a student. The fee includes the workshop package, reception, coffee, tea, and lunches. The workshop dinner will have to be paid for separately. More information about payment (bank transfer only) will be posted on our website as soon as possible. /Venue/ The workshop will be held at the University of Groningen. The city of Groningen is situated in the North of the Netherlands and is easily accessible by train (with direct trains to and from Schiphol Airport running every hour). The University's Faculty of Arts is conveniently located in the city centre, with all main attractions within walking distance. Please visit our website (see URL below) for information about travel and accommodation. /Contact/ The workshop is organized by Karin Beijering, Alexandra Lenz, and Muriel Norde. Workshop e-mail: grammaticalization at rug.nl Workshop URL: http://www.rug.nl/let/onderzoek/onderzoekinstituten/clcg/events/currenttrends/index ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Prof. dr. Muriel Norde Scandinavische Talen en Culturen / Scandinavian Languages and Cultures Rijksuniversiteit Groningen / University of Groningen P.O. Box 716; Nl-9700 AS Groningen; The Netherlands phone: +31 50 3635823 fax: +31 50 3635821 http://www.let.rug.nl/~norde From simon at ipfw.edu Wed Apr 1 15:03:34 2009 From: simon at ipfw.edu (Beth Simon) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:03:34 -0400 Subject: Job Opening Message-ID: (My apologies for cross-posting...) Visiting Assistant Professor in Linguistics, One-Year Replacement The Department of English and Linguistics of Indiana University Purdue University, Fort Wayne (IPFW) expects to make a one-year replacement appointment at the rank of Visiting Assistant Professor in Linguistics for the year 2009-2010. The position includes courses in introductory linguistics with the possibility of other courses depending upon the appointee’s background and research interests. Prefer Ph.D. in hand by June 2009; ABD considered. A minimum of one year college teaching experience is essential. Applications should include the following: • Cover letter • Curriculum Vitae • Unofficial Transcripts • Names, addresses, and email addresses of three current references • Teaching evaluations if available Application Deadline: Open until filled, but review of applications begins on April 15, 2009. For further information, contact Dr. Hardin Aasand, Chair, Department of English and Linguistics, IPFW, 2101 E. Coliseum Blvd., Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499; email: aasandh at ipfw.edu; tel: 260 481 6751 Please visit our website http://www.ipfw.edu/engl/ to learn more about our department. Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne is located on a growing campus of approximately 12,000 students in a metropolitan area of approximately 300,000 people. IPFW is an Equal Opportunity, Equal Access, Affirmative Action employer fully committed to a diverse workforce. Beth Lee Simon, Ph.D. Professor, Linguistics and English Acting Coordinator, TENL Program Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, In 46805, U.S. voice (011) 260 481 6761 email simon at ipfw.edu From lamb at rice.edu Thu Apr 2 14:59:43 2009 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:59:43 -0500 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <50143.132.230.91.92.1237489598.squirrel@132.230.91.92> Message-ID: So also the common pronunciation of Bengali with a low central vowel ("ah") in the 2nd syllable instead of a low back rounded vowel. - Syd On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > And (while we're on the subject) the instances in which a > British pronunciation spelling gets rephoneticized: The Korean > name "Park", for example, pronounced with -r-; South Asian > names whose orthographic -u- (phonetic [a] or schwa) is > pronounced as [u] ("Moombay" for Mumbay sometimes; "Poonjab" > for Punjab is almost universal). > > - Paul > > > > Other examples of such behavior: Pronouncing Barcelona with a th for c > > (not being aware that there's no th in Catalan, or for that matter than > > Catalan even exists) Pronouncing e.g. Ataturk with a tapped or (God > > forbid) uvular r (not being aware that the Turkish r is in this case > > closer to English r) Kiswahili (like 'the English') Writing e.g. Munster > > cheese with an umlaut Trying to say 'Boston' with a Boston accent by > > fronting the first vowel as in 'Harvard Yard' (should be a mid-back vowel) > > Pronouncing e.g. Colcester as 'Colster' or Cirencester as 'Cirenster' by > > analogy with 'Worcester' and 'Gloucester' Pronouncing Jogjakarta as > > 'Yogyakarta' Arabs speaking Hebrew saying the Haifa neighborhood Neve > > Sha'anan with an ayin even though it's written with an alef Jews speaking > > Arabic saying e.g. al-quds beginning with an ayin although it's written > > with an alef. There are quite a few of these. John > > > > > > > > Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > >> Mikael, > >> > >> Good point. The insistence on endonyms often results in irritating > >> errors. One advantage of changing Beijing back to Peking would be that > >> we'd no longer have to hear news announcers saying the -j- as a voiced > >> palatal fricative--apparently following the rule that you can never go > >> wrong if you pronounce a foreign word as if it were French. > >> > >> John Verhaar used to get very irritated at "Bahasa Indonesia" instead > >> of "Indonesian", and once commented that it would be like always > >> referring to German as "die deutsche Sprache". Even in linguistic works > >> I've sometimes seen "Bahasa Indonesian"--as if Bahasa were the name of a > >> region or something (cf. Canadian French). > >> > >> - Paul Hopper > >> > >> > >> > >>> I have often wondered why there is such a passion for endonyms among > >>> linguists. It is one thing to avoid exonyms that the speakers might > >>> find offensive, but apart from that, I have a hard time seeing the > >>> point in using endonyms at any cost. > >>> > >>> There are plenty of cases where there is a relatively established (in > >>> the linguistic literature) English term for a language, where later > >>> publications have opted for a new name, and where I can see no other > >>> effect than growing confusion. For people dealing with more than one > >>> or a few languages (such as typologists), this implies that you have > >>> to make an effort to know which language is which. > >>> > >>> Having the same L1 as two of the previous posters, I would certainly > >>> not see any benefit in the linguistic community adopting ”svenska” for > >>> my language, rather than the more usual ”Swedish”. That would simply > >>> strike me as ridiculous, and indeed, no linguists use the endonym when > >>> writing in English. Yet, I somehow suspect that if the language in > >>> question were spoken primarily in a third world country, some > >>> linguists would have preferred that option. > >>> > >>> Should the aim be to somehow to avoid Eurocentricity (or perhaps > >>> rather ”national-languages-of-the-first-world”-centricity”), isn’t it > >>> Eurocentric in itself to use one naming strategy for these languages, > >>> and restrict another to everything else? > >>> > >>> Even if one term is used more than another in the already existing > >>> literature, there may be reasons to choose another one. What the > >>> speakers themselves call their language, however, is not a strong > >>> reason to do so, in my view. Unless, of course, you happen to be > >>> writing in that particular language. > >>> > >>> In a way, this can be compared to toponymical changes. There is a > >>> point in using Harare or Volgograd instead of Salisbury or Stalingrad, > >>> since the older names are, if nothing else, reminders of former > >>> régimes presumably not supported by the people who inhabit these > >>> cities today. But need we say Beijing and Guangzhou for what used to > >>> be been Peking and Canton? If so, must we start saying “the United > >>> Arab Emirates in Arabic”? (And should it be standard Arabic or the > >>> colloquial?). > >>> > >>> > >>> Mikael Parkvall > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced > >> Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg > >> and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of > >> English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper > Senior Fellow > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies > Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg > Albertstr. 19 > D-79104 Freiburg > and > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 2 15:14:51 2009 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:14:51 +0300 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49D4D504.1010605@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the 'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who do it because they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's irritating. Or am I just rationalizing? John Quoting Claire Bowern : > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! > Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? > Claire > > > ------------- > Claire Bowern > Department of Linguistics > Yale University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From straight at binghamton.edu Thu Apr 2 15:45:57 2009 From: straight at binghamton.edu (Straight, H. Stephen) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:45:57 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <1238685291.49d4d66bf244c@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: My impression of this discussion, with some exceptions, is that it reveals that even linguists sometimes fail to inquire about how a given name (or other word, for that matter) is pronounced by speakers of the language from which it comes. The result is sometimes Anglicization but almost as often IPA-icization (as in the case of Bengali). I'd be curious to know the story behind the pronunciation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I think I'm hearing now from Barack Obama is front vowels in the first and back vowels in the second. Can anyone provide a rationale for this pattern or otherwise enlighten us about these two (and Iraq and Iran, too, while you're at it)? Best.  'Bye.  Steve  H Stephen Straight, PhD Binghamton University, State University of New York -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of john at research.haifa.ac.il Sent: Thursday 2 April 2009 11:15 To: Claire Bowern Cc: Mikael Parkvall; Paul Hopper; Sydney Lamb; funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] naming a language I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the 'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who do it because they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's irritating. Or am I just rationalizing? John Quoting Claire Bowern : > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! > Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? > Claire > > > ------------- > Claire Bowern > Department of Linguistics > Yale University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 2 18:37:47 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:37:47 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49D4D504.1010605@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity rather than amusement? Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. - Paul > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! Aren't functional linguists > supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire > > > ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University > > -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From amnfn at well.com Thu Apr 2 19:02:15 2009 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:02:15 -0700 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49225.78.151.216.202.1238697467.squirrel@78.151.216.202> Message-ID: Stern objectivity? Objectivity, stern or otherwise, is a fleeting ideal! --Aya Katz On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity rather than amusement? > > Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. > > > - Paul > > > > > >> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in >> this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's >> language change and language use, people! Aren't functional linguists >> supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire >> >> >> ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University >> >> > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper > Senior Fellow > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies > Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg > Albertstr. 19 > D-79104 Freiburg > and > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 2 19:04:17 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:04:17 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was being ironic of course. -P. > Stern objectivity? Objectivity, stern or otherwise, is a fleeting ideal! > > --Aya Katz > > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > >> Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters >> have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names >> "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's >> accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our >> attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity >> rather than amusement? >> >> Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. >> >> >> - Paul >> >> >> >> >> >>> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident >>> in this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. >>> It's language change and language use, people! Aren't functional >>> linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire >>> >>> >>> ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced >> Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg >> and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of >> English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 2 19:42:05 2009 From: dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au (dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:42:05 +1100 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't know how Afghanis pronounce Afghanistan, but every Pakistani that I've ever heard pronounce the name of his country used back vowels both first and second. At 11:45 AM -0400 2/4/09, Straight, H. Stephen wrote: >My impression of this discussion, with some exceptions, is that it >reveals that even linguists sometimes fail to inquire about how a >given name (or other word, for that matter) is pronounced by >speakers of the language from which it comes. The result is >sometimes Anglicization but almost as often IPA-icization (as in the >case of Bengali). I'd be curious to know the story behind the >pronunciation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I think I'm hearing >now from Barack Obama is front vowels in the first and back vowels >in the second. Can anyone provide a rationale for this pattern or >otherwise enlighten us about these two (and Iraq and Iran, too, >while you're at it)? > >Best. 'Bye. Steve > >H Stephen Straight, PhD >Binghamton University, State University of New York > > >-----Original Message----- >From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of >john at research.haifa.ac.il >Sent: Thursday 2 April 2009 11:15 >To: Claire Bowern >Cc: Mikael Parkvall; Paul Hopper; Sydney Lamb; funknet at mailman.rice.edu >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] naming a language > >I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the >'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who >do it because >they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's >irritating. > >Or am I just rationalizing? >John > > > >Quoting Claire Bowern : > >> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in >> this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's >> language change and language use, people! >> Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? >> Claire >> >> >> ------------- >> Claire Bowern >> Department of Linguistics >> Yale University >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University -- David Harvey 60 Gipps Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia Tel: 61-2-9719-9170 From gkristia at filol.ucm.es Fri Apr 3 17:09:23 2009 From: gkristia at filol.ucm.es (GITTE KRISTIANSEN) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:09:23 +0200 Subject: CfP LAUD conference on Cognitive Sociolinguistics Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I would hereby like to draw your attention to the 34th International LAUD Symposium on Cognitive Sociolinguistics (March 2010, Landau, Germany). all best wishes, Gitte Kristiansen First Call for Papers 34th International LAUD Symposium Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language variation in its structural, conceptual and cultural dimensions LOCATION: University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau/Pf., Germany DATE: March 15-18, 2010 CALL DEADLINE: June 15, 2009 Confirmed Speakers MAIN KEYNOTE SPEAKER William Labov - University of Pennsylvania - PLENARY SPEAKERS Penelope Eckert (Stanford University) Dirk Geeraerts (University of Leuven) Stefan Gries (Santa Barbara, University of California) Peter Harder (University of Copenhagen) Gitte Kristiansen (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Dennis R. Preston (Michigan State University) Aim and scope: Within Cognitive Linguistics and other cognitively oriented approaches to language there is a growing interest for language variation in all its dimensions, as witnessed by several publications, most recently by the landmark-fixing collective volume Cognitive Sociolinguistics (2008), edited by Gitte Kristiansen and René Dirven. In the past decades, linguistic analyses within Cognitive Linguistics or other cognitively oriented theories were all too often carried out at the level of ‘a general, uniform language’, disregarding the rich and complex patterns of intralingual and communicative variation in that language. Such a shallow level of granularity ultimately amounts to that of a homogeneous and thus idealized speech community, reminiscent of Chomsky’s ideal speaker-hearer. To the extent that Cognitive Linguistics takes its claim of being a usage-based approach to language and cognition seriously, it cannot continue to work with an implicitly assumed conception of language being situated taxonomically at an almost Chomskyan level of abstraction. Cognitive Sociolinguistic research fills this gap in an enriched manner, by combining the CL theoretical framework with the empirical methods used in sociolinguistics and social science at large. The LAUD symposium is planning to explore the different facets of this emerging coalescence between cognitive, usage-based approaches to language and a sociolinguistic interest in language-internal variation in 4 theme sessions, each addressing one of the following questions: 1. How do social and cognitive perspectives fit together in a general, overall model of language? 2. To what extent is usage-based language variation socially structured, and how is such language-internal variation represented in the individual language user's (implicit or explicit) knowledge? 3. How does language-internal variation affect the conceptual aspects of language, i.e. linguistic meaning and linguistic categorization? 4. How does language variation interact with cultural models in a linguistic community? Does language variation follow from cultural models, or just reflect them or, on the contrary, determine them? Theme Session 1: Social factors as foundational issues in a theory of language The first session examines the role of social factors in the conception of language as such: to what extent should the social nature of language play a role in the linguist's conception of the linguistic system - and in the individual language user's acquisition and knowledge of the language? If we abandon the simplification of an ideal speaker-hearer, what are the descriptive consequences: what models and methodologies should we use to get a grip on the interaction between social usage and individual knowledge of the language? In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: § The social status of linguistic facts § Variability and the linguistic system § Linguistic norms, rules and behavior § The ideal and the real speaker-hearer § Situated cognition and the distribution of (linguistic) knowledge § Social and individual usage: models, methods and research questions § The treatment of social factors and variation in the history of (cognitive) linguistics Theme Session 2: Structural variation from a usage-based perspective How are lectal variation, linguistic change, and language acquisition affected by taking a usage-based approach to language ? Usage-based and meaning-based models of grammar introduce more variation into the grammar than a rule-based approach tends to do: the language-internal or discourse-related factors that influence the use of a particular construction may be manifold, and the presence or absence of a construction is not an all-or-none matter. In the analysis of this type of variation, it often appears that the variation is co-determined by 'external', sociostylistic factors: the variation that appears in actual usage (e.g. as attested in corpora) may be determined simultaneously by grammatical, discursive, and socio-stylistic factors. Furthermore, awareness (of linguistic factors and social dimensions) also plays a role in successful conceptualisation, together with structured patterns of subjective and objective perception. In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: § Cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics § Cognitive linguistics and dialectology § Cognitive linguistics and stylistics § Cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis § Linguistic variation and multidimensional research § Usage-based mechanisms of language change § Exemplar-based models of language variation § Lectal and interactional factors in language acquisition § Perceptual dialectology and production § Subjective and objective linguistic distances § Language attitude research and quantitative data § Linguistic variation and varieties: expert analysis versus folk perception § Folk perception of bilingualism and multilingualism Theme Session 3: Conceptual variation in language-internal and cross-linguistic categorization preferences To what extent do the phenomena that we typically focus on in Cognitive Linguistics and other meaning-related approaches - phenomena involving meaning and categorization - exhibit variation within the same linguistic community? Both the concept of semantic flexibility (as in prototype theory and radial networks) and the concept of cultural models played an important role in the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics, but this usage-based variation of meaning and categorization is not standardly analyzed from a socio-stylistic point of view. In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: § Lectal variation of cognitive models and metaphorical mappings § Lectal variation within prototype-based structures and radial networks § Prototypes, stereotypes, and the division of linguistic labour § Intralinguistic semantic conflicts and their resolution § The relation between language variation and cognition within a single language § Dialectal and sociolectal variation of meaning § Styles and registers as categories of meaning § The linguistic construal of identities as meaning creation § Social cognition, social categorization and interactional sociolinguistics Theme session 4: Cultural models and cultural variation of cognitive models Within Cognitive Linguistic research on cognitive models, there is a creative tension between scholars emphasizing the universal aspects of cognitive models and those pointing to the historical and cultural variability of such models. But the variability is often considered from a cross-cultural perspective only, without specific attention for the language-internal or culture-internal variability of cultural models. So, how does variability of cultural and cognitive models work within a community, and how does it interact with variability of language and language use? In particular, what are the cultural models that people use to think about language variation and language-related social variation? In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: § Cultural models and their interaction with Idealized Cognitive Models § Universalism and (historical, cultural, anthropological) variability of cognitive models § Competition and conflict between cultural models § Cultural models and ideology § Critical-linguistic approaches such as Critical Cognitive Linguistics, and cognitively inspired Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) § Cultural models of social variation § Cultural models of language variation, and their consequences for language planning and language policy § Language-based social stereotyping CONFERENCE FEES The conference fee is EUR 75 payable on arrival. SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS Submissions are solicited for theme session presentations which should last for 20-25 minutes with 5-10 minutes for questions (maximum 30 minutes total). All submissions for presentations should follow the following abstract guidelines: The deadline for abstracts is June 1, 2009. The address for submitting the abstracts is Martin Pütz Puetz at uni-landau.de Abstracts should be no more than 500 words. The subject header of your email should include: Abstract LAUD 2010 – name/s. Please include the following information in the main body of your email: name of author/s, affiliation, email address, presentation title. Please also state for which of the 4 theme sessions, as listed above, your contribution is intended. Notification of acceptance will be given by June 30, 2009. LOCAL CONFERENCE ORGANIZER Martin Pütz Email: Puetz at uni-landau University of Koblenz-Landau FB 6 Institut für Fremdsprachliche Philologien Fach Anglistik Marktstr. 40 76829 Landau/Pf. Germany PH: ++49-(0)6341-146-204 Fax: ++49-(0)6341-146-200 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MEMBERS René Dirven Dirk Geeraerts Gitte Kristiansen Martin Pütz Monika Reif From langconf at bu.edu Fri Apr 3 14:14:53 2009 From: langconf at bu.edu (BUCLD BUCLD) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:14:53 -0400 Subject: Now accepting submissions: BUCLD 34 Message-ID: NOW ACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS - CALL FOR PAPERS THE 34th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 6-8, 2009 Keynote Address “Developing Fluency in Understanding: How it matters” Anne Fernald, Stanford University Plenary Address “Innate Syntax - Still the Best Hypothesis” Virginia Valian, Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center Lunch Symposium “Recent Advances in the Study of Production and Comprehension: Implications for Language Acquisition Research” John Trueswell, University of Pennsylvania Mike Tanenhaus, University of Rochester Kay Bock, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Submissions which present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including Bilingualism, Cognition & Language, Creoles & Pidgins, Dialects, Discourse and Narrative, Gesture, Hearing Impairment and Deafness, Input & Interaction, Language Disorders, Linguistic Theory, Neurolinguistics, Pragmatics, Pre-linguistic Development, Reading and Literacy, Signed Languages, Sociolinguistics, and Speech Perception & Production. ABSTRACTS · Abstracts must represent original, unpublished research. · Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 500 words in length. Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. · Detailed information regarding abstract format, content, and evaluation criteria can be found at our website: http://www.bu.edu/ linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS · Abstracts may now be submitted using the form available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm · This year we are enacting a new author policy: Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster. There is no limit on the number of additional acceptances of papers/posters in any other authorship status. DEADLINE · All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2009. There will be no exceptions. JEAN BERKO GLEASON AWARD BUCLD is proud to introduce the Jean Berko Gleason Award for the best student papers. In honor of Jean Berko Gleason, Professor Emerita of Psychology at Boston University, three awards will be given at the Plenary address on Saturday night. All students who are first and presenting authors on a paper will be considered for the award. FURTHER INFORMATION Questions about abstracts should be sent to abstract at bu.edu Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 From raldokhayel at hotmail.com Sat Apr 4 19:34:37 2009 From: raldokhayel at hotmail.com (Aldokhayel Reyadh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:34:37 +0300 Subject: Inquiry Message-ID: Hello, I have been a lurking member of your wonderful list for a long time and I decided to participate this time by drawing attention to my newly-published book "The Event Structure Metaphor: The Case of Arabic. Is there a particular format for a participation of this sort. Thank you very much. Reyadh Aldokhayel, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Cognitive Linguistics Department of European Languages & Translation College of Languages & Translation King Saud University P. O. Box 87907 Riyadh 11652 Saudi Arabia Email: rdokayel at ksu.edu.sa; raldokhayel at hotmail.com Phone: (966) 1 468-2114 Cellphone: (966) 532079829 From alifarghaly at yahoo.com Sun Apr 5 10:45:18 2009 From: alifarghaly at yahoo.com (Ali Farghaly) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:45:18 -0700 Subject: Third Wokshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages Message-ID:                   * FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS *                        THIRD WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO ARABIC SCRIPT-BASED LANGUAGES (CAASL3) August 26, 2009 Machine Translation Summit XII Ottawa, Ontario, Canada http://arabicscript.org/CAASL3   The Organizing Committee of the Third Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages invites proposals for presentation at CAASL3, being held in conjunction with MT Summit XII.   WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION   The first two workshops (2004 and 2007) brought together researchers working on the computer processing of Arabic script-based languages such as Arabic, Persian (Farsi and Dari), Pashto and Urdu, among others. The usage of the Arabic script and the influence of Arabic vocabulary give rise to certain computational issues that are common to these languages despite their being of distinct language families, such as right to left direction, encoding variation, absence of capitalization, complex word structure, and a high degree of ambiguity due to non-representation of short vowels in the writing system.   The third workshop (CAASL3), five years after the successful first workshop, will provide a forum for researchers from academia, industry, and government developers, practitioners, and users to share their research and experience with a focus on machine translation.  It also provides an opportunity to assess the progress that has been made since the first workshop in 2004.   The call for papers as well as future information on the workshop can be found at http://www.arabicscript.org.   IMPORTANT DATES   Paper submission deadline: May 8, 2009 Notification of acceptance: June 12, 2009 Camera ready submissions: July 10, 2009   WORKSHOP TOPICS   We welcome submissions in any area of NLP in Arabic script-based languages. However, preference would be given to papers that focus on Machine Translation applications of Arabic script-based languages. The main themes of this workshop include:   * Statistical and rule-based machine translation * Translation aids * Evaluation methods and techniques of  machine translation systems * MT of dialectal and conversational language * Computer-mediated communication (e.g., blogs, forums, chats) * Knowledge bases, corpora, and development of resources for MT applications * Speech-to-speech MT * MT combined with other technologies (speech translation, cross-language information retrieval, multilingual text categorization, multilingual text summarization, multilingual natural language generation, etc.) * Entity extraction * Tokenization and segmentation * Speech synthesis and recognition * Text to speech systems * Semantic analysis   SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS                                                    Papers should not have been presented somewhere else or be under consideration for publication elsewhere, and should not identify the author(s). They should emphasize completed work rather than intended work. Each paper will be anonymously reviewed by three members of the program committee.   Papers must be submitted in PDF format to caasl3 at arabicscript.org by midnight of the due date. Submissions should be in English. The papers should be attached to an email indicating contact information for the author(s) and paper’s title. Papers should not exceed 8 pages including references and tables, and should follow the formatting guidelines posted at   CONTACT INFORMATION   For further information, please visit the workshop site at http://www.arabicscript.org/CAASL3 or contact the organizing committee at caasl3 at arabicscript.org.   ORGANIZING COMMITTEE   Ali Farghaly, Oracle USA Karine Megerdoomian,  The Mitre Corporation Hassan Sawaf, AppTek Inc.   TENTATIVE PROGRAM COMMITTEE   Jan W. Amtrup (Kofax Image Products) Mahmood Bijankhan (Tehran University, Iran) Tim Buckwalter (University of Maryland) Miriam Butt (Konstanz University, Germany) Violetta Cavalli-Sforza (Al Akhawayn University, Morocco) Sherri L. Condon (The MITRE Corporation) Kareem Darwish (Cairo University, Egypt and IBM) Mona Diab (Columbia University) Joseph Dichy (Lyon University) Andrew Freeman (The MITRE Corporation) Nizar Habash (Columbia University) Lamia Hadrich Belguith (University of Sfax, Tunisia) Hany Hassan (IBM) Sarmad Hussain (CRULP and FAST National University, Pakistan) Simin Karimi (University of Arizona) Martin Kay (Stanford University) Mohamed Maamouri (Linguistic Data Consortium) Shrikanth Narayanan (University of Southern California) Hermann Ney (RWTH Aachen, Germany) Farhad Oroumchian (University of Wollongong in Dubai) Nick Pendar (H5 Technologies) Kristin Precoda (SRI International) Jean Sennellart (SYSTRAN) Ahmed Rafea (The American University in Cairo) Khaled Shaalan (The British University in Dubai) Mehrnoush Shamsfard (Shahid Beheshti University, Iran) Stephan Vogel (CMU) Imed Zitouni (IBM) From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 6 15:35:26 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:35:26 -0400 Subject: Benjamins: New Co-editor for Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) Message-ID: New Co-editor for Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) John Benjamins Publishing is pleased to announce that Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State University) has agreed to succeed Michael Noonan as co-editor of SLCS. Elly van Gelderen is a syntactician, interested in language change. Her preference is directed towards language typology in the following concrete sense: describing languages with a keen eye on universals or at least cross-linguistic generalizations She is currently writing a book on the linguistic cycle where she shows how syntactic changes that occur over and over in different languages provide insight in the language faculty. They point towards Economy Principles that help a child acquire a language and analyze it in a different way from previous generations. She is the author of six books, fifty or so articles/chapters, and has taught at ASU since 1995. She has degrees from Utrecht University and McGill and is the co-editor of Linguistics Today (John Benjamins). She is also on the board of Diachronica, The Journal of Germanic Linguistics, the Linguist List Advisory Board, and the South West Journal of Linguistics. Elly van Gelderen (ellyvangelderen at asu.edu) will co-edit SLCS with Werner Abraham (werner_abraham at t-online.de). 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 tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 6 23:58:16 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:58:16 -0600 Subject: attention? Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, At the risk of dragging you a bit far off center-filed, I would like to draw your attention to a recent paper in Proceedings of the Nat. Acad. Sci. (PNAS), co authored by two well-known exponents of Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides and J. Tooby of UC Santa Barbara (with a colleague, Joshua New). The title may be a bit off-putting to linguists: "Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise". Or, in other words, evolved genetics rather than acquired experience. This paper is another foray into finding a specific evolved "module" for any seemingly-universal behavioral trait of homo sapiens, rather than entertaining alternative explanations, such as module-sharing, distributed networks, etc. What drew my attention to this particular Cosmides/Tooby opus is that it encroaches on data linguists know well under various names, e.g. "the topicality hierarchy", or Haj Ross's "world order (CLS 1975). Many neurologists have noted that higher cognitive faculties, such attention, lexicon, grammar etc., are represented in the brain by multi-modular distributive networks/circuits (Schneider and Chein 2003; Posner & Fan 2008; Friederici 2008; Bookheimer 2002; Hagoort 2008; Kaan 2008; Dehaene and Cohen 2007). Within such circuits, the lower-level modules may not be specific to any particular task, but rather partake in many different circuits.What is task-specific is the circuit or network. What Cosmides/Tooby suggested is that a special "attention to animates" module evolved in homo sapiens. But one could extend this "narrow modularity" ad absurdum, assigning special attention modules to all the "umarked"/"salient" members of the well-known pairs linguists (and psychologists) have been talking about for years: SALIENT LESS-SALIENT ======== ============= human > non-human animate > inanimate moving > stationary compact > diffuse near > far ego-related > ego-unrelated (1st > 2nd > 3rd person) concrete > abstract colorful > dull/murky event > non-event figure > ground etc. All other things being equal, humans are more likely to pay more attention to the salient than to the less- salient member of these contrasting pairs. But to account for this, one need not invent multiple attention "modules". Rather, one can note that default saliency-coding--in lexical-semantic memory--is probably the real mechanism to be explained by the evolutionary psychologist. Attention, on the other hand, probably remains a (relatively) general-purpose mechanism. Cheers, TG From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Tue Apr 7 17:22:02 2009 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:22:02 -0700 Subject: attention? Message-ID: Thanks Tom for pointing out the PNAS article. Of course, the physical structure of the brain is to some extent determined by evolved genetics and not acquired experience, so it makes sense to wonder if some of this structure underlies any unique function. Your slippery slope argument about proliferating modules ad absurdum doesn't really convince me to to reject the paper. The data have to be evaluated on their merits - otherwise we're evaluating research on the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper. best, Keith From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Apr 7 22:37:09 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:37:09 -0600 Subject: attention? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Keith. I'm glad there's the beginning of a debate. Let's just make sure that this NOT about genetic determination, nor about modularity, nor about innateness. If we accept evolution, we have to accept that in principle those things exist. Otherwise each of us will have to start from scratch, from the amoeba, which is obviously a colossal waste of the zillions of years of adaptive experimentation by all those previous generations of protozoa, coelenterates, mollusks and vertebrates. So the question is more factual--WHAT is modular? WHAT is genetically determined? WHAT is innate? T/C have the unfortunate tendency to over-reach with claims of narrow modularity, discounting the role of general-purpose mechanisms such as memory & attention. These are, by the way, evolved & genetically determined too. In this particular case, they want to micro-modularize attention. What I hoped to point out is: (i) that if they do it for animacy, they'll have to do it for concreteness, compactness, motion, singularity, ego, etc., since all the language data suggest that these are the more salient or "marked" categories, and the attentional lit. suggests that animate brains pay more attention to salient entities. (This is not really a human-specific genetic trait, but an ANMIMATE trait. If T/C had experimented with rats, they would have found exactly the same facts. Tho I think Skinner must have already done that). (ii) That there probably is a better module where the genetics of salient categories already is expressed, perm,anent semantic memory (for humans, the lexicon). So at the very least, T/C will have to argue why the modularity is in the attentional system rather than in semantic memory. And (iii) that there are several teams that have been working for a long time on the neurology of attention (e.g. Schneider and Chein 2003; Posner & Fan 2008). It is curious that T/C don't bother to look at the highly specific results these team have reported about the distributive-network(s) neurology of attention, just to see if their micro-modularity claims are compatible with what is known about the neurology of attention. Cheers, TG ============= Keith Johnson wrote: > Thanks Tom for pointing out the PNAS article. > > Of course, the physical structure of the brain is to some extent > determined by evolved genetics and not acquired experience, so it > makes sense to wonder if some of this structure underlies any unique > function. > > Your slippery slope argument about proliferating modules ad absurdum > doesn't really convince me to to reject the paper. The data have to > be evaluated on their merits - otherwise we're evaluating research on > the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. > > So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper. > > best, > Keith > From tpayne at uoregon.edu Wed Apr 8 20:42:12 2009 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:42:12 -0700 Subject: Books Available for Review Message-ID: Books available for review in Studies in Language April, 2009 Reviewers are currently being sought for the following books. Please contact the Review Editor, Thomas E. Payne if you are interested in reviewing one or more of these books for Studies in Language. Please include a brief statement of why you want to review a particular book, and a link to a CV or other web page that indicates your qualifications as a reviewer. Format and content guidelines for Book Notices, Book Reviews and Review Articles can be found at http://www.uoregon.edu/~tpayne/SLstylesheet.pdf. Reviews will be due five months after receipt of the book. Please consider participating in the dialog of our discipline by volunteering to review one or more of these books. Thomas E. Payne, Review editor, Studies in Language (tpayne at uoregon.edu). Ansaldo, Umberto. (ed.) 2007. Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Arnovick, Bouma, Gerlof. (ed.) 2007. Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Bremmer, Rolf. H. 2009. An Introduction to Old Frisian: History, grammar, reader, glossary. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Butler, Christopher S. (ed.) 2007. Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 85 Butler, Christopher S. (ed.) 2009. Deconstructing constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language companion series 107 Dehe, Nicole. (ed.) 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linguistics Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106 Donohue, Mark. (ed.) 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downing, Raquel Hidalgo and Wichman, Soren. (eds.) 2007. Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 85 Englebretson, Robert. (ed.) 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fanselow, Gisbert, Fery, Caroline and Schlesewsky, Matthias. (eds.) 2006. Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filipovic, Luna. 2007. Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 91 Giannakidou, Anastasia. (ed.) 2009. Quantification, definiteness & nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics Givon, T. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gomez Gonzalez, Maria de los Angeles, et al. (eds.) 2008. Languages and cultures in contrast and comparison. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gomez Gonzalez, Maria de los Angeles, et al. 2009. Current trends in contrastive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics Good, Jeffrey. 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hannay, Mike and Gerard K. Steen. (eds.) 2007. Structural-functional studies in English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Studies in the Evolution of Language Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional discourse grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Constructional Approaches to Language 7 Huber, Magnus. (ed.) 2007. Synchronic and diachronic perspectives on contact languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Creole Language Library 32 Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kulikov, Leonid, et al. (eds.) 2006. Case, valency and transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 77 Leow, Ronald P. (ed.) 2009. Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lopez-Couso, Maria Jose, and Elena Seoane. (eds.) 2008. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typolgogical Studies in Language 76 Miestamo, Matti. (ed.) 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 94 Miyaoka, Osahito. (ed.) 2007. The vanishing languages of the Pacific Rim. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Muller, Henrik Hoeg and Alex Klinge. (eds.) 2008. Essays on nominal determination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 99. Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 109. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 2007. Rciprocal constructions (5 volumes). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 71 Nikolaeva, Irina. (ed.) 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O'Connor, Loretta. 2007. Motion, transfer and transformation: The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 95. Penke, Martina and Anette Rosenbach. (eds.) 2007. What counts as evidence in linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Benjami's Current Topics Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region Polguere, Alain and Igor Melchuk. (eds.) 2009. Dependency in lingusitic description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 111 Ramchand, Gillian and Charles Reiss. (eds.) 2007. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasinger, Sebastian M. 2008. Quantitative research in linguistics: An introduction. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Giorgos Spathas. (eds.) 2007. Argument structure. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 108].g\g\ Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 27 Seoane, Elena and Maria Jose Lopez-Couso. (eds.) 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 77. Siegel, Jeff, et al. 2008. Language description, history and development. Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley [Creole Language Library 30]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic change in the English passive. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. van der Wurff, Wim. (ed.) 2007. Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linguistics Aktuell/Linguistics Today Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya: a typologically based analysis of a functional domain in a Mayan language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 87 Wanner, Leo. (ed.) 2007. Selected lexical and grammatical issues in the meaning-text theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 84 Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics]Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 70 From sclancy at uchicago.edu Fri Apr 10 12:49:26 2009 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:49:26 -0500 Subject: Final CFP: Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference (SCLC-2009) in Prague, October 15-17, 2009 Message-ID: THE 2009 SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (SCLC-2009) October 15-17, 2009 EXTENDED DEADLINE: APRIL 15, 2009 NOTE TO ICLC PARTICIPANTS: We would like to encourage those of you who had planned to participate in the ICLC-2009 conference in Berkeley to consider joining us in Prague in October. Among affiliate organizations of the ICLA, the SCLA is unique in that it is not a national organization of cognitive linguists, but rather an international group of cognitive linguists concerned with research on Slavic languages. We also accept papers on topics dealing with other languages of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia. If you would like to submit your ICLC abstract on a topic related to the concerns of the SCLA for our conference, please follow the submission guidelines below and indicate that your abstract was accepted to the ICLC in your submission email. The SCLC is usually a small conference of around 30 papers, but we will do our best to accommodate additional presentations this year. The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the final call for papers for the 2009 Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference (SCLC-2009), October 15-17, 2009. We are very pleased to hold SCLC-2009 in conjunction with the Department of Czech Language and Theory of Communication of the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Full information about the conference may be found at the official conference website (http://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/sclc/sclc_eng.htm ). Papers concerning all aspects of Slavic languages (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, as well as broadly cultural or literary topics) from the perspective of cognitive linguistics are welcome. We also accept papers on topics dealing with other languages of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia. Abstracts may be submitted up until the extended deadline of April 15, 2009 to Steven Clancy . Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2009. Please see the official conference website (http://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/sclc/sclc_eng.htm ) for more details. We hope you will be able to join us in Prague for SCLC-2009. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. All the best, Steven Clancy Steven Clancy Tore Nesset President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA on behalf of the SCLC-2009 organizing committee Team of organizers in Prague: Mgr. Jan Chromý (chief coordinator) doc. PhDr. Ivana Bozděchová, CSc. Veronika Čurdová PhDr. Jasňa Pacovská, CSc. PhDr. Lucie Saicová Římalová, Ph.D. PhDr. Lucie Šůchová doc. PhDr. Irena Vaňková, CSc. Pre-Conference Workshop in Corpus and Experimental Methods at SCLC-2009 in Prague October 15, 2009 We also plan to organize a one-day pre-conference workshop on corpus linguistics, experimental methods and statistical analysis. This will take place on October 15, 2009 before the start of the main SCLC-2009 conference. More details forthcoming at the SCLA website (http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla/ ). From Salinas17 at aol.com Sat Apr 11 19:26:11 2009 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:26:11 EDT Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/7/09 1:22:29 PM, keithjohnson at berkeley.edu writes: <> Keith - You SHOULD look forward to reading the paper. It is one of the funniest parodies of a scientific paper you can find outside of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Either that or it is a stark reminder of how close "evolutionary psychology" has come to being the study of pixies, moondbeams and extrasensory perception. I prefer to see the paper as just an elaborate inside joke. There sure are lots of guffaws throughout, but the laughably twisted logic that Tom seems to be addressing has to do with the use of the term "semantic" to describe the different kind of objects that appeared in photographs that were showed to subjects in the experiment. Why the authors choose to use the word "semantic" isn't clear. But the "five semantic categories" they give are "two animate (people and animals)" and "three inanimate... [plants; moveable/ manipulable artifacts designed for interaction with human hands/body (e.g., stapler, wheelbarrow); fixed artifacts construable as topographical landmarks (e.g., windmill, house)." Tom's objection I suspect, is to the reason given in the paper for this Sesame Street-style scheme: "These categories were chosen because converging evidence from neuropsychology and cognitive development suggests each is associated with a functionally distinct neural substrate..." citing two papers by Alphonso Caramazza from 1998 and 2000. Of course, the article's title tells us how the authors are using these "semantic" categories: "Category-specific attention for animals reflect ancestral priorities, not expertise." But it doesn't tell us why they used the word "semantic" as opposed to something like "object-type" or "objects shaped like animals or humans." It is one thing to suggest that the brain stores language according to lexical categories, as Caramazza did. But it's quite another to say that we're paying extra attention to something we look at not because of what it looks like, but because it falls into a word group. Remember that this attention is supposed to be "not goal directed" - so you're not looking for Elmo. In this experiment, you're supposedly not looking for anything. But what you're paying attention to is determined by word categories like "animate" or "human", not by the fact you've just been shown, say, a blonde in a bikini. As I think Tom pointed out, it would really take some straight-faced explaining to account for how "language-less" animals are so adroit at the fundamentally same recognition task. But, because the authors of this paper were obviously being funny, they were looking for some absurd and humorous "neurological" way the human shape would grab more immediate attention than a stapler or a wheelbarrow. Since they couldn't find research for a neurological pre-set for the human shape, they dug up some old research on the storage of words in the brain according to meaning categories. And then they say that's also why we innately pay attention to certain things, because of word categories like "animate" or "inanimate". Now, that's comedy. But that's not the really funny thing about this paper. What's really funny is some great convoluted logic. For example, we're told that the reason evolution favored us this pre-wired attention to "animals" is because: "Not only were animals (human and non-human) vital features of the visual environment, but they change their status far more frequently than plants, artifacts, or features of the terrain. Animals can change their minds, behavior, trajectory, or location in a fraction of a second, making their frequent reinspection as indispensable as their initial detection." Well, of course, one might suggest that an efficient way to spot something that moves is by paying attention to movement. (A cat's incredible response time in reaction to motion is exactly that -- a triggering in the optic organ that by-passes normal neural processing.) But the authors are not bothered by their own reasoning. True, "animate" objects tend to be animated, but motion is not what's catching our attention here. And, in the spirit of Mel Brooks, the authors have made sure that this has to be right by using an experimental technique called Change Detection, where "viewers are asked to spot the difference between two rapidly alternating [STILL PHOTOGRAPHS] that are identical except for a change to one object." Hilarously, they discount motion by using STILL photographs of cars in this phase of the experiment -- because cars move right? Now, that's funny. Why not use video instead of stills? Because still photographs show motion just fine, we are told. I'll give the authors the benefit of the doubt. They don't think we are idiots. They are just being comedians. The best part are the photographs themselves. We see a small figure of a human in a forest or by a resort harbor. This change is circled. We are told the objects are in "natural situations." Overwhelmingly the photos are filled with "inanimate" objects. Inanimate objects added to the inanimate objects don't do as well as human images added to the inanimate objects. Wow, what a surprise! Of course, we see lots of vague human shapes added to a forest scene or river scenes or travel scenes. But, with one exception, we don't see is a series of photos of something like someone holding a Christmas tree on a crowded subway platform. So the human form always wins out over the wheelbarrow, the stapler and the silo. Of course, it's common knowledge that good artists, graphic designers, photographers, film editors know how to drive attention where they want it. Each of these photos could have been re-designed to produce eaxctly the opposite result. Luckily, the choice of photos is so obviously biased that we might think that the researchers were clumsily trying to fix the result - if we didn't already know they were trying to be funny. And here's another punch line. How do you know that the attention you are seeing isn't goal-directed? How do you know that the subjects aren't already looking to spot fellow humans in the photograhs? The answer is simple. The subjects have no ulterior interests because they weren't given any. To qoute the article: "they are not given any task-specific goal that would direct their attention to some kinds of objects over others. Thus, the CD paradigm can be used to investigate how attention is deployed in the absence of a voluntary goal-directed search." Thus is a human who has spent most of his waking life interacting with other humans is wiped clean of any "goals" when looking at a photo that might include other humans, and his "ancestral priorities" are stripped bare. Just because we showed him a photo without telling him what to look for. Evolutionary psychology has generated much incredibly funny research, with the help of the NAS and numerous institutions listed in the article and elsewhere. Together this effort has done much to satisfy our national need for humor. In fact, sometimes when I read this stuff, I laugh so hard, I could cry. Regards, Steve Long ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 11 21:07:12 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:07:12 -0600 Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RE: The New/Cosmides/Tooby paper: It is, of course, comforting to have someone find so much hilarity in someone else's attempt to be serious (and, concomitantly, to be taken seriously, something I suspect we all strive for, consciously or not). Still, before we tar a whole research program(me), and many interesting results, with the tainted brush of one study, perhaps we ought to be a bit more charitable. The best summary I know of the research program(me) of Ev.Psych. is Dave Geary's book "Origin of Mind". It is a coherent, indeed admirable summary of an investigation begun by Darwin in "The Descent of Man", which basically takes it for granted that if the body has evolved under adaptive selection, and if the brain has likewise, then the mind, behavior, and--God forbid--culture, probably have too. This doesn't mean that every practitioner in every study along this program(me) is infallible. Every far-reaching research program(me) is, almost by definition, open to multiple abuses of simplification and over-generalization. We are all prone to this, if we do non-trivial work. One could perhaps also say something about the logic of the experimental paradigm that Steve finds most offensive--or risible. The logic of NOT priming experimental subjects with purposive context in this type of experiment has to do with expectations of automaticity, habituation, innateness or "ingrained old adaptation". It is not difficult, as Steve observes, to prime responses by giving the subjects purposive contexts. But some contexts are more (much more) prevalent than others, and over time they tend to lead to habituation, automaticity & genetic coding (re. Joan Bybee's work on frequency effects). Such highly-frequent contexts lead to setting up a default/markedness organization of experiential categories, and processing. So if one deliberately does NOT prime the subject with a purposive context, but rather seeks their un-primed responses, chances are--so the logic goes--that if the results are coherent and statistically not attributed to chance, they reflect some pre-set (innate, marked, default) biases that are the result of repeated PAST--evolutionary past--frequency priming. I see nothing inherently wrong with this logic. It can be abused, and the interpretation/explanation of the result may on occasion be funny, a just-so narrative. But the logic springs from a coherent research program(me). Frequency effects over one's lifetime lead to automaticity. Frequency effects over multiple generations lead to adaptive-selective-genetic evolution. Cheers, TG ============ Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/7/09 1:22:29 PM, keithjohnson at berkeley.edu writes: > < evaluating research on > the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. > So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper.>> > > Keith - You SHOULD look forward to reading the paper. It is one of > the funniest parodies of a scientific paper you can find outside of > the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Either that or it is a stark > reminder of how close "evolutionary psychology" has come to being the > study of pixies, moondbeams and extrasensory perception. I prefer to > see the paper as just an elaborate inside joke. > > There sure are lots of guffaws throughout, but the laughably twisted > logic that Tom seems to be addressing has to do with the use of the > term "semantic" to describe the different kind of objects that > appeared in photographs that were showed to subjects in the experiment. > > Why the authors choose to use the word "semantic" isn't clear. But > the "five semantic categories" they give are "two animate (people and > animals)" and "three inanimate... [plants; moveable/ > manipulable artifacts designed for interaction with human hands/body > (e.g., stapler, wheelbarrow); fixed artifacts construable as > topographical landmarks (e.g., windmill, house)." > > Tom's objection I suspect, is to the reason given in the paper for > this Sesame Street-style scheme: "These categories were chosen because > converging evidence from neuropsychology and cognitive development > suggests each is associated with a functionally distinct neural > substrate..." citing two papers by Alphonso Caramazza from 1998 and 2000. > > Of course, the article's title tells us how the authors are using > these "semantic" categories: "Category-specific attention for animals > reflect ancestral priorities, not expertise." But it doesn't tell us > why they used the word "semantic" as opposed to something like > "object-type" or "objects shaped like animals or humans." > > It is one thing to suggest that the brain stores language according to > lexical categories, as Caramazza did. But it's quite another to say > that we're paying extra attention to something we look at not because > of what it looks like, but because it falls into a word group. > > Remember that this attention is supposed to be "not goal directed" - > so you're not looking for Elmo. In this experiment, you're supposedly > not looking for anything. But what you're paying attention to is > determined by word categories like "animate" or "human", not by the > fact you've just been shown, say, a blonde in a bikini. > > As I think Tom pointed out, it would really take some straight-faced > explaining to account for how "language-less" animals are so adroit at > the fundamentally same recognition task. > > But, because the authors of this paper were obviously being funny, > they were looking for some absurd and humorous "neurological" way the > human shape would grab more immediate attention than a stapler or a > wheelbarrow. Since they couldn't find research for a neurological > pre-set for the human shape, they dug up some old research on the > storage of words in the brain according to meaning categories. And > then they say that's also why we innately pay attention to certain > things, because of word categories like "animate" or "inanimate". > Now, that's comedy. > > But that's not the really funny thing about this paper. What's really > funny is some great convoluted logic. For example, we're told that > the reason evolution favored us this pre-wired attention to "animals" > is because: > > "Not only were animals (human and non-human) vital features of the > visual environment, but they change their status far more frequently > than plants, artifacts, or features of the terrain. Animals can change > their minds, behavior, trajectory, or location in a fraction of a > second, making their frequent reinspection as indispensable as their > initial detection." > > Well, of course, one might suggest that an efficient way to spot > something that moves is by paying attention to movement. (A cat's > incredible response time in reaction to motion is exactly that -- a > triggering in the optic organ that by-passes normal neural processing.) > > But the authors are not bothered by their own reasoning. True, > "animate" objects tend to be animated, but motion is not what's > catching our attention here. > > And, in the spirit of Mel Brooks, the authors have made sure that this > has to be right by using an experimental technique called Change > Detection, where "viewers are asked to spot the difference between two > rapidly alternating [STILL PHOTOGRAPHS] that are identical except for > a change to one object." > > Hilarously, they discount motion by using STILL photographs of cars in > this phase of the experiment -- because cars move right? Now, that's > funny. > > Why not use video instead of stills? Because still photographs show > motion just fine, we are told. > > I'll give the authors the benefit of the doubt. They don't think we > are idiots. They are just being comedians. > > The best part are the photographs themselves. We see a small figure > of a human in a forest or by a resort harbor. This change is circled. > We are told the objects are in "natural situations." Overwhelmingly > the photos are filled with "inanimate" objects. Inanimate objects > added to the inanimate objects don't do as well as human images added > to the inanimate objects. Wow, what a surprise! > > Of course, we see lots of vague human shapes added to a forest scene > or river scenes or travel scenes. But, with one exception, we don't > see is a series of photos of something like someone holding a > Christmas tree on a crowded subway platform. So the human form > always wins out over the wheelbarrow, the stapler and the silo. > > Of course, it's common knowledge that good artists, graphic designers, > photographers, film editors know how to drive attention where they > want it. Each of these photos could have been re-designed to produce > eaxctly the opposite result. Luckily, the choice of photos is so > obviously biased that we might think that the researchers were > clumsily trying to fix the result - if we didn't already know they > were trying to be funny. > > And here's another punch line. How do you know that the attention you > are seeing isn't goal-directed? How do you know that the subjects > aren't already looking to spot fellow humans in the photograhs? The > answer is simple. The subjects have no ulterior interests because > they weren't given any. To qoute the article: "they are not given any > task-specific goal that would direct their attention to some kinds of > objects over others. Thus, the CD paradigm can be used to investigate > how attention is deployed in the absence of a voluntary goal-directed > search." > > Thus is a human who has spent most of his waking life interacting with > other humans is wiped clean of any "goals" when looking at a photo > that might include other humans, and his "ancestral priorities" are > stripped bare. Just because we showed him a photo without telling him > what to look for. > > Evolutionary psychology has generated much incredibly funny research, > with the help of the NAS and numerous institutions listed in the > article and elsewhere. Together this effort has done much to satisfy > our national need for humor. In fact, sometimes when I read this > stuff, I laugh so hard, I could cry. > > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. > (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 12 03:30:41 2009 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:30:41 EDT Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: tgivon wrote: <> Tom, there are a lot of ways to respond to absurd ideas. Humor may not be the kindest or the safest, but it sure beats fury. <> But it also takes a rather narrow view of how that evolution could have occurred, and as Jonathan Kaplan, Panksepp and others have pointed out, there is an evidence gap. On the other hand, it could be a great deal more productive to investigate less how biological evolution affected human culture, and more how human culture affected evolution. In terms of morphology, it is short-work to distinguish between natural selection (including non-human sexual selection) and human-directed selection. No species out in the wild shows the morphological diversity we see in the domesticated dog and that diversity was acheived in a few thousand years at most (think Chihuahua versus Great Dane versus wolf). The gap between humans and early hominids and other primates smacks of the same kind of intervention. Human culture is a powerhouse when it comes to changing the environment and the things in it, and that includes biology. If I were Professor Geary, I'd start looking in the other direction. And that includes the notion that "sexual selection" among humans has been as much or more a communal matter than it has been one of "intra-species' competition. <> Tom, there are ways to control for these variables in experimentation. At minimum, see how subjects perform when both instructed and not instructed. And of course different instructions as control may make a difference. This is after all basic scientific methodology. But also something else. Why even assume that any lack of "goal-direction" would uncover innateness? What if if nothing but learned responses are available? How many "goals' are on the normal human to-do sheet every minute of every day? How would one know the difference? (Can a response to a stimulus get any faster than stomping on the breaks when you see a red light or Eric Clapton fingering his guitar at the right cue? These things are not innate responses. Clapton said at first he just didn't get how to play guitar and I watched a student driver blissfully drive thru a red light yesterday.) <> They also lead overwhelminly to extinction for probably a billion species. Genetically inherited behavior may be adaptive today, but it may be a disaster tomorrow. The breakthrough in adaptability appears to be when organisms stop relying on inherited behavior, not the other way around. It's not like Joan Bybee's language paradigm. Pre-wired appears to have come first. Plasticity, not automaticity, was the next big step in biological adaptation. Speaking of evolutionary psychology in the strict sense, the wonderful work done by Bernd Heinrich and Thomas Bugnyar on the "intelligence" of the Raven may have a lot more meaning than anything coming out of Santa Barbara. Here's one of their observations: "By some process that still remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology, exquisitely precise behaviors can be genetically programmed in animals with brains no larger than a pinhead... [eg] a wasp that makes paper expertly from the time it is born, that fashions a nest of precise architecture with that paper... The big question, then, is why, if behavior can be so precisely programmed, some animals [like ravens and humans] are consigned to muddling. Why are they not endowed as most animals are 'to do it right,' except after the many things that can go disasterously wrong... from muddling." Here's a suggestion. How about "evolutionary psychology" spends a bit more of its time on the "muddling" part and a little less time on how people spot other humans in photographs quicker than they spot staplers? Regards, Steve Long ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sun Apr 12 07:50:20 2009 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:50:20 -0400 Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: Steve Long ti:kama:nude: < Message-ID: Jess, Good points! In other words, there are cycles in evolution as well as in language? Best, --Aya On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, jess tauber wrote: > Steve Long ti:kama:nude: > > < > Oh, I dunno- aren't the Cichlid fishes of the African great lakes supposed to be extremely diverse both morphologically and behaviorally, and naturally evolved in a very short time after the lakes refilled at the end of the Ice Ages to take advantage of the many different microenvironments that the expansion of the lake system created? Unless hypothetical Homo Aquaticus (where are you when we need you Kevin Costner...?) was into breeding tropical fish. > > < > Not so fast- evidence from genes over phylogenesis seems to indicate slow cumulation of hard-wiring over very long stretches of time, as systems became much more interactive and less 'modular'. This would imply that earlier on, morphology and behavior were more flexible in response to the environment (if not necessarily in control). Late, derived, flexibility is due to losses in the cumulative system- genes shut off, nonworking proteins, and other broken links. Witness neotenization, where earlier life stages become reproductively successful, and the older later stages just drop out entirely. One step forward is in many ways two steps back. Retro is in. > > As for 'muddling'- there is still controversy about the Hobbit from Indonesia and the size of its brain- how could such a creature be 'human' with such reductions. The answer may be (assuming one doesn't take these forms to be simply retarded moderns) that it automated the relevant prehuman behaviors- hunting, cave dwelling, and so on. Robo-erectus. With a limited and stable environment, no Sapiens competition, and with loads of TIME, such things are possible, and help one optimize one's potential fit in the stultifying monotony. Be the best you can be, with blinders on. > > Neotenization and similar processes, on the other hand, would do best in unstable environments where there was pleny of competitive threat in a short time, which would be to the detriment of specialists. The Toba eruption and its aftermath would certainly have provided the kind of pressures on the environment needed to get the ball rolling- and I'd imagine the comet that hit North America leading to the Younger Dryas event did as well. Sometimes all one needs is a good kick in the pants, on a planetary scale. > > Overall, one might want to look for evidence of repeated episodes of increased/decreased automation in behavior through the eons. > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 13 18:09:32 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:09:32 -0400 Subject: New Co-editor Studies in Language (Benjamins) Message-ID: New Co-editor Studies in Language Foundations of Language and John Benjamins Publising are pleased to announce that Balthasar Bickel has agreed to join Bernard Comrie as general editor of Studies in Language. Balthasar Bickel currently holds a chair position in linguistic typology and variation at the University of Leipzig (Department of General Linguistics). His core interest is the worldwide distribution of linguistic diversity. Current foci of research include the typological profile of the Himalayas and the Caucasus, which deviate from the surrounding Eurasian spread areas; the development of new methods for measuring and testing areal distributions and their historical development; and the implications of typological variance in the structure of grammatical relations for discourse style and language processing. His fieldwork experience began with Bantu and Turkish, but since the early 1990s his main focus has been on typological outlier languages in the Himalayas, where he has been engaged in extensive research on the Kiranti people of Eastern Nepal, and also on the neighboring Indo-Aryan languages (Nepali and Maithili). His most recent effort in this area is an interdisciplinary documentation project on Chintang and Puma. Balthasar Bickel is co-director (with Johanna Nichols at UC Berkeley) of the AUTOTYP research program for typological databasing, and he serves on the editorial boards of Folia Linguistica and Himalayan Linguistics. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Association for Linguistic Typology and the Linguistic Advisory Board of the Documentation of Endangered Languages Program (DOBES). 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 kfeld at citrus.ucr.edu Mon Apr 13 20:45:44 2009 From: kfeld at citrus.ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:45:44 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Linguistics professor] Message-ID: I received this, and am sympathetic. But I have no idea of what to recommend. Perhaps someone on this list could be more helpful. Presumably the thing to do, if you have some suggestions (or need more information), is to write to Mr. Bohannon. Thanks much, David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Linguistics professor Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) From: To: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu References: <20090409095349.AMU84788 at mh2.ucr.edu> <49DEB1E0.7070500 at ucr.edu> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Dr. Kronenfeld, I appreciate your time and consideration. I have a friend in Iran who is interested in speaking to linguistics graduate students. I was wondering if you could tell me if there are any particular faculty members about this, or if you know any graduate students that might be interested. Again, thank you for your time. Darren Bohannon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) I (DK) asked for more information, and received the following: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Thank you for your time, professor. We both really appreciate it! My friend sent this paragraph to me to clarify what exactly she wanted: Dear Sir, I am an Iranian student in English language. I would like to know more what kind of sources and books being studied in Linguistics for graduate students in M.A courses overseas, especially in English-speaking countries. I am heading to "Book Exhibition" held on Tehran, so I would very appreciate it if you can introduce those books which are being studied for M.A in Linguistics field. Best regards, Leila Taghavi Again, your efforts are greatly appreciated. -- David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department:http://Anthropology.ucr.edu/ Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From sweetser at berkeley.edu Mon Apr 13 20:56:10 2009 From: sweetser at berkeley.edu (Eve Sweetser) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:56:10 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Linguistics professor] In-Reply-To: <49E3A478.6010602@citrus.ucr.edu> Message-ID: It sounds to me as if this person should actually be contacting graduate advisors, who generally have a full picture of their departmental curriculum. I shall write her (being a departmental Head Grad Advisor). Eve Sweetser > I received this, and am sympathetic. But I have no idea of what to > recommend. Perhaps someone on this list could be more helpful. > Presumably the thing to do, if you have some suggestions (or need more > information), is to write to Mr. Bohannon. > > Thanks much, > David > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Linguistics professor > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) > From: > To: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu > References: <20090409095349.AMU84788 at mh2.ucr.edu> > <49DEB1E0.7070500 at ucr.edu> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1) > > Dr. Kronenfeld, > > I appreciate your time and consideration. I have a friend in Iran who is > interested in speaking to linguistics graduate students. I was wondering > if you could tell me if there are any particular faculty members about > this, or if you know any graduate students that might be interested. > Again, thank you for your time. > > Darren Bohannon > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2) > I (DK) asked for more information, and received the following: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3) > > Thank you for your time, professor. We both really appreciate it! My > friend sent this paragraph to me > to clarify what exactly she wanted: > > Dear Sir, > > I am an Iranian student in English language. I would like to know more > what kind of sources and books > being studied in Linguistics for graduate students in M.A courses > overseas, especially in English-speaking > countries. I am heading to "Book Exhibition" held on Tehran, so I would > very appreciate it if you can > introduce those books which are being studied for M.A in Linguistics > field. > Best regards, > Leila Taghavi > > Again, your efforts are greatly appreciated. > > > > -- > David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 > Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 > University of California Fax 951 827-5409 > Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu > Department:http://Anthropology.ucr.edu/ > Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 21:45:43 2009 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:45:43 +0300 Subject: "control" in functionalist perspective and related questions Message-ID: Hi all, I've been reading, with much interest and to the detriment of dissertation-writing, the archives of this list. I want to pose a few questions which may have been asked and answered before, but I'd be grateful for any comments and/or references. Has anyone written a full-fledged functional analysis of "control" phenomena for any language or in typological perspective? It seems like all the pieces are there, from Givón's work on event integration and clause union, Haspelmath's frequentist explanations, and so on. There are two things that I wonder about especially: * To what does "control shift" or the fact that for a given verb, one can find both "subject control" and "object control", correlate in functional terms, cross-linguistically? Generative treatments seem to be silent on this. * With verbs like "beg (someone to do something)," would the "subject control" construction ("He begged me to join my team") be interpreted as causative, i.e., "to (let him) join my team"? And if so, would it be considered syntactically/actantially more complex than the "object control" construction ("He begged me to go with him")? Would the syntactic/actantial status of "me" be the same in both constructions? I'm interested in functional approaches that prefer "implicit argument" to "gap" or "zero" analyses, and how they would handle this sort of thing. I tend to think that if one applies Givón's work on manipulation verbs to this, one might arrive at concepts like "internal" vs. "external" manipulee (from the point of view of the target event/complement clause), the former for the "object control" construction, the latter for the "subject control" construction. This would reflect whether or not the manipulee is coreferential with the agent of the target event or not. * Has anyone tried to continue Givón's cross-linguistic studies of the * functional* aspects of formal oppositions between, e.g., more- and less-finite complements? What about between equally-finite constructions (e.g., two "infinitives" or two "subjunctives" that are found with the same verb lexeme?). * Has anyone offered a functional explanation for why languages might have a diachronically stable system in which one has both overt- and non-overt-subject complement constructions for verbs like "want" (see, for example, Haspelmath's article on "want" in WALS)? For example, a language with both "I want to go" and "I want that-I-go/for-me-to-go." If the answer is that there's a communicative interest in maintaining a difference in function, then what does one do with the fact that in other languages the diachrony played out differently, and either the overt-subject or the non-overt-subject construction was lost? There are some interesting treatments of this in the framework of Functional Grammar (e.g., Dik and Bolkestein), but they tend to replace formalism with formalism. I'm working on this problem in a language (Coptic), where the notion of "control" doesn't seem useful, since for the same verb one often finds both subject and object "control." Moreover, both more- and less-finite constructions are almost always found in the same environments, and here I don't refer just to typical "control" environments. Roughly, "I am ready to go/I am ready that-I-go," "He cannot go/He cannot that-he-go," "I want to go/I want that-I-go", etc., so there is no complementary distribution of the sort often discussed. It seems highly unlikely that this is "just" variation; rather, it looks like different functions are encoded by the different constructions. Interestingly and perhaps unsurprisingly, the diachrony of the various complement clause constructions is a pretty good diagnostic for the functional differences found. I apologize if the questions are half-baked or naive. I would be very grateful for any comments, and will gladly post a summary. Eitan From eitan.eg at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 16:07:21 2009 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:07:21 +0300 Subject: summary Message-ID: Hi all, I recently posted a question about functional analyses of "control," and received the following responses: Both Robert Van Valin and Chris Butler suggested looking at the RRG treatment of "control" in Van Valin and LaPolla 1997 (Syntax: structure, meaning and function, CUP), chapters 8 and 9, and in Van Valin 2005 (Exploring the syntax-semantics interface, CUP), chapters 6 and 7. Chris Butler pointed out Francisco Gonzálvez-García's work on Givón's Binding Hierarchy, in: Gonzálvez-García, F. (2001). “A contrastive analysis of Givón’s complement binding hierarchy in English and Spanish”. In A. Gomis Van Heteren, M. Martínez López, C. Portero Muñoz and C. Wallhead (eds.), *First International Conference on English Studies: Past, Present and Future*. Almería: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almería, 121-136. There is extensive discussion of relevant bibliography of the binding hierarchy. Talmy Givón referred me to his forthcoming book *The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution* (John Benjamins, 2009). Some of those who responded were kind enough to send me articles and book chapters, for which I am very grateful. Thanks to all who answered! Once I process these recommendations, I will write a more substantive summary. Eitan From peter_jacobs at squamish.net Thu Apr 16 16:54:52 2009 From: peter_jacobs at squamish.net (Peter Jacobs) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:54:52 -0700 Subject: "control" of a different type Message-ID: Hi all, I'm writing to you all about a different type of "control" which I am researching for my dissertation. I'm writing to you all to see if there are other language families or individual languages that have the "control" phenomena as is found in Salish languages of the Pacific Northwest of North America. The standard description of this distinction, which takes place in the (in)transitivizing system, is as follows: 1) chen kwelash-t ta mixalh I shoot-ctr det bear (ctr = control transitivizer, det= determiner) "I shot the bear (intentionally)" 2) chen kwelash-nexw ta mixalh I shoot-lctr det bear (lctr = limited control transitivizer) "I shot bear, I managed to shoot the bear, I accidentally shot the bear." The term "control" is used instead of "volitionality" because in (2) the agent­/subject could well intend and carry out the action of shooting, but just have more than usual difficulty in completing it. They had "limited control" in completing the action. The context for the "accidental" reading, with this sentence at least, could be where someone was intending to shoot to scare the bear away but not to hit it, but then they accidentally shot it. The "accidental" meaning occurs more naturally with some predicates than with others (e.g. xewtl'-nexw break, mu-nexw drop, etc.). One further wrinkle is that the "control" sentences can felicitously be cancelled, while the "limited control" ones can't. So if we add a clause saying "but I missed it" we obtain two different readings: 3) chen kwelash-t ta mixalh, welh chen t'emt'am I shoot-ctr det bear but I missed "I shot (at) the bear, but I missed." 4) *chen kwelash-nexw ta mixalh, welh chen t'emt'am I shoot-lctr det bear but I missed "I shot the bear, but I missed." All the various "control" forms (transitive, intransitive, reflexive, reciprocal) can be cancelled felicitously, but the "limited control" can't. So, I am writing you all to see if such a system exists elsewhere, and if it's documented and even better, analyzed. I am aware of something similar in Austronesian, and I have seen something which looks to be similar in Hindi. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I will post a summary. Chen kw'enmantumiyap (thank you all), Peter Jacobs Skwxwú7mesh Uxwumixw (Squamish Nation) Ns7eyxnitm ta Snew'éyelh (Department of Education) peter_jacobs at squamish.net Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. From tpayne at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 16 23:49:36 2009 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:49:36 -0700 Subject: Books available for Review in Studies in Language -- update Message-ID: An updated list of books available for review in Studies in Language has been posted at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~tpayne/BooksAvailable-4-09.pdf I would like to remind readers that reviewers will be selected according to their qualifications, and the appropriateness of the books requested to the potential reviewer's areas of expertise. For that reason, I am requesting a brief statement of why you would like to review the book you are requesting and a link to a CV or other webpage that indicates your qualifications. I will also need a valid postal address where I may send the book Thank you very much for your understanding. Thomas E. Payne Review Editor Studies in Language http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=SL From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 20 18:14:13 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:14:13 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title - Bar=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F0dal/Chelliah:?= The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case Message-ID: The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case Edited by Jóhanna Barðdal and Shobhana L. Chelliah University of Bergen / University of North Texas Studies in Language Companion Series 108 2009. xx, 432 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0575 9 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 [] e-Book – Not yet available 978 90 272 8992 6 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 The aim of this volume is to bring non-syntactic factors in the development of case into the eye of the research field, by illustrating the integral role of pragmatics, semantics, and discourse structure in the historical development of morphologically marked case systems. The articles represent fifteen typologically diverse languages from four different language families: (i) Indo-European: Vedic Sanskrit, Russian, Greek, Latin, Latvian, Gothic, French, German, Icelandic, and Faroese; (ii) Tibeto-Burman, especially the Bodic languages and Meithei; (iii) Japanese; and (iv) the Pama-Nyungan mixed language Gurindji Kriol. The data also show considerable diversity and include elicited, archival, corpus-based, and naturally occurring data. Discussions of mechanisms where change is obtained include semantically and aspectually motivated synchronic case variation, discourse motivated subject marking, reduction or expansion of case marker distribution, case syncretism motivated by semantics, syntax, or language contact, and case splits motivated by pragmatics, metonymy, and subjectification. ---------- Table of contents List of contributors vii–viii Introduction: The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case Jóhanna Barðdal and Shobhana L. Chelliah ix–xx Part I. Semantically and aspectually motivated synchronic case variation Case variation in Gothic absolute constructions Tonya Kim Dewey and Yasmin Syed 3–21 Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in Early Vedic Eystein Dahl 23–55 Part II. Discourse motivated subject marking The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker of one Australian mixed language Felicity Meakins 59–91 How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of Preferred Argument structure Ulrich Detges 93–120 Part III. Reduction or expansion of case marker distribution The development of case in Germanic Jóhanna Barðdal 123–159 A usage-based approach to change: Old Russian possessive constructions Hanne Martine Eckhoff 161–180 Lacking in Latvian: Case variation from a cognitive and constructional perspective Sturla Berg-Olsen 181–202 Verb classes and dative objects in Insular Scandinavian Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson 203–224 Transitive adjectives in Japanese Daniela Caluianu 225–257 Part IV. Case syncretism motivated by syntax, semantics or language contact Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages Michael Noonan 261–282 The evolution of local cases and their grammatical equivalent in Greek and Latin Silvia Luraghi 283–305 Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin Michela Cennamo 307–346 Case loss in Texas German: The influence of semantic and pragmatic factors Hans C. Boas 347–373 Part V. Case splits motivated by pragmatics, metonymy and subjectification Semantic role to new information in Meithei Shobhana L. Chelliah 377–400 From less personal to more personal: Subjectification of ni-marked NPs in Japanese discourse Misumi Sadler 401–422 Author index 423–426 Subject index 427–432 ---------- "This volume is an important collection of in-depth studies dealing with case evolution, case variation, case syncretism and case loss in a variety of languages. As contributions to the volume convincingly show, the evolution of case systems cannot be explained in syntactic terms exclusively, but it is guided by a variety of factors among which semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors play an important role. The volume contributes not only to the field of historical linguistics but also to linguistic theory insofar as it extends the scope of usage-based theories to diachronic studies." Andrej Malchukov, Max Planck Institute, Leipzig "This volume brings together empirically rich studies on how factors of syntactic structure, discourse usage, and lexical valency shape the development of case marking in various languages around the world. The diachronic orientation of this research fits well with the 'historical turn' that characterizes modern typology, and the present volume therefore provides a key resource for future research on the typology of case marking and alignment." Balthasar Bickel, University of Leipzig 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 paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 20 18:10:55 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title - Newman: The linguistics of Eating and Drinking Message-ID: The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking Edited by John Newman University of Alberta Typological Studies in Language 84 2009. xii, 280 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 2998 4 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 [] e-Book – Not yet available 978 90 272 9015 1 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 This volume reviews a range of fascinating linguistic facts about ingestive predicates in the world's languages. The highly multifaceted nature of 'eat' and 'drink' events gives rise to interesting clausal properties of these predicates, such as the atypicality of transitive constructions involving 'eat' and 'drink' in some languages. The two verbs are also sources for a large number of figurative uses across languages with meanings such as 'destroy', and 'savour', as well as participating in a great variety of idioms which can be quite opaque semantically. Grammaticalized extensions of these predicates also occur, such as the quantificational use of Hausa shaa 'drink' meaning (roughly) 'do X frequently, regularly'. Specialists discuss details of the use of these verbs in a variety of languages and language families: Australian languages, Papuan languages, Athapaskan languages, Japanese, Korean, Hausa, Amharic, Hindi-Urdu, and Marathi. ---------- Table of contents Preface vii–xii A cross-linguistic overview of 'eat' and 'drink' John Newman 1–26 How transitive are 'eat' and 'drink' verbs? Åshild Næss 27–43 Quirky alternations of transitivity: The case of ingestive predicates Mengistu Amberber 45–63 All people eat and drink. Does this mean that 'eat' and 'drink' are universal human concepts? Anna Wierzbicka 65–89 'Eating', 'drinking' and 'smoking': A generic verb and its semantics in Manambu Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald 91–108 Athapaskan eating and drinking verbs and constructions Sally Rice 109–152 The semantic evolution of 'eat'-expressions: Ways and byways Peter Edwin Hook and Prashant Pardeshi 153–172 Literal and figurative uses of Japanese 'eat' and 'drink' Toshiko Yamaguchi 173–193 What (not) to eat or drink: Metaphor and metonymy of eating and drinking in Korean Jae Jung Song 195–227 Metaphorical extensions of 'eat' --> [OVERCOME] and 'drink' --> [UNDERGO] in Hausa Philip J. Jaggar and Malami Buba 229–251 Amharic 'eat' and 'drink' verbs John Newman and Daniel Aberra 253–271 Author index 273–275 Language index 277–278 Subject index 279–280 ---------- "This volume is the third in a set edited by John Newman exploring the conceptualizations of basic and universal human activities such as giving; sitting, standing and lying; and eating and drinking, and the effects they have on language development: how they are coded, and what sorts of metaphorically-based grammaticalizations develop from the forms used to code these activities. This work is important in that it looks at fine details of structure and conceptualization in several languages not often covered in standard grammars, and adds greatly to the literature on ethnosyntax, that is, literature establishing the connections among cognition, social behaviour, and linguistic structure. In that it will be of value not only to linguists, but to anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as well." Randy J. LaPolla, La Trobe University 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 akbari_r at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 16:12:17 2009 From: akbari_r at yahoo.com (Ramin Akbari) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:12:17 -0700 Subject: International applied linguistics conference: second call for papers Message-ID: Second call for papers   The International Conference on Applied Linguistics: Developments, Challenges, and Promises will be held in Tehran ’s ( Iran )  Milad Tower Conference Hall on September 26-27, 2009. The conference aims at exploring some vital issues in applied linguistics that have shaped, and are still shaping the identity of the profession. Applied linguists from across the globe are invited to contribute to a lively debate that would include ideas from some of the prominent figures of the field.   Different themes will be explored in the course of the two-day conference: applied linguistics and its definitions; globalization and its impact on ELT; applied linguistics and English as the world’s lingua franca; post method era and teacher qualifications; research debates in applied linguistics ….   The keynote speakers for the conference are (alphabetically arranged):   Professor Guy Cook, The Open University Professor Hossein Farhady, American University of Armenia Professor Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney Professor Barbara Seidlhofer, University of Vienna Professor Henry Widdowson, University of Vienna   Pre-conference workshop (September 25): Alternative assessment: Dr. Chirstine Coombe, Higher College of Technology, UAE   The deadline for abstract submission is June 14, 2009. Notification of acceptance will be sent by July 10. Early registration deadline is August 5; all the participants whose papers have been accepted must register before the deadline.   To submit an abstract, please visit the conference website at: www.appliedlinguistics.ir   For any queries, please contact me at: akbari_ram at yahoo.com   Ramin Akbari Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Department of ELT Tarbiat Modares University Tehran Iran From c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk Wed Apr 22 18:49:15 2009 From: c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:49:15 +0100 Subject: First CFP - 3rd UK Cognitive Linguistics Papers Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - 3rd UK COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (UK-CLC3) CONFERENCE WEBSITE: http://uk-clc3.org The third UK Cognitive Linguistics conference (UK-CLC3) will take place at the University of Hertfordshire, over three days: 6-8th inclusive, July 2010. The conference theme is meaning, mind and (social) reality. The following distinguished scholars will be giving keynote lectures relating to aspects of the conference theme: Professor William Croft (University of New Mexico, USA) Professor Ewa Dabrowska (University of Sheffield, UK) Professor John Lucy (University of Chicago, USA) Professor Peter Stockwell (University of Nottingham, UK) Professor Gabriella Vigliocco (University College London, UK) We now invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. These include but are by no means limited to: Domains and frame semantics Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy Metaphor and metonymy Mental spaces and conceptual blending Cognitive and construction grammar Embodiment and language acquisition Language evolution and language change Language use and linguistic relativity Cognitive linguistics is an inherently interdisciplinary enterprise which is broadly concerned with the connection between language and cognition in relation to body, culture and contexts of use. We are therefore especially interested in interdisciplinary research ? theoretical, empirical, applied - that combines theories and methods from across the cognitive, biological and social sciences. These include but are not limited to: Linguistics Anthropology Evolution Paleoanthropology Primatology Neuroscience Cognitive and developmental psychology (Critical) Discourse and Communication studies Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for question. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be sent by email as a Word attachment to c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk by 15 December 2009. The document should contain presentation title, the abstract and preference for paper or poster presentation. Please DO NOT include information identifying the author(s) in the email attachment. Author(s) information including name, affiliation and email address(es) should be detailed in the body of the email. All abstracts will be subject to peer review by an international Scientific Committee. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by February 15th 2010. Presenters will be invited to submit papers based on the conference theme for an edited volume to be published by Equinox Publishing Co. in the Advances in Cognitive Linguistics series. Accepted papers will be subject to peer-review. Keep up-to-date by bookmarking and checking the conference website regularly: http://uk-clc3.org. For details of the UK-CLA see: www.uk-cla.org.uk . -- Christopher Hart Lecturer in English Language and Communication School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire www.go.herts.ac.uk/cjhart From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Apr 23 14:13:19 2009 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:13:19 +0300 Subject: 'substantial surprise' Message-ID: Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" à la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Apr 23 14:22:15 2009 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:22:15 +0300 Subject: correction Message-ID: Please, replace 'Proto-Tamil' by 'Proto-Dravidian'. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 16:46:38 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:46:38 -0600 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Esa, I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as against substantive/functional) that "universals" are observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to evolution & child language development, the most powerful developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to my mind, somewhat self-defeating. One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and related species may adopt different solutions, each having both advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on the subject. In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing mirage. Best, TG ================= Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". > > In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus > t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. > > How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." > > In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) > > This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. > > To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" à la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > From dlevere at ilstu.edu Thu Apr 23 17:24:39 2009 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:24:39 -0500 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <49F09B6E.2050605@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tomas, I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. All the best, Dan On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Dear Esa, > > I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will > try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you > quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. > > I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals > go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on > apriori definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme > Bloomfieldian position assumes that universals must be concrete > SURFACE FEATURES of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY > PRINCIPLES that govern the distribution of surface features. The > extreme Chomsakian position makes the facts themselves so abstract > and so formal (as against substantive/functional) that "universals" > are observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is > one useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The > insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features > that must appear in all languages, but rather controlling > "principles & parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in > my view apt, distinction between "factual generalizations" and > "theoretical statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, > that Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from > real (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian > universals are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. > > It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, > biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle > ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been > espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals > are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; > "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that > underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the > diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary > and molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles > in biology. In biology, these universals of development account for > the distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to > evolution & child language development, the most powerful > developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete > surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of > Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, > to my mind, somewhat self-defeating. > > One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is > the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single > exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This > again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based > complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are > strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because > biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between > conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive > principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & > mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually > more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and > related species may adopt different solutions, each having both > advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a > range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative > task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. > > Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about > surface features, but the controlling principles of the > developmental processes that create complex systems. Diachronic > change behaves, in this regard, very much like biological evolution > (see ch. 3 of my 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), > and produces seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. > Speaking of old books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) > "Where does crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how > diachrony can often produced counter-universal surface features. My > 2000 paper "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a > TSL volume edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of > seeming violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the > Athabaskan (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent > discussion on the subject. > > In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a > regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based > approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics > for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do > not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical > generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of > the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am > afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the > Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for well- > understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives availably > to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and Chomsky, a > real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing mirage. > > Best, TG > > ================= > > > Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self- >> evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >> guarantees substantial surprises". >> >> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but >> neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient >> Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is >> assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil >> had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has >> eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this >> rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn >> that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by >> the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is >> further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as >> Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping >> extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical >> sentence is jus >> t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite >> verb) as the only inflecting one. >> >> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that >> all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This >> could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >> >> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be >> more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper >> (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by >> two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO >> claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >> insanity.) >> >> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/ >> discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have >> dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. >> This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has >> more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the >> referees' opinion. >> >> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine >> surprise" à la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page >> (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable >> and optional endings" (2003). >> >> Esa >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Thu Apr 23 17:58:26 2009 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:58:26 -0700 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Esa Itkonen, Thanks for this interesting posting. I will go to your site to download the paper. Without having read it yet, one explanation has occurred to me: The language may have been highly fusional to begin with, so that each sentence was really a single word. Then as the parts became more independent, each separate word acquired its own inflection... The inflections may have already existed, because in a prior part of the linguistic cycle the language was less fusional. So the development may have been: agglutinative ---> fusional --> inflectional To get a full circle, you'd need to add this: inflectional --> isolating --> agglutinative. Some languages have a history of coming full circle. But even if we don't see a full circle, this is how the cycle goes, a la Dixon. It's a unidrectional progression -- but it cycles! Best, --Aya On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". > > In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus > t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. > > How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." > > In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) > > This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. > > To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" � la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 19:11:33 2009 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query Message-ID: Hi all, My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We are an English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and Anthropological Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of fluency (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second and third year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course and no other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our graduates tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- or Socio- Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public schools here in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or Sociolinguistics. My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much as that might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral I am thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a "theory" free course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one member who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead in the spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like to ask: 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have used or are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in linguistics; 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" course vs. a "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked particularly well? Thank you for time, Shannon From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Apr 23 19:53:10 2009 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:53:10 -0800 Subject: intro to syntax query Message-ID: Here at CSUSB, we are five linguists also in an English dept. Our graduate lingusitics courses are discourse and pragmatics centered. The original linguist who designed the "English Syntax" course did so because she felt deficient in theoretical (i.e., Chomskyan) syntax because it was not covered in her grad program at Berkeley. I have tried to a couple times over the years to teach formal syntax, but ulimately gave it up because I simply could not see the relevance. We have now changed the course's name to English Grammar II and use George Yule's semantically-based grammar text, which has its flaws but does spark inquiry. Wendy Smith From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 20:18:38 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:18:38 -0600 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dan. Alas, the article is not yet published, and is not available on the web, leastwise not to me. The only thing I could get was an abstract (courtesy of my friend Phil Young, who knows how to get to those elusive items); and having read the abstract I (so far) don't see anything there that would suggest the article's orientation is other than what Esa suggested. I am of course looking forward to reading the full article, as obviously we all should. And of course, it is not exactly surprising you like the article, given what you have been saying about Piraha. Best, TG ========== Daniel L. Everett wrote: > Tomas, > > I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a > BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, > critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. > > The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite > convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. > > In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more > important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of > the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. > > I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other > readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. > > All the best, > > Dan > > > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Dear Esa, >> >> I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will >> try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you >> quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. >> >> I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals >> go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori >> definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian >> position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES >> of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that >> govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian >> position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as >> against substantive/functional) that "universals" are >> observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one >> useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The >> insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that >> must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & >> parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, >> distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical >> statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that >> Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real >> (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals >> are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. >> >> It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, >> biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle >> ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been >> espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals >> are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; >> "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that >> underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the >> diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and >> molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in >> biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the >> distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to >> evolution & child language development, the most powerful >> developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete >> surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of >> Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to >> my mind, somewhat self-defeating. >> >> One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is >> the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single >> exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This >> again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based >> complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are >> strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because >> biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between >> conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive >> principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & >> mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually >> more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and >> related species may adopt different solutions, each having both >> advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a >> range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative >> task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about >> surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental >> processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in >> this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my >> 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces >> seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old >> books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does >> crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can >> often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper >> "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume >> edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming >> violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan >> (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on >> the subject. >> >> In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a >> regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based >> approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics >> for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do >> not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical >> generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of >> the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am >> afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the >> Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for >> well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives >> availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and >> Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing >> mirage. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================= >> >> >> Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >>> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >>> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >>> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most >>> self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >>> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >>> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >>> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >>> guarantees substantial surprises". >>> >>> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >>> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected >>> one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. >>> Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to >>> have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or >>> eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if >>> benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather >>> unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that >>> case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >>> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >>> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the >>> (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further >>> confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas >>> Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends >>> to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence >>> is jus >>> t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) >>> as the only inflecting one. >>> >>> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all >>> existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could >>> be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >>> >>> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more >>> widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in >>> 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two >>> referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >>> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed >>> it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >>> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >>> insanity.) >>> >>> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >>> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >>> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of >>> inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I >>> have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite >>> view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it >>> has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to >>> the referees' opinion. >>> >>> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" >>> à la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click >>> below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and >>> optional endings" (2003). >>> >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >>> >>> >> >> > From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 23 23:14:38 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:14:38 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Shannon, The problem is always: how to cram some real grammatical knowledge into a single semester without skimping on theory. I don't think Chomskyan approaches can accomplish this, as the theoretical prerequisites are too demanding of time. I regularly teach a master's degree course called "Rhetorical Grammar" using my own textbook (A Short Course in Grammar, W W Norton, 1999). This is about as theory-neutral a treatment as you can get and still have a technical syntactic orientation. It is monostratal in approach and makes use of Mickey Noonan's "form-function diagrams", a revealing way of simultaneously displaying syntactic forms and sentence-level functions. It assumes a single semester. The book has been quite widely used. I'll be happy to answer questions and send you sample chapters as Word files. - Paul Hopper > Here at CSUSB, we are five linguists also in an English dept. Our > graduate lingusitics courses are discourse and pragmatics centered. The > original linguist who designed the "English Syntax" course did so because > she felt deficient in theoretical (i.e., Chomskyan) syntax because it was > not covered in her grad program at Berkeley. I have tried to a couple > times over the years to teach formal syntax, but ulimately gave it up > because I simply could not see the relevance. We have now changed the > course's name to English Grammar II and use George Yule's > semantically-based grammar text, which has its flaws but does spark > inquiry. Wendy Smith > > > -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From ken.grammar at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 02:50:04 2009 From: ken.grammar at gmail.com (Ken Manson) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:50:04 +1000 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <49F0CD1E.4080805@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, A preprint of the article is available online at http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_pr eprint.pdf. Regards Ken -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Givon Sent: Friday, 24 April 2009 6:19 AM To: Daniel L. Everett Cc: Esa Itkonen; Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] 'substantial surprise' Thanks, Dan. Alas, the article is not yet published, and is not available on the web, leastwise not to me. The only thing I could get was an abstract (courtesy of my friend Phil Young, who knows how to get to those elusive items); and having read the abstract I (so far) don't see anything there that would suggest the article's orientation is other than what Esa suggested. I am of course looking forward to reading the full article, as obviously we all should. And of course, it is not exactly surprising you like the article, given what you have been saying about Piraha. Best, TG ========== Daniel L. Everett wrote: > Tomas, > > I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a > BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, > critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. > > The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite > convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. > > In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more > important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of > the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. > > I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other > readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. > > All the best, > > Dan > > > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Dear Esa, >> >> I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will >> try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you >> quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. >> >> I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals >> go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori >> definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian >> position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES >> of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that >> govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian >> position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as >> against substantive/functional) that "universals" are >> observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one >> useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The >> insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that >> must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & >> parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, >> distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical >> statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that >> Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real >> (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals >> are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. >> >> It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, >> biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle >> ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been >> espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals >> are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; >> "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that >> underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the >> diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and >> molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in >> biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the >> distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to >> evolution & child language development, the most powerful >> developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete >> surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of >> Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to >> my mind, somewhat self-defeating. >> >> One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is >> the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single >> exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This >> again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based >> complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are >> strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because >> biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between >> conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive >> principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & >> mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually >> more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and >> related species may adopt different solutions, each having both >> advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a >> range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative >> task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about >> surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental >> processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in >> this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my >> 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces >> seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old >> books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does >> crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can >> often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper >> "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume >> edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming >> violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan >> (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on >> the subject. >> >> In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a >> regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based >> approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics >> for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do >> not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical >> generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of >> the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am >> afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the >> Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for >> well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives >> availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and >> Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing >> mirage. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================= >> >> >> Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >>> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >>> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >>> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most >>> self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >>> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >>> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >>> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >>> guarantees substantial surprises". >>> >>> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >>> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected >>> one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. >>> Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to >>> have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or >>> eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if >>> benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather >>> unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that >>> case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >>> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >>> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the >>> (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further >>> confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas >>> Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends >>> to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence >>> is jus t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= >>> finite verb) as the only inflecting one. >>> >>> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all >>> existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could >>> be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >>> >>> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more >>> widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in >>> 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two >>> referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >>> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed >>> it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >>> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >>> insanity.) >>> >>> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >>> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >>> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of >>> inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I >>> have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite >>> view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it >>> has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to >>> the referees' opinion. >>> >>> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" >>> à la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click >>> below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and >>> optional endings" (2003). >>> >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >>> >>> >> >> > From pyoung at uoregon.edu Fri Apr 24 03:32:28 2009 From: pyoung at uoregon.edu (Phil Young) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:28 -0700 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <1D64D79618454C07B0C8645FA899B7F6@klap> Message-ID: Thanks Ken. When I checked earlier in the day I got a message saying the preprint was no longer available because the period for offering to comment had expired. None of the sites that came up in Google gave me this URL. Cheers, Phil Young pyoung at uoregon.edu From kemmer at rice.edu Fri Apr 24 03:53:36 2009 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:53:36 -0500 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <1D64D79618454C07B0C8645FA899B7F6@klap> Message-ID: Hi all, The paper in .pdf format is at the weblink given by Ken Manson, although note that you have to put the entire URL on one line: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_preprint.pdf This discussion is a great illustration of how it's easy to talk at cross-purposes. Tom's right if we read the abstract one way, but then looking at the paper, you see that in the context of the paper the abstract makes sense in a different way. From the abstract: "there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. .... While there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition. " The last sentence is precisely how functionalists WOULD explain significant recurrent patterns in organization-- but we'd also take these significant recurrent patterns as exactly what WE call the universals (implicational, statistical, diachronic, etc.) of language. Once you read the paper's introduction, it becomes clear that the authors are arguing against Chomsky's view of structural universals, which they point out is the assumed one in psycholinguistics--and that is the basis of comparison (for "better explained") that is not explicated in the abstract. It is so disappointing that whole careers of research dismantling these abstract and mutable "universals" in favor of a more realistic, and to us much more exciting, conception of universals--one that actually relates to the mind and to culture, communication, and history-- still hasn't seemed to have touched a lot of psychology and cognitive science. I'll copy the abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction. The paper is very much worth reading despite its framing of the issue in this way. The horse never dies, however often it's beaten. As to how this article might affect cognitive science--I don't know if "plac[ing] diversity at center-stage" is going to resonate as much as a Chomskyan view, since the aims of cognitive science harmonize much better, I think, with a search for universals of the human mind--it is a powerful idea stressing common humanity. The focus ought to be on both universality and diversity at the same time, as functional typology insists, but it's probably too hard to get a whole field like cognitive science NOT to focus on one side of the coin (especially given how hard it is even to get across a proper conception of universals.) Suzanne --------- The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson To be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (in press) © Cambridge University Press 2009 (unedited, uncorrected final draft of a BBS target article that has been accepted for publication. This preprint has been prepared for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted.) Abstract: Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective. The article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are, once we honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world’s 6-8000 languages. After surveying the various uses of ‘universal’, we illustrate the ways languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organization, then examine in more detail the core grammatical machinery of recursion, constituency, and grammatical relations. While there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition. Linguistic diversity then becomes the crucial datum for cognitive science: we are the only species with a communication system which is fundamentally variable at all levels. Recognising the true extent of structural diversity in human language opens up exciting new research directions for cognitive scientists, offering thousands of different natural experiments given by different languages, with new opportunities for dialogue with biological paradigms concerned with change and diversity, and confronting us with the extraordinary plasticity of the highest human skills. 1. Introduction “According to Chomsky, a visiting Martian scientist would surely conclude that aside from their mutually unintelligible vocabularies, Earthlings speak a single language” (Pinker 1994, p.232) Languages are much more diverse in structure than cognitive scientists generally appreciate. A widespread assumption among cognitive scientists, growing out of the generative tradition in linguistics, is that all languages are English-like, but with different sound systems and vocabularies. The true picture is very different: languages differ so fundamentally from one another at every level of description (sound, grammar, lexicon, meaning) that it is very hard to find any single structural property they share. The claims of Universal Grammar, we will argue, are either empirically false, unfalsifiable, or misleading in that they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals. Structural differences should instead be accepted for what they are, and integrated into a new approach to language and cognition that places diversity at centre stage. The rest is at: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_preprint.pdf --------- From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Apr 24 04:02:01 2009 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:02:01 +0200 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Aya, just a brief comment: This (how we call it) Grand Cycle is not necessarily unidirectional, as shown e.g. by Ossetian (North East Iranian) and Tokharian, both languages that have shifted from basically inflectional to agglutinating, without passing through the stage of 'isolating' (most likely motivated by language contact, I have to admit)... Best wishes, Wolfgang A. Katz schrieb: > (...) The language may have been highly fusional to begin with, so > that each sentence was really a single word. Then as the parts became > more independent, each separate word acquired its own inflection... > The inflections may have already existed, because in a prior part of > the linguistic cycle the language was less fusional. > > So the development may have been: > > agglutinative ---> fusional --> inflectional > > > To get a full circle, you'd need to add this: > > inflectional --> isolating --> agglutinative. > > Some languages have a history of coming full circle. But even if we > don't see a full circle, this is how the cycle goes, a la Dixon. It's > a unidrectional progression -- but it cycles! > > Best, > > --Aya > > -- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 Postanschrift / Postal address: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 // 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html 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 vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr Fri Apr 24 10:35:18 2009 From: vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr (Alice Vittrant) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35:18 +0200 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <1c1f75a20904231211w2dc88f64r27be41c4f808b551@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Shannon, dear funknetters, - Teaching syntax in a Linguistic Department in Université de Porvence, I (and my colleagues) use different books (french and english ones). For non native english speaker, I would recommand Paul R.KROEGER's books ("Analyzing grammar : an introduction" and "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE) although it is more 'practical' than 'theorical' (with exercices at the end of each chapter). Alice Vittrant Le 23 avr. 09 à 21:11, s.t. bischoff a écrit : > Hi all, > > My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We > are an > English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one > Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and > Anthropological > Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of > fluency > (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second > and third > year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course > and no > other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our > graduates > tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- > or Socio- > Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public > schools here > in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or > Sociolinguistics. > My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our > community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much > as that > might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral > I am > thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An > Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a > "theory" free > course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one > member > who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead > in the > spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler > Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like > to ask: > > 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have > used or > are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for > undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in > linguistics; > > 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should > include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); > > 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" > course vs. a > "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; > > 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked > particularly well? > > Thank you for time, > Shannon ------------------- Alice Vittrant Université de Provence CNRS-LACITO vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Apr 24 11:45:55 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:45:55 +0300 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <9D4DB438-D4C1-471C-B6C9-D0B6141BD9A7@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Dear Shannon and all, Having been unsatisfied with teaching materials, I have designed my own set of PPT presentations for my Intro to Syntax course. It is bare-bone syntax in the sense that it is mainly designed to make the students acquainted with syntactic terminology, not with syntactic theory. It is, however, biased by a constructionist approach. Most of the course is devoted to the major sentence patterns: verbal, copular (nominal, adjectival, and prepositional), existential, extraposition, and locative inversion. It also has chapters on it-cleft and wh-cleft sentences. At the moment I have 11 presentations, and I intend to add another 2, so it will cover a 14 week semester (including 1 midterm). It is a course of one (1.5 hr) meeting a week, but it can also be the basis for a heavier schedule. I'll be glad to make it available to anybody interested and to get your feedback on it. Below is a list of items touched upon in the course. It may be slightly inaccurate, because I made it two years ago, when I first designed the course. Meanwhile I have introduced some changes. But you get the spirit of it. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- > Introduction to Syntax > > 1. MORPHO-SYNTAX and PHRASAL SYNTAX: > Word classes: > verb, noun, adjective, preposition, adverb. > Phrases: NP, AP, PP, AdvP, VP > Phrase: head and modifier. > NP modifiers: > specifier: article, demonstrative, quantifier, possessive. > Other modifiers: AP, NP, PP. > Diagnostic tests for structure. > Verb complex: grammatical verb (modal, auxiliary), lexical verb. > phrases as sentence constituents. > Valency: predicates and arguments. > Word classes of predicates: V, N, A, and P. > Lexical (not grammatical) verbs have valency. > Grammar and lexicon. > Possible number of arguments: Zero- to three-place predicates > intransitive, (mono-)transitive, ditransitive. > Zero-place predicates: expletives. > It: pronoun or expletive. > Case: nom., acc. > Pronouns have case, phrases - abstract case. > Phrasal parts of sentence: subject, (direct) object, oblique (object), > indirect object, adjuncts. > > 2. SENTENTIAL SYNTAX: > Sentence patterns: verbal, copular (3 kinds), existential, extrapositional > (2 types), and locative inversion. > Sentence patterns are constructions. > > The verbal sentence: > Different predicate-argument structures in the V sentence. > Markedness. > Unmarked word order. > Word order alternations. > The maximal formula of the V sentence. > V sentence: the (functionally) unmarked sentence pattern. > Agent(ivity). > All agentive sentences are V sentences. > Prototype and unmarkedness. > Agentive V sentence: prototypical. > Narratives:The central role of agentive events (and sentences) in > narratives. > > Copular sentences: > Sub-patterns: nominal, adjectival, prepositional. > The copula be. > The predicate-argument structure of copular sentences. > The maximal formula of N, A, and P Cop sentences. > Non-maximal realizations. > The function of Cop sentences: reporting states. > Done via the assignment of the content of the predicate to the subject. > N assigns equation; A - attribution, P - relation. > The unmarked V sentence can also express states. > Linking verbs as copula. > Distribution in the N, A, and P patterns. > Verbs as linking or lexical verbs. > Idiomatic linking verbs (rest assured, fall silent). > Word order alternations in Cop sentences. > > Existential sentences: > Expletive there. > Differentiating locative and expletive there. > Expletive there as a subject. > The existential pattern formula. > Existential be = lexical verb (has valency). > The post-verbal NP: the existent: subj. or obj.? > Other types of existential verbs. > Marked word order. > > Locative inversion: > The locative phrase: an adjunct. > Types of locative phrases: participP, PP, AdvP. > Constraining LocP: deictic. > Constraining V: existential. > The final NP is a spectacle (vivid presentation). > The formula of the LI pattern. > Comparing LI and existential sentences. > > Extraposition (XP) sentence pattern: > (Morpho-syntax and phrasal syntax: infinitive and gerund > Phrases: InfP and GdP. > InfP and GdP: phrase or clause? > Some syntactic positions of InfP and GdP. > Nominals: InfP, GdP, and that-clause) > Nominals in valency. > Nominals are components in extraposition sentences. > It is an expletive. > The formula of the XP sentence. > Sub-patterns: evaluative, quotative. > Adding an affectee to the formula. > Maximal formula of XP sentences. > Omission of that. > Is the nominal subj. or obj.? > > Structural alternations: Wh-cleft: > Structural vs. order alternations: added elements in str. alternations > Alternations vs. patterns: alternations work across patterns. > The formula of Wh-clefts. > Wh-cleft and simplex. > Tense of the copula in Wh-clefts > Linking verbs cannot replace the copula in Wh-clefts. > Sentential function of Wh-clefts: identification. > Discourse function of Wh-cleft: the identified is new. > Inverse order of Wh-clefts. > Various discourse functions of inverse Wh-clefts. > > Structural alternations: It-cleft sentences. > The formula of the it-cleft sentence. > Copula be: no linking verbs. > That or zero. > Sentential function of it-clefts: identification. > Different discourse functions of it-clefts. > Prosodic alternation of it-clefts. > It- vs. Wh-clefts: partial equivalences. =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From edith at uwm.edu Fri Apr 24 17:05:35 2009 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith Moravcsik) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:05:35 -0500 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <20090424142222.81B6.BA0BAB47@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: In 2006, I published a theory-neutral introductory syntax textbook: Edith A. Moravcsik: "An introduction to syntax". New York: Continuum. A sequel to it is a survey of syntactic theories: Edith A. Moravcsik: "An introduction to syntactic theory". 2006. New York: Continuum. The prefaces and table of contents of the two books are available on my website: http://www.uwm.edu/DEPT/FLL/faculty/moravcsik.html -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Kuzar Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:46 AM To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] intro to syntax query Dear Shannon and all, Having been unsatisfied with teaching materials, I have designed my own set of PPT presentations for my Intro to Syntax course. It is bare-bone syntax in the sense that it is mainly designed to make the students acquainted with syntactic terminology, not with syntactic theory. It is, however, biased by a constructionist approach. Most of the course is devoted to the major sentence patterns: verbal, copular (nominal, adjectival, and prepositional), existential, extraposition, and locative inversion. It also has chapters on it-cleft and wh-cleft sentences. At the moment I have 11 presentations, and I intend to add another 2, so it will cover a 14 week semester (including 1 midterm). It is a course of one (1.5 hr) meeting a week, but it can also be the basis for a heavier schedule. I'll be glad to make it available to anybody interested and to get your feedback on it. Below is a list of items touched upon in the course. It may be slightly inaccurate, because I made it two years ago, when I first designed the course. Meanwhile I have introduced some changes. But you get the spirit of it. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- > Introduction to Syntax > > 1. MORPHO-SYNTAX and PHRASAL SYNTAX: > Word classes: > verb, noun, adjective, preposition, adverb. > Phrases: NP, AP, PP, AdvP, VP > Phrase: head and modifier. > NP modifiers: > specifier: article, demonstrative, quantifier, possessive. > Other modifiers: AP, NP, PP. > Diagnostic tests for structure. > Verb complex: grammatical verb (modal, auxiliary), lexical verb. > phrases as sentence constituents. > Valency: predicates and arguments. > Word classes of predicates: V, N, A, and P. > Lexical (not grammatical) verbs have valency. > Grammar and lexicon. > Possible number of arguments: Zero- to three-place predicates > intransitive, (mono-)transitive, ditransitive. > Zero-place predicates: expletives. > It: pronoun or expletive. > Case: nom., acc. > Pronouns have case, phrases - abstract case. > Phrasal parts of sentence: subject, (direct) object, oblique (object), > indirect object, adjuncts. > > 2. SENTENTIAL SYNTAX: > Sentence patterns: verbal, copular (3 kinds), existential, extrapositional > (2 types), and locative inversion. > Sentence patterns are constructions. > > The verbal sentence: > Different predicate-argument structures in the V sentence. > Markedness. > Unmarked word order. > Word order alternations. > The maximal formula of the V sentence. > V sentence: the (functionally) unmarked sentence pattern. > Agent(ivity). > All agentive sentences are V sentences. > Prototype and unmarkedness. > Agentive V sentence: prototypical. > Narratives:The central role of agentive events (and sentences) in > narratives. > > Copular sentences: > Sub-patterns: nominal, adjectival, prepositional. > The copula be. > The predicate-argument structure of copular sentences. > The maximal formula of N, A, and P Cop sentences. > Non-maximal realizations. > The function of Cop sentences: reporting states. > Done via the assignment of the content of the predicate to the subject. > N assigns equation; A - attribution, P - relation. > The unmarked V sentence can also express states. > Linking verbs as copula. > Distribution in the N, A, and P patterns. > Verbs as linking or lexical verbs. > Idiomatic linking verbs (rest assured, fall silent). > Word order alternations in Cop sentences. > > Existential sentences: > Expletive there. > Differentiating locative and expletive there. > Expletive there as a subject. > The existential pattern formula. > Existential be = lexical verb (has valency). > The post-verbal NP: the existent: subj. or obj.? > Other types of existential verbs. > Marked word order. > > Locative inversion: > The locative phrase: an adjunct. > Types of locative phrases: participP, PP, AdvP. > Constraining LocP: deictic. > Constraining V: existential. > The final NP is a spectacle (vivid presentation). > The formula of the LI pattern. > Comparing LI and existential sentences. > > Extraposition (XP) sentence pattern: > (Morpho-syntax and phrasal syntax: infinitive and gerund > Phrases: InfP and GdP. > InfP and GdP: phrase or clause? > Some syntactic positions of InfP and GdP. > Nominals: InfP, GdP, and that-clause) > Nominals in valency. > Nominals are components in extraposition sentences. > It is an expletive. > The formula of the XP sentence. > Sub-patterns: evaluative, quotative. > Adding an affectee to the formula. > Maximal formula of XP sentences. > Omission of that. > Is the nominal subj. or obj.? > > Structural alternations: Wh-cleft: > Structural vs. order alternations: added elements in str. alternations > Alternations vs. patterns: alternations work across patterns. > The formula of Wh-clefts. > Wh-cleft and simplex. > Tense of the copula in Wh-clefts > Linking verbs cannot replace the copula in Wh-clefts. > Sentential function of Wh-clefts: identification. > Discourse function of Wh-cleft: the identified is new. > Inverse order of Wh-clefts. > Various discourse functions of inverse Wh-clefts. > > Structural alternations: It-cleft sentences. > The formula of the it-cleft sentence. > Copula be: no linking verbs. > That or zero. > Sentential function of it-clefts: identification. > Different discourse functions of it-clefts. > Prosodic alternation of it-clefts. > It- vs. Wh-clefts: partial equivalences. =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 11:45:15 2009 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:45:15 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <9D4DB438-D4C1-471C-B6C9-D0B6141BD9A7@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Hi all, Just a quick not of thanks to those the responded on and off list. A number of folks asked for a list of the texts recommended so they are listed below with publisher links. Also, thanks to those that have sent syllabi. Givon, Tom 1993 English Grammar (2 vols, Benjamins 1993) http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20ENGRAM%201 / http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20ENGRAM%202 Givon, Tom 2001 Syntax (2 vols, Benjamins, 2001) http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20SYN%201 http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20SYN%202 Paul R.KROEGER "Analyzing grammar : an introduction" http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521016537&ss=cop Paul R. Kroeger "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521016544&ss=toc Paul Hopper "A Short Course in Grammar, W W Norton, 1999 http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/english/grammar/highlights.htm van Valen "An introduction to syntax" http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521635660 Thanks again, Shannon On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Alice Vittrant wrote: > Dear Shannon, dear funknetters, > - Teaching syntax in a Linguistic Department in Université de Porvence, I > (and my colleagues) use different books (french and english ones). > For non native english speaker, I would recommand Paul R.KROEGER's books > ("Analyzing grammar : an introduction" and "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE) > although it is more 'practical' than 'theorical' (with exercices at the end > of each chapter). > > Alice Vittrant > > > Le 23 avr. 09 à 21:11, s.t. bischoff a écrit : > > Hi all, > > My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We are an > English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one > Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and > Anthropological > Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of fluency > (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second and third > year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course and no > other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our graduates > tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- or Socio- > Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public schools here > in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or Sociolinguistics. > My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our > community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much as that > might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral I am > thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An > Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a "theory" > free > course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one member > who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead in the > spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler > Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like to ask: > > 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have used or > are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for > undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in > linguistics; > > 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should > include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); > > 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" course vs. > a > "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; > > 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked > particularly well? > > Thank you for time, > Shannon > > > ------------------- > > Alice Vittrant > > Université de Provence > > CNRS-LACITO > > vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 25 13:04:14 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:04:14 -0600 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <147889AFDB014A43A5A9318270C826C97801CE61C4@MAILER.mpi.nl> Message-ID: Dear Steve, Thanks for your most temperate note. I have already received the paper & have read it. In a way, I see multiple points of possible convergence. We both see the futility of either the "surface universals" approach, which for better or worse people have attributed to Greenberg. This is not unnatural, since Joe was only an implicit, reluctant theoretician. So his later forays into diachrony and evolution have been largely left out of his presumed "canon". And of course, you are absolutely right about his word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is diachronic. And in person, in case it matters, Joe fully agreed with this interpretation. It is thus a pity that his self-appointed inheritors (Haspelmath, Comrie, Dryer) have converted typology into a strictly synchronic, decidedly a-theoretical enterprise. And you are absolutely right in pointing out that no universals filter out of their tight "empirical" mesh. My point is, and has been for a long time, that empirical generalizations, to use Carnap's term, should not be expected to be, by themselves, Universals. Only theoretical generalizations, hopefully taking into account the empirical ones but going far beyond them in constructing explanatory hypotheses, could yield Universals. In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and evolution. This was the main thesis of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979), and in the intervening years I have tried to flesh this out with some of the gory details. You are, of course, equally right in pointing out that the Chomskian UG is a hopeless enterprise, for reasons we are all (all) too familiar with: Non-substantive "data", non-substantive "universals", ignoring the three developmental trends as venues of universals, and ignoring the actual empirical descriptive data. So far so good. What I think is unfortunate, and perhaps unintended on your part, is the implication that because the two extreme positions on universals, Chomsky's and Bloomfield's, are misguided for clear philosophical reasons, the whole enterprise of Universals is bankrupt. It is not only in my own work that the alternative "middle-ground" approach to universals has been pursued, for a long time. The whole body of grammaticalization literature has pointed in the same direction. True, they concentrated only on diachrony & paid scant attention to biology, evolution, neurology, cognition and child language. Indeed, Slobin has scared them away from considering child language part of the agenda, by his rather intemperate comments about its presumed irrelevance to evolution & diachrony (in a volume I edited in 2002; "The Evoluition of Language out of Pre-language"). But if you look at Heine & Kuteva (2007) "The Genesis of Grammar", I think you will find the right theoretical impulses there. So what I have been worried about in the case of your article is the same thing that worried me about a recent summary of the Universal literature by Fritz Newmeyer: There is either Chomsky or Comrie, nobody in-between (of course, with the gratis anointment of Chomsky's "deep universals" as the right(eous) approach...). Well, there have been some of us in-between, explicitly, and for a long time. Since you have been so sweet about this, and since fundamentally we have been working in the same direction, maybe I should regale you with a copy of my "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" (Benjamins2008; I'm waiting for extra copies from the publisher), where all these issues are covered in great detail, and where I think I have gone as far as I can, given current knowledge. In the interim, I will zip you the e-version of the intro chapter of the book (incl. table of contents & preface), which might give you an idea about the scope. Thanks again & my best regards, TG =========== Stephen C. Levinson wrote: > > Dear Tom, > > Nick Enfield passed on you Funknet comment, which I find interesting. > I think you are right about development as key in biology, and also > about exceptions. But the question is can we list the strong > tendencies? We also have a paper under review that shows that the > Greenberg word-order universals do not work in language development > over time … > > The BBS commentary is now closed, but LINGUA is putting together a > follow up set of commentaries if you are interested. Attached is the > offending paper. > > Best wishes, > > Steve > From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Apr 25 20:10:10 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:10:10 +0300 Subject: Intro to Syntax: PPT files Message-ID: Dear FunkNetters, I have received several requests for my Introduction to Syntax course, so here it is. Looking forward to your feedback. Ron Kuzar ---------- http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro02-Pred-Arg-Syn-Roles.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro03-V-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro04-COP-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro05-Link-Verb-Word-Ord.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro06-Exist-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro07-Loc-Inv-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro08-Extrap-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro09-Wh-Cleft.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro10-It-Cleft.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro11-Rel-Clause.ppt =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Apr 26 04:50:51 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:50:51 +0300 Subject: Intro to Syntax: PPT files Message-ID: Dear FunkNetters, There were some errors in Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt due to last minute editing prior to the uploading, which Yael Ziv has kindly pointed out to me. I have corrected them. As of the time of this message, the corrected file is now up. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From oesten at ling.su.se Mon Apr 27 09:27:35 2009 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=96sten_Dahl?=) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:27:35 +0200 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <49F30A4E.5060904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Tom, you write: > In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, > communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and > evolution. This is hard to disagree with, although I think a few more areas could be added (demography, language contact, social structure etc.). However, a bit earlier in your posting you say: >And of course, you are absolutely right > about his [Greenberg's] word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 > paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is >diachronic. So do you want to say that word-order universals are not in need of any of the other areas that you listed? Maybe you were here having in mind a generous definition of "diachrony". Indeed, there are many different kinds of diachronic explanation, but the problem is that some of them are not exclusively diachronic. One kind of explanation that you have advocated in your work is "source-oriented": linguistic structures retain properties of their diachronic sources. But another kind would be "target-oriented": language change tends to give rise to certain structures because these structures are in some sense "preferred". And such an explanation may become quite hard to distinguish from ones which explain cross-linguistic tendencies in purely functional, synchronic terms. If we try to apply this to Greenberg's word-order universals, the source-oriented approach may be used to explain the implicational ones (languages with word-order A tend to also have word-order B, since B can be showed to be historically derived from A), but are less plausible for non-implicational ones (such as "subjects tend to precede objects"). So it seems to me that your generalization is a bit too sweeping. Best regards, Östen From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 12:20:21 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:20:21 -0600 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <4790249.178541240824455623.JavaMail.oesten@ling.su.se> Message-ID: Good points, Oesten. If you look at my 1988 paper on the pragmatics of word-order flexibility (a TSL volume out of a Milwaukee symposium), you will see that these questions are addressed there from a cognitive-communicative perspective--accessibility, communicative centrality/topicality and focus-of-attention. So certainly one would interpret the SUBJECT-before-OBJECT ordering tendency as a reflection of PRIMARY-TOPIC-before- SECONDARY-TOPIC principle, one I labeled in 1983 (Topic Continuity in Discourse) "attend first to the most important task". (These are, by the way, only short-hand labels, to this day still in need of detailed neuro-cognitive elaborations). Though of course, diachronic processes are themselves constrained (i.e. motivated) by cognitive- communicative universals. So by saying "diachronic" one does not aim to ignore those. Best, TG ========= Östen Dahl wrote: > Dear Tom, > > you write: > > >> In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, >> communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and >> evolution. >> > > This is hard to disagree with, although I think a few more areas could be added > (demography, language contact, social structure etc.). However, a bit earlier in > your posting you say: > > >> And of course, you are absolutely right >> about his [Greenberg's] word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 >> paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is >> diachronic. >> > > So do you want to say that word-order universals are not in need of any of the > other areas that you listed? Maybe you were here having in mind a generous > definition of "diachrony". Indeed, there are many different kinds of diachronic > explanation, but the problem is that some of them are not exclusively > diachronic. One kind of explanation that you have advocated in your work is > "source-oriented": linguistic structures retain properties of their diachronic > sources. But another kind would be "target-oriented": language change tends to > give rise to certain structures because these structures are in some sense > "preferred". And such an explanation may become quite hard to distinguish from > ones which explain cross-linguistic tendencies in purely functional, synchronic > terms. If we try to apply this to Greenberg's word-order universals, the > source-oriented approach may be used to explain the implicational ones > (languages with word-order A tend to also have word-order B, since B can be > showed to be historically derived from A), but are less plausible for > non-implicational ones (such as "subjects tend to precede objects"). So it seems > to me that your generalization is a bit too sweeping. > > Best regards, > Östen > > From autotype at uni-leipzig.de Wed Apr 29 13:22:07 2009 From: autotype at uni-leipzig.de (Balthasar Bickel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:22:07 +0200 Subject: Ph D student position available in Leipzig Message-ID: (with apologies for cross-posting) ******************************************** The Department of Linguistics at the University of Leipzig offers a Ph D student position (German pay-scale TVL-E13/2, for three years, subject to statisfactory progress) The successful candidate will work on his or her doctoral dissertation within a research project on differential object marking and optional object agreement in two languages of Nepal, Chintang (Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti) and Nepali (Indo-Aryan), as part of a newly funded EuroBABEL project on "Referential Hierarchies in Morphosyntax" (http://www.esf.org/activities/eurocores/programmes/eurobabel/ ). More information on the project can be found athttp://www.uni-leipzig.de/~typology/differential/ . The student is expected to do fieldwork in Nepal and to work with existing electronic corpora (additional tagging, statistical analysis). The ideal candidate has - a thorough training in general linguistics, with particular emphasis on field methods, typology and semantics - at least basic knowledge of computational tools in corpus work and statistics, ideally some basic programming skills - excellent social skills and aptitude to collaborate with colleagues in a large and multi-ethnic research team - good competence in spoken and written English (which is the lingua franca in the project) Knowledge of Nepali is essential. It can be acquired in an intensive course at the beginning of the project (and paid by the project), but if a candidate is already familiar with the language, this is an additional asset. Applicants must have an MA in linguistics. Please send your application (CV, abstract of MA thesis (max. 2 pages), and a list of courses taken) by e-mail to Prof. Dr. Balthasar Bickel (bickel at uni-leipzig.de, attachments as PDF or plain text only). Review of applications will begin May 25 but applications will be received until the position is filled. The starting date of the position is August 1, 2009, but under special circumstances this may be negotiable. From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Wed Apr 29 14:15:19 2009 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:15:19 +0200 Subject: PhD Scholarships at the MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen Message-ID: Doctoral fellowships (2) in the Max Planck Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Two doctoral fellowships are available in the Max Planck Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, led by Prof. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf) and Dr. Dejan Matic. A description of the research project can be found at http://www.mpi.nl/research/research-projects/syntax-typology-and-information-structure . The doctoral fellows will be expected to conduct dissertation research in the area of the project, and background in syntactic theory (especially relevant are functional-typological models), in pragmatics/discourse analysis/information structure, or in handling field data is desirable. The doctoral fellows should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification at the time of taking up the fellowships. The doctoral fellowships are funded for 3 years (2 year initial contract with a 1 year extension). The research group provides fully equipped research facilities, technical support and research assistance, as well as a generous conference and travel budget, and support for possible fieldwork. As the MPI for Psycholinguistics is not a degree awarding body, doctoral fellowship holders will normally be enrolled either at HHU Düsseldorf or Radboud University Nijmegen (where the International Max Planck Research School for the Language Sciences offers special interdisciplinary training opportunities). The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics is a vibrant research environment in a charming university town. Nijmegen is situated 1.5 hours from Amsterdam, and has easy access to Belgium and Germany. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Nijmegen. The Max Planck Society is an equal opportunity employer. The business of the institute is conducted in English, and therefore good knowledge of spoken and written English is required. Applications should be made electronically. Applicants should send their CV, a statement of research interests, a sample of their writing (such as the M.A. thesis or a research article), as PDF files, and the names and e-mail addresses of at least two potential referees to: Prof. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure vanvalin at ling.uni-duesseldorf.de Review of applications will begin June 1, 2009, and applications will be accepted until the positions are filled. The fellowships are available from October 1, 2009. *********** Prof. Dr. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. University Professor Department of General Linguistics Institute for Language and Information Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf Universitätsstr. 1 40225 Düsseldorf Germany Tel: +49 (0)211 81 10717 Fax: +49 (0)211 81 11325 vanvalin at ling.uni-duesseldorf.de From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Apr 30 17:32:56 2009 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:32:56 -0400 Subject: For the birds? Message-ID: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090430/sc_livescience/dancingwiththebirds So apparently vocal mimicry and dancing skills go hand in hand (or is that foot in mouth, etc.), according to some of the other things I've read on the web. Tecumseh Fitch is impressed (what does Chomsky have to say? Do we need to care?). Increased tempo associated with different mass of body. Low frequency with whole body movement, mid with head only and high with foot only. Hmm- same order that the parts evolved in over phylogeny? Related in any way perhaps to the ontogenic sequence observed with gesture by McNeill? What about frequency sweeping in sonar-using animals? Is active usage opposite in direction to development. Jakobson's phonological hierarchy starting with labials and /a/? Iconically, initial labials in ideophones strongly associate with maximal degrees of freedom of movement of a body, while high frequency phones minimal ones (in different dimensions)- the opposite is true for final segments in ideophones in many languages. How 'bout brain waves vs. conciousness and control? I wonder how Eugene Morton's Motivation Structure Theory, and John Ohala's Frequency Theory would fit here too. Any clashes, or does all of this fit into a nice seamless whole? Jess Tauber From M.Norde at rug.nl Wed Apr 1 08:46:33 2009 From: M.Norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:46:33 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization in Groningen 2nd CfP Message-ID: ***apologies for cross-posting*** * * *Current Trends in Grammaticalization Research* University of Groningen, October 8-9, 2009 */Second Call for papers/*** The study of grammaticalization and related phenomena continues to be a thriving branch of historical linguistics. Where the 1990s and the beginning of the 21^st century witnessed a special interest in definitional issues, recent theorizing has been focusing on a synthesis of grammaticalization studies and other disciplines, such as psycholinguistics, contact linguistics, and Construction Grammar. These novel perspectives, based on an increasing body of data (including work from non-Indo-European languages), provoke new and interesting questions about the very nature of grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization. This two-day workshop aims to bring together theoretical and empirical approaches to grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization, and we therefore welcome both theoretical and data-oriented submissions. Topics include (but are not restricted to): * the grammaticalization-lexicalization interface * the status of pragmaticalization * contact-induced grammaticalization * psycholinguistic approaches to directional tendencies * grammaticalization, degrammaticalization, and lexicalization within a constructional framework * grammaticalization and morphological theory * grammaticalization and syntactic theory /Plenary speakers/ We are pleased to announce the following plenary speakers: * Hans-Olav Enger, University of Oslo * Nikolaus Himmelmann, University of M?nster * Graeme Trousdale, University of Edinburgh * Jacqueline Visconti, University of Genova /Abstracts/ We invite abstracts for 30-minute papers (including ten minutes discussion time). Abstracts should not exceed a maximum of 400 words, including references. Please note that the deadline for abstract submission is *April 15, 2009*. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by May 15, 2009. Abstracts can only be submitted through the /Easy Abstracts/ facility at Linguist List at http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/CTGR2009. You can upload your abstract as either .doc or .pdf. Please use the latter format if your abstract contains special fonts. ///Registration/ Early registration (until July 1, 2009) is 75 Euro. Late or on-site registration will be 100 Euro. Early registration for (graduate) students is 45 euro, late registration 60 euro. Please bring some kind of identification to prove that you are a student. The fee includes the workshop package, reception, coffee, tea, and lunches. The workshop dinner will have to be paid for separately. More information about payment (bank transfer only) will be posted on our website as soon as possible. /Venue/ The workshop will be held at the University of Groningen. The city of Groningen is situated in the North of the Netherlands and is easily accessible by train (with direct trains to and from Schiphol Airport running every hour). The University's Faculty of Arts is conveniently located in the city centre, with all main attractions within walking distance. Please visit our website (see URL below) for information about travel and accommodation. /Contact/ The workshop is organized by Karin Beijering, Alexandra Lenz, and Muriel Norde. Workshop e-mail: grammaticalization at rug.nl Workshop URL: http://www.rug.nl/let/onderzoek/onderzoekinstituten/clcg/events/currenttrends/index ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Prof. dr. Muriel Norde Scandinavische Talen en Culturen / Scandinavian Languages and Cultures Rijksuniversiteit Groningen / University of Groningen P.O. Box 716; Nl-9700 AS Groningen; The Netherlands phone: +31 50 3635823 fax: +31 50 3635821 http://www.let.rug.nl/~norde From simon at ipfw.edu Wed Apr 1 15:03:34 2009 From: simon at ipfw.edu (Beth Simon) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:03:34 -0400 Subject: Job Opening Message-ID: (My apologies for cross-posting...) Visiting Assistant Professor in Linguistics, One-Year Replacement The Department of English and Linguistics of Indiana University Purdue University, Fort Wayne (IPFW) expects to make a one-year replacement appointment at the rank of Visiting Assistant Professor in Linguistics for the year 2009-2010. The position includes courses in introductory linguistics with the possibility of other courses depending upon the appointee?s background and research interests. Prefer Ph.D. in hand by June 2009; ABD considered. A minimum of one year college teaching experience is essential. Applications should include the following: ? Cover letter ? Curriculum Vitae ? Unofficial Transcripts ? Names, addresses, and email addresses of three current references ? Teaching evaluations if available Application Deadline: Open until filled, but review of applications begins on April 15, 2009. For further information, contact Dr. Hardin Aasand, Chair, Department of English and Linguistics, IPFW, 2101 E. Coliseum Blvd., Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499; email: aasandh at ipfw.edu; tel: 260 481 6751 Please visit our website http://www.ipfw.edu/engl/ to learn more about our department. Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne is located on a growing campus of approximately 12,000 students in a metropolitan area of approximately 300,000 people. IPFW is an Equal Opportunity, Equal Access, Affirmative Action employer fully committed to a diverse workforce. Beth Lee Simon, Ph.D. Professor, Linguistics and English Acting Coordinator, TENL Program Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, In 46805, U.S. voice (011) 260 481 6761 email simon at ipfw.edu From lamb at rice.edu Thu Apr 2 14:59:43 2009 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:59:43 -0500 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <50143.132.230.91.92.1237489598.squirrel@132.230.91.92> Message-ID: So also the common pronunciation of Bengali with a low central vowel ("ah") in the 2nd syllable instead of a low back rounded vowel. - Syd On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > And (while we're on the subject) the instances in which a > British pronunciation spelling gets rephoneticized: The Korean > name "Park", for example, pronounced with -r-; South Asian > names whose orthographic -u- (phonetic [a] or schwa) is > pronounced as [u] ("Moombay" for Mumbay sometimes; "Poonjab" > for Punjab is almost universal). > > - Paul > > > > Other examples of such behavior: Pronouncing Barcelona with a th for c > > (not being aware that there's no th in Catalan, or for that matter than > > Catalan even exists) Pronouncing e.g. Ataturk with a tapped or (God > > forbid) uvular r (not being aware that the Turkish r is in this case > > closer to English r) Kiswahili (like 'the English') Writing e.g. Munster > > cheese with an umlaut Trying to say 'Boston' with a Boston accent by > > fronting the first vowel as in 'Harvard Yard' (should be a mid-back vowel) > > Pronouncing e.g. Colcester as 'Colster' or Cirencester as 'Cirenster' by > > analogy with 'Worcester' and 'Gloucester' Pronouncing Jogjakarta as > > 'Yogyakarta' Arabs speaking Hebrew saying the Haifa neighborhood Neve > > Sha'anan with an ayin even though it's written with an alef Jews speaking > > Arabic saying e.g. al-quds beginning with an ayin although it's written > > with an alef. There are quite a few of these. John > > > > > > > > Quoting Paul Hopper : > > > >> Mikael, > >> > >> Good point. The insistence on endonyms often results in irritating > >> errors. One advantage of changing Beijing back to Peking would be that > >> we'd no longer have to hear news announcers saying the -j- as a voiced > >> palatal fricative--apparently following the rule that you can never go > >> wrong if you pronounce a foreign word as if it were French. > >> > >> John Verhaar used to get very irritated at "Bahasa Indonesia" instead > >> of "Indonesian", and once commented that it would be like always > >> referring to German as "die deutsche Sprache". Even in linguistic works > >> I've sometimes seen "Bahasa Indonesian"--as if Bahasa were the name of a > >> region or something (cf. Canadian French). > >> > >> - Paul Hopper > >> > >> > >> > >>> I have often wondered why there is such a passion for endonyms among > >>> linguists. It is one thing to avoid exonyms that the speakers might > >>> find offensive, but apart from that, I have a hard time seeing the > >>> point in using endonyms at any cost. > >>> > >>> There are plenty of cases where there is a relatively established (in > >>> the linguistic literature) English term for a language, where later > >>> publications have opted for a new name, and where I can see no other > >>> effect than growing confusion. For people dealing with more than one > >>> or a few languages (such as typologists), this implies that you have > >>> to make an effort to know which language is which. > >>> > >>> Having the same L1 as two of the previous posters, I would certainly > >>> not see any benefit in the linguistic community adopting ?svenska? for > >>> my language, rather than the more usual ?Swedish?. That would simply > >>> strike me as ridiculous, and indeed, no linguists use the endonym when > >>> writing in English. Yet, I somehow suspect that if the language in > >>> question were spoken primarily in a third world country, some > >>> linguists would have preferred that option. > >>> > >>> Should the aim be to somehow to avoid Eurocentricity (or perhaps > >>> rather ?national-languages-of-the-first-world?-centricity?), isn?t it > >>> Eurocentric in itself to use one naming strategy for these languages, > >>> and restrict another to everything else? > >>> > >>> Even if one term is used more than another in the already existing > >>> literature, there may be reasons to choose another one. What the > >>> speakers themselves call their language, however, is not a strong > >>> reason to do so, in my view. Unless, of course, you happen to be > >>> writing in that particular language. > >>> > >>> In a way, this can be compared to toponymical changes. There is a > >>> point in using Harare or Volgograd instead of Salisbury or Stalingrad, > >>> since the older names are, if nothing else, reminders of former > >>> r?gimes presumably not supported by the people who inhabit these > >>> cities today. But need we say Beijing and Guangzhou for what used to > >>> be been Peking and Canton? If so, must we start saying ?the United > >>> Arab Emirates in Arabic?? (And should it be standard Arabic or the > >>> colloquial?). > >>> > >>> > >>> Mikael Parkvall > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced > >> Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg > >> and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of > >> English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper > Senior Fellow > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies > Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg > Albertstr. 19 > D-79104 Freiburg > and > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > > Sydney M. Lamb http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/ Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Apr 2 15:14:51 2009 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:14:51 +0300 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49D4D504.1010605@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the 'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who do it because they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's irritating. Or am I just rationalizing? John Quoting Claire Bowern : > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! > Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? > Claire > > > ------------- > Claire Bowern > Department of Linguistics > Yale University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From straight at binghamton.edu Thu Apr 2 15:45:57 2009 From: straight at binghamton.edu (Straight, H. Stephen) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:45:57 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <1238685291.49d4d66bf244c@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: My impression of this discussion, with some exceptions, is that it reveals that even linguists sometimes fail to inquire about how a given name (or other word, for that matter) is pronounced by speakers of the language from which it comes. The result is sometimes Anglicization but almost as often IPA-icization (as in the case of Bengali). I'd be curious to know the story behind the pronunciation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I think I'm hearing now from Barack Obama is front vowels in the first and back vowels in the second. Can anyone provide a rationale for this pattern or otherwise enlighten us about these two (and Iraq and Iran, too, while you're at it)? Best.? 'Bye.? Steve? H Stephen Straight,?PhD Binghamton University, State University of New York -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of john at research.haifa.ac.il Sent: Thursday 2 April 2009 11:15 To: Claire Bowern Cc: Mikael Parkvall; Paul Hopper; Sydney Lamb; funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] naming a language I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the 'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who do it because they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's irritating. Or am I just rationalizing? John Quoting Claire Bowern : > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! > Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? > Claire > > > ------------- > Claire Bowern > Department of Linguistics > Yale University > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 2 18:37:47 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:37:47 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49D4D504.1010605@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity rather than amusement? Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. - Paul > I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in > this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's > language change and language use, people! Aren't functional linguists > supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire > > > ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University > > -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From amnfn at well.com Thu Apr 2 19:02:15 2009 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:02:15 -0700 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: <49225.78.151.216.202.1238697467.squirrel@78.151.216.202> Message-ID: Stern objectivity? Objectivity, stern or otherwise, is a fleeting ideal! --Aya Katz On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity rather than amusement? > > Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. > > > - Paul > > > > > >> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in >> this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's >> language change and language use, people! Aren't functional linguists >> supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire >> >> >> ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University >> >> > > > -- > Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper > Senior Fellow > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies > Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg > Albertstr. 19 > D-79104 Freiburg > and > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > > From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 2 19:04:17 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:04:17 -0400 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I was being ironic of course. -P. > Stern objectivity? Objectivity, stern or otherwise, is a fleeting ideal! > > --Aya Katz > > > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Paul Hopper wrote: > >> Bloomfield dubbed the kinds of judgmental observations that Funknetters >> have been making about the alleged "mispronunciation" of names >> "tertiary responses", and reckoned them as part of the linguist's >> accounting of facts about a language. This being so, surely our >> attitude toward our discussion should be one of stern objectivity >> rather than amusement? >> >> Or of course it could just be that we're having fun for a change. >> >> >> - Paul >> >> >> >> >> >>> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident >>> in this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. >>> It's language change and language use, people! Aren't functional >>> linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? Claire >>> >>> >>> ------------- Claire Bowern Department of Linguistics Yale University >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced >> Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg >> and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of >> English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> >> -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au Thu Apr 2 19:42:05 2009 From: dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au (dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 06:42:05 +1100 Subject: naming a language In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't know how Afghanis pronounce Afghanistan, but every Pakistani that I've ever heard pronounce the name of his country used back vowels both first and second. At 11:45 AM -0400 2/4/09, Straight, H. Stephen wrote: >My impression of this discussion, with some exceptions, is that it >reveals that even linguists sometimes fail to inquire about how a >given name (or other word, for that matter) is pronounced by >speakers of the language from which it comes. The result is >sometimes Anglicization but almost as often IPA-icization (as in the >case of Bengali). I'd be curious to know the story behind the >pronunciation of Afghanistan and Pakistan. What I think I'm hearing >now from Barack Obama is front vowels in the first and back vowels >in the second. Can anyone provide a rationale for this pattern or >otherwise enlighten us about these two (and Iraq and Iran, too, >while you're at it)? > >Best. 'Bye. Steve > >H Stephen Straight, PhD >Binghamton University, State University of New York > > >-----Original Message----- >From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of >john at research.haifa.ac.il >Sent: Thursday 2 April 2009 11:15 >To: Claire Bowern >Cc: Mikael Parkvall; Paul Hopper; Sydney Lamb; funknet at mailman.rice.edu >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] naming a language > >I think the general idea is that if it's native speakers making the >'mistakes', then it's okay and interesting. But if it's people who >do it because >they think they know something about the language but they really don't, it's >irritating. > >Or am I just rationalizing? >John > > > >Quoting Claire Bowern : > >> I am amused by the general prescriptive feeling that has been evident in >> this discussion from the use of phrases like 'irritating errors'. It's >> language change and language use, people! >> Aren't functional linguists supposed to like this sort of thing? >> Claire >> >> >> ------------- >> Claire Bowern >> Department of Linguistics >> Yale University >> > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University -- David Harvey 60 Gipps Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia Tel: 61-2-9719-9170 From gkristia at filol.ucm.es Fri Apr 3 17:09:23 2009 From: gkristia at filol.ucm.es (GITTE KRISTIANSEN) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 19:09:23 +0200 Subject: CfP LAUD conference on Cognitive Sociolinguistics Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I would hereby like to draw your attention to the 34th International LAUD Symposium on Cognitive Sociolinguistics (March 2010, Landau, Germany). all best wishes, Gitte Kristiansen First Call for Papers 34th International LAUD Symposium Cognitive Sociolinguistics Language variation in its structural, conceptual and cultural dimensions LOCATION: University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau/Pf., Germany DATE: March 15-18, 2010 CALL DEADLINE: June 15, 2009 Confirmed Speakers MAIN KEYNOTE SPEAKER William Labov - University of Pennsylvania - PLENARY SPEAKERS Penelope Eckert (Stanford University) Dirk Geeraerts (University of Leuven) Stefan Gries (Santa Barbara, University of California) Peter Harder (University of Copenhagen) Gitte Kristiansen (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) Dennis R. Preston (Michigan State University) Aim and scope: Within Cognitive Linguistics and other cognitively oriented approaches to language there is a growing interest for language variation in all its dimensions, as witnessed by several publications, most recently by the landmark-fixing collective volume Cognitive Sociolinguistics (2008), edited by Gitte Kristiansen and Ren? Dirven. In the past decades, linguistic analyses within Cognitive Linguistics or other cognitively oriented theories were all too often carried out at the level of ?a general, uniform language?, disregarding the rich and complex patterns of intralingual and communicative variation in that language. Such a shallow level of granularity ultimately amounts to that of a homogeneous and thus idealized speech community, reminiscent of Chomsky?s ideal speaker-hearer. To the extent that Cognitive Linguistics takes its claim of being a usage-based approach to language and cognition seriously, it cannot continue to work with an implicitly assumed conception of language being situated taxonomically at an almost Chomskyan level of abstraction. Cognitive Sociolinguistic research fills this gap in an enriched manner, by combining the CL theoretical framework with the empirical methods used in sociolinguistics and social science at large. The LAUD symposium is planning to explore the different facets of this emerging coalescence between cognitive, usage-based approaches to language and a sociolinguistic interest in language-internal variation in 4 theme sessions, each addressing one of the following questions: 1. How do social and cognitive perspectives fit together in a general, overall model of language? 2. To what extent is usage-based language variation socially structured, and how is such language-internal variation represented in the individual language user's (implicit or explicit) knowledge? 3. How does language-internal variation affect the conceptual aspects of language, i.e. linguistic meaning and linguistic categorization? 4. How does language variation interact with cultural models in a linguistic community? Does language variation follow from cultural models, or just reflect them or, on the contrary, determine them? Theme Session 1: Social factors as foundational issues in a theory of language The first session examines the role of social factors in the conception of language as such: to what extent should the social nature of language play a role in the linguist's conception of the linguistic system - and in the individual language user's acquisition and knowledge of the language? If we abandon the simplification of an ideal speaker-hearer, what are the descriptive consequences: what models and methodologies should we use to get a grip on the interaction between social usage and individual knowledge of the language? In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: ? The social status of linguistic facts ? Variability and the linguistic system ? Linguistic norms, rules and behavior ? The ideal and the real speaker-hearer ? Situated cognition and the distribution of (linguistic) knowledge ? Social and individual usage: models, methods and research questions ? The treatment of social factors and variation in the history of (cognitive) linguistics Theme Session 2: Structural variation from a usage-based perspective How are lectal variation, linguistic change, and language acquisition affected by taking a usage-based approach to language ? Usage-based and meaning-based models of grammar introduce more variation into the grammar than a rule-based approach tends to do: the language-internal or discourse-related factors that influence the use of a particular construction may be manifold, and the presence or absence of a construction is not an all-or-none matter. In the analysis of this type of variation, it often appears that the variation is co-determined by 'external', sociostylistic factors: the variation that appears in actual usage (e.g. as attested in corpora) may be determined simultaneously by grammatical, discursive, and socio-stylistic factors. Furthermore, awareness (of linguistic factors and social dimensions) also plays a role in successful conceptualisation, together with structured patterns of subjective and objective perception. In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: ? Cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics ? Cognitive linguistics and dialectology ? Cognitive linguistics and stylistics ? Cognitive linguistics and discourse analysis ? Linguistic variation and multidimensional research ? Usage-based mechanisms of language change ? Exemplar-based models of language variation ? Lectal and interactional factors in language acquisition ? Perceptual dialectology and production ? Subjective and objective linguistic distances ? Language attitude research and quantitative data ? Linguistic variation and varieties: expert analysis versus folk perception ? Folk perception of bilingualism and multilingualism Theme Session 3: Conceptual variation in language-internal and cross-linguistic categorization preferences To what extent do the phenomena that we typically focus on in Cognitive Linguistics and other meaning-related approaches - phenomena involving meaning and categorization - exhibit variation within the same linguistic community? Both the concept of semantic flexibility (as in prototype theory and radial networks) and the concept of cultural models played an important role in the emergence of Cognitive Linguistics, but this usage-based variation of meaning and categorization is not standardly analyzed from a socio-stylistic point of view. In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: ? Lectal variation of cognitive models and metaphorical mappings ? Lectal variation within prototype-based structures and radial networks ? Prototypes, stereotypes, and the division of linguistic labour ? Intralinguistic semantic conflicts and their resolution ? The relation between language variation and cognition within a single language ? Dialectal and sociolectal variation of meaning ? Styles and registers as categories of meaning ? The linguistic construal of identities as meaning creation ? Social cognition, social categorization and interactional sociolinguistics Theme session 4: Cultural models and cultural variation of cognitive models Within Cognitive Linguistic research on cognitive models, there is a creative tension between scholars emphasizing the universal aspects of cognitive models and those pointing to the historical and cultural variability of such models. But the variability is often considered from a cross-cultural perspective only, without specific attention for the language-internal or culture-internal variability of cultural models. So, how does variability of cultural and cognitive models work within a community, and how does it interact with variability of language and language use? In particular, what are the cultural models that people use to think about language variation and language-related social variation? In the context of this theme, we invite abstracts on topics like the following: ? Cultural models and their interaction with Idealized Cognitive Models ? Universalism and (historical, cultural, anthropological) variability of cognitive models ? Competition and conflict between cultural models ? Cultural models and ideology ? Critical-linguistic approaches such as Critical Cognitive Linguistics, and cognitively inspired Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ? Cultural models of social variation ? Cultural models of language variation, and their consequences for language planning and language policy ? Language-based social stereotyping CONFERENCE FEES The conference fee is EUR 75 payable on arrival. SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS Submissions are solicited for theme session presentations which should last for 20-25 minutes with 5-10 minutes for questions (maximum 30 minutes total). All submissions for presentations should follow the following abstract guidelines: The deadline for abstracts is June 1, 2009. The address for submitting the abstracts is Martin P?tz Puetz at uni-landau.de Abstracts should be no more than 500 words. The subject header of your email should include: Abstract LAUD 2010 ? name/s. Please include the following information in the main body of your email: name of author/s, affiliation, email address, presentation title. Please also state for which of the 4 theme sessions, as listed above, your contribution is intended. Notification of acceptance will be given by June 30, 2009. LOCAL CONFERENCE ORGANIZER Martin P?tz Email: Puetz at uni-landau University of Koblenz-Landau FB 6 Institut f?r Fremdsprachliche Philologien Fach Anglistik Marktstr. 40 76829 Landau/Pf. Germany PH: ++49-(0)6341-146-204 Fax: ++49-(0)6341-146-200 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Ren? Dirven Dirk Geeraerts Gitte Kristiansen Martin P?tz Monika Reif From langconf at bu.edu Fri Apr 3 14:14:53 2009 From: langconf at bu.edu (BUCLD BUCLD) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:14:53 -0400 Subject: Now accepting submissions: BUCLD 34 Message-ID: NOW ACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS - CALL FOR PAPERS THE 34th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 6-8, 2009 Keynote Address ?Developing Fluency in Understanding: How it matters? Anne Fernald, Stanford University Plenary Address ?Innate Syntax - Still the Best Hypothesis? Virginia Valian, Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center Lunch Symposium ?Recent Advances in the Study of Production and Comprehension: Implications for Language Acquisition Research? John Trueswell, University of Pennsylvania Mike Tanenhaus, University of Rochester Kay Bock, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Submissions which present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspectives will be fully considered, including Bilingualism, Cognition & Language, Creoles & Pidgins, Dialects, Discourse and Narrative, Gesture, Hearing Impairment and Deafness, Input & Interaction, Language Disorders, Linguistic Theory, Neurolinguistics, Pragmatics, Pre-linguistic Development, Reading and Literacy, Signed Languages, Sociolinguistics, and Speech Perception & Production. ABSTRACTS ? Abstracts must represent original, unpublished research. ? Abstracts should be anonymous, clearly titled and no more than 500 words in length. Please note the word count at the bottom of the abstract. ? Detailed information regarding abstract format, content, and evaluation criteria can be found at our website: http://www.bu.edu/ linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/ SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS ? Abstracts may now be submitted using the form available at the conference website: http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/APPLIED/BUCLD/abstract.htm ? This year we are enacting a new author policy: Although each author may submit as many abstracts as desired, we will accept for presentation a maximum of 1 first authored paper/poster. There is no limit on the number of additional acceptances of papers/posters in any other authorship status. DEADLINE ? All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EST, May 15, 2009. There will be no exceptions. JEAN BERKO GLEASON AWARD BUCLD is proud to introduce the Jean Berko Gleason Award for the best student papers. In honor of Jean Berko Gleason, Professor Emerita of Psychology at Boston University, three awards will be given at the Plenary address on Saturday night. All students who are first and presenting authors on a paper will be considered for the award. FURTHER INFORMATION Questions about abstracts should be sent to abstract at bu.edu Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Telephone: (617) 353-3085 From raldokhayel at hotmail.com Sat Apr 4 19:34:37 2009 From: raldokhayel at hotmail.com (Aldokhayel Reyadh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:34:37 +0300 Subject: Inquiry Message-ID: Hello, I have been a lurking member of your wonderful list for a long time and I decided to participate this time by drawing attention to my newly-published book "The Event Structure Metaphor: The Case of Arabic. Is there a particular format for a participation of this sort. Thank you very much. Reyadh Aldokhayel, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Cognitive Linguistics Department of European Languages & Translation College of Languages & Translation King Saud University P. O. Box 87907 Riyadh 11652 Saudi Arabia Email: rdokayel at ksu.edu.sa; raldokhayel at hotmail.com Phone: (966) 1 468-2114 Cellphone: (966) 532079829 From alifarghaly at yahoo.com Sun Apr 5 10:45:18 2009 From: alifarghaly at yahoo.com (Ali Farghaly) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 03:45:18 -0700 Subject: Third Wokshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages Message-ID: ????????????????? * FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS * ? ???????????????????? THIRD WORKSHOP ON COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES TO ARABIC SCRIPT-BASED LANGUAGES (CAASL3) August 26, 2009 Machine Translation Summit XII Ottawa, Ontario, Canada http://arabicscript.org/CAASL3 ? The Organizing Committee of the Third Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages invites proposals for presentation at CAASL3, being held in conjunction with MT Summit XII. ? WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION ? The first two workshops (2004 and 2007) brought together researchers working on the computer processing of Arabic script-based languages such as Arabic, Persian (Farsi and Dari), Pashto and Urdu, among others. The usage of the Arabic script and the influence of Arabic vocabulary give rise to certain computational issues that are common to these languages despite their being of distinct language families, such as right to left direction, encoding variation, absence of capitalization, complex word structure, and a high degree of ambiguity due to non-representation of short vowels in the writing system. ? The third workshop (CAASL3), five years after the successful first workshop, will provide a forum for researchers from academia, industry, and government developers, practitioners, and users to share their research and experience with a focus on machine translation.? It also provides an opportunity to assess the progress that has been made since the first workshop in 2004. ? The call for papers as well as future information on the workshop can be found at http://www.arabicscript.org. ? IMPORTANT DATES ? Paper submission deadline: May 8, 2009 Notification of acceptance: June 12, 2009 Camera ready submissions: July 10, 2009 ? WORKSHOP TOPICS ? We welcome submissions in any area of NLP in Arabic script-based languages. However, preference would be given to papers that focus on Machine Translation applications of Arabic script-based languages. The main themes of this workshop include: ? * Statistical and rule-based machine translation * Translation aids * Evaluation methods and techniques of? machine translation systems * MT of dialectal and conversational language * Computer-mediated communication (e.g., blogs, forums, chats) * Knowledge bases, corpora, and development of resources for MT applications * Speech-to-speech MT * MT combined with other technologies (speech translation, cross-language information retrieval, multilingual text categorization, multilingual text summarization, multilingual natural language generation, etc.) * Entity extraction * Tokenization and segmentation * Speech synthesis and recognition * Text to speech systems * Semantic analysis ? SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ???????????????????????????????????????????????? ? Papers should not have been presented somewhere else or be under consideration for publication elsewhere, and should not identify the author(s). They should emphasize completed work rather than intended work. Each paper will be anonymously reviewed by three members of the program committee. ? Papers must be submitted in PDF format to caasl3 at arabicscript.org by midnight of the due date. Submissions should be in English. The papers should be attached to an email indicating contact information for the author(s) and paper?s title. Papers should not exceed 8 pages including references and tables, and should follow the formatting guidelines posted at ? CONTACT INFORMATION ? For further information, please visit the workshop site at http://www.arabicscript.org/CAASL3 or contact the organizing committee at caasl3 at arabicscript.org. ? ORGANIZING COMMITTEE ? Ali Farghaly, Oracle USA Karine Megerdoomian,? The Mitre Corporation Hassan Sawaf, AppTek Inc. ? TENTATIVE PROGRAM COMMITTEE ? Jan W. Amtrup (Kofax Image Products) Mahmood Bijankhan (Tehran University, Iran) Tim Buckwalter (University of Maryland) Miriam Butt (Konstanz University, Germany) Violetta Cavalli-Sforza (Al Akhawayn University, Morocco) Sherri L. Condon (The MITRE Corporation) Kareem Darwish (Cairo University, Egypt and IBM) Mona Diab (Columbia University) Joseph Dichy (Lyon University) Andrew Freeman (The MITRE Corporation) Nizar Habash (Columbia University) Lamia Hadrich Belguith (University of Sfax, Tunisia) Hany Hassan?(IBM) Sarmad Hussain (CRULP and FAST National University, Pakistan) Simin Karimi?(University of Arizona) Martin Kay (Stanford University) Mohamed Maamouri (Linguistic Data Consortium) Shrikanth Narayanan (University of Southern California) Hermann Ney (RWTH Aachen, Germany) Farhad Oroumchian (University of Wollongong in Dubai) Nick Pendar (H5 Technologies) Kristin Precoda (SRI International) Jean Sennellart (SYSTRAN) Ahmed Rafea (The American University in Cairo) Khaled Shaalan (The British University in Dubai) Mehrnoush Shamsfard (Shahid Beheshti University, Iran) Stephan Vogel (CMU) Imed Zitouni (IBM) From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 6 15:35:26 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:35:26 -0400 Subject: Benjamins: New Co-editor for Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) Message-ID: New Co-editor for Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) John Benjamins Publishing is pleased to announce that Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State University) has agreed to succeed Michael Noonan as co-editor of SLCS. Elly van Gelderen is a syntactician, interested in language change. Her preference is directed towards language typology in the following concrete sense: describing languages with a keen eye on universals or at least cross-linguistic generalizations She is currently writing a book on the linguistic cycle where she shows how syntactic changes that occur over and over in different languages provide insight in the language faculty. They point towards Economy Principles that help a child acquire a language and analyze it in a different way from previous generations. She is the author of six books, fifty or so articles/chapters, and has taught at ASU since 1995. She has degrees from Utrecht University and McGill and is the co-editor of Linguistics Today (John Benjamins). She is also on the board of Diachronica, The Journal of Germanic Linguistics, the Linguist List Advisory Board, and the South West Journal of Linguistics. Elly van Gelderen (ellyvangelderen at asu.edu) will co-edit SLCS with Werner Abraham (werner_abraham at t-online.de). 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 tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 6 23:58:16 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:58:16 -0600 Subject: attention? Message-ID: Dear FUNK people, At the risk of dragging you a bit far off center-filed, I would like to draw your attention to a recent paper in Proceedings of the Nat. Acad. Sci. (PNAS), co authored by two well-known exponents of Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides and J. Tooby of UC Santa Barbara (with a colleague, Joshua New). The title may be a bit off-putting to linguists: "Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise". Or, in other words, evolved genetics rather than acquired experience. This paper is another foray into finding a specific evolved "module" for any seemingly-universal behavioral trait of homo sapiens, rather than entertaining alternative explanations, such as module-sharing, distributed networks, etc. What drew my attention to this particular Cosmides/Tooby opus is that it encroaches on data linguists know well under various names, e.g. "the topicality hierarchy", or Haj Ross's "world order (CLS 1975). Many neurologists have noted that higher cognitive faculties, such attention, lexicon, grammar etc., are represented in the brain by multi-modular distributive networks/circuits (Schneider and Chein 2003; Posner & Fan 2008; Friederici 2008; Bookheimer 2002; Hagoort 2008; Kaan 2008; Dehaene and Cohen 2007). Within such circuits, the lower-level modules may not be specific to any particular task, but rather partake in many different circuits.What is task-specific is the circuit or network. What Cosmides/Tooby suggested is that a special "attention to animates" module evolved in homo sapiens. But one could extend this "narrow modularity" ad absurdum, assigning special attention modules to all the "umarked"/"salient" members of the well-known pairs linguists (and psychologists) have been talking about for years: SALIENT LESS-SALIENT ======== ============= human > non-human animate > inanimate moving > stationary compact > diffuse near > far ego-related > ego-unrelated (1st > 2nd > 3rd person) concrete > abstract colorful > dull/murky event > non-event figure > ground etc. All other things being equal, humans are more likely to pay more attention to the salient than to the less- salient member of these contrasting pairs. But to account for this, one need not invent multiple attention "modules". Rather, one can note that default saliency-coding--in lexical-semantic memory--is probably the real mechanism to be explained by the evolutionary psychologist. Attention, on the other hand, probably remains a (relatively) general-purpose mechanism. Cheers, TG From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Tue Apr 7 17:22:02 2009 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:22:02 -0700 Subject: attention? Message-ID: Thanks Tom for pointing out the PNAS article. Of course, the physical structure of the brain is to some extent determined by evolved genetics and not acquired experience, so it makes sense to wonder if some of this structure underlies any unique function. Your slippery slope argument about proliferating modules ad absurdum doesn't really convince me to to reject the paper. The data have to be evaluated on their merits - otherwise we're evaluating research on the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper. best, Keith From tgivon at uoregon.edu Tue Apr 7 22:37:09 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:37:09 -0600 Subject: attention? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Keith. I'm glad there's the beginning of a debate. Let's just make sure that this NOT about genetic determination, nor about modularity, nor about innateness. If we accept evolution, we have to accept that in principle those things exist. Otherwise each of us will have to start from scratch, from the amoeba, which is obviously a colossal waste of the zillions of years of adaptive experimentation by all those previous generations of protozoa, coelenterates, mollusks and vertebrates. So the question is more factual--WHAT is modular? WHAT is genetically determined? WHAT is innate? T/C have the unfortunate tendency to over-reach with claims of narrow modularity, discounting the role of general-purpose mechanisms such as memory & attention. These are, by the way, evolved & genetically determined too. In this particular case, they want to micro-modularize attention. What I hoped to point out is: (i) that if they do it for animacy, they'll have to do it for concreteness, compactness, motion, singularity, ego, etc., since all the language data suggest that these are the more salient or "marked" categories, and the attentional lit. suggests that animate brains pay more attention to salient entities. (This is not really a human-specific genetic trait, but an ANMIMATE trait. If T/C had experimented with rats, they would have found exactly the same facts. Tho I think Skinner must have already done that). (ii) That there probably is a better module where the genetics of salient categories already is expressed, perm,anent semantic memory (for humans, the lexicon). So at the very least, T/C will have to argue why the modularity is in the attentional system rather than in semantic memory. And (iii) that there are several teams that have been working for a long time on the neurology of attention (e.g. Schneider and Chein 2003; Posner & Fan 2008). It is curious that T/C don't bother to look at the highly specific results these team have reported about the distributive-network(s) neurology of attention, just to see if their micro-modularity claims are compatible with what is known about the neurology of attention. Cheers, TG ============= Keith Johnson wrote: > Thanks Tom for pointing out the PNAS article. > > Of course, the physical structure of the brain is to some extent > determined by evolved genetics and not acquired experience, so it > makes sense to wonder if some of this structure underlies any unique > function. > > Your slippery slope argument about proliferating modules ad absurdum > doesn't really convince me to to reject the paper. The data have to > be evaluated on their merits - otherwise we're evaluating research on > the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. > > So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper. > > best, > Keith > From tpayne at uoregon.edu Wed Apr 8 20:42:12 2009 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:42:12 -0700 Subject: Books Available for Review Message-ID: Books available for review in Studies in Language April, 2009 Reviewers are currently being sought for the following books. Please contact the Review Editor, Thomas E. Payne if you are interested in reviewing one or more of these books for Studies in Language. Please include a brief statement of why you want to review a particular book, and a link to a CV or other web page that indicates your qualifications as a reviewer. Format and content guidelines for Book Notices, Book Reviews and Review Articles can be found at http://www.uoregon.edu/~tpayne/SLstylesheet.pdf. Reviews will be due five months after receipt of the book. Please consider participating in the dialog of our discipline by volunteering to review one or more of these books. Thomas E. Payne, Review editor, Studies in Language (tpayne at uoregon.edu). Ansaldo, Umberto. (ed.) 2007. Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Arnovick, Bouma, Gerlof. (ed.) 2007. Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Bremmer, Rolf. H. 2009. An Introduction to Old Frisian: History, grammar, reader, glossary. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Butler, Christopher S. (ed.) 2007. Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 85 Butler, Christopher S. (ed.) 2009. Deconstructing constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language companion series 107 Dehe, Nicole. (ed.) 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linguistics Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106 Donohue, Mark. (ed.) 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Downing, Raquel Hidalgo and Wichman, Soren. (eds.) 2007. Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 85 Englebretson, Robert. (ed.) 2007. Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fanselow, Gisbert, Fery, Caroline and Schlesewsky, Matthias. (eds.) 2006. Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Filipovic, Luna. 2007. Talking about motion: A crosslinguistic investigation of lexicalization patterns. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 91 Giannakidou, Anastasia. (ed.) 2009. Quantification, definiteness & nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics Givon, T. 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gomez Gonzalez, Maria de los Angeles, et al. (eds.) 2008. Languages and cultures in contrast and comparison. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gomez Gonzalez, Maria de los Angeles, et al. 2009. Current trends in contrastive linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics Good, Jeffrey. 2008. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hannay, Mike and Gerard K. Steen. (eds.) 2007. Structural-functional studies in English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar: A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Studies in the Evolution of Language Hengeveld, Kees and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional discourse grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Constructional Approaches to Language 7 Huber, Magnus. (ed.) 2007. Synchronic and diachronic perspectives on contact languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Creole Language Library 32 Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kulikov, Leonid, et al. (eds.) 2006. Case, valency and transitivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 77 Leow, Ronald P. (ed.) 2009. Little words: Their history, phonology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lopez-Couso, Maria Jose, and Elena Seoane. (eds.) 2008. Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typolgogical Studies in Language 76 Miestamo, Matti. (ed.) 2008. Language complexity: Typology, contact, change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 94 Miyaoka, Osahito. (ed.) 2007. The vanishing languages of the Pacific Rim. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Muller, Henrik Hoeg and Alex Klinge. (eds.) 2008. Essays on nominal determination. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 99. Narrog, Heiko. 2009. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 109. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 2007. Rciprocal constructions (5 volumes). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 71 Nikolaeva, Irina. (ed.) 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O'Connor, Loretta. 2007. Motion, transfer and transformation: The grammar of change in Lowland Chontal. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 95. Penke, Martina and Anette Rosenbach. (eds.) 2007. What counts as evidence in linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Benjami's Current Topics Plaisier, Heleen. 2007. A grammar of Lepcha. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region Polguere, Alain and Igor Melchuk. (eds.) 2009. Dependency in lingusitic description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 111 Ramchand, Gillian and Charles Reiss. (eds.) 2007. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasinger, Sebastian M. 2008. Quantitative research in linguistics: An introduction. London/New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Giorgos Spathas. (eds.) 2007. Argument structure. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 108].g\g\ Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses as mitigators: A corpus study of spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Corpus Linguistics 27 Seoane, Elena and Maria Jose Lopez-Couso. (eds.) 2008. Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 77. Siegel, Jeff, et al. 2008. Language description, history and development. Linguistic indulgence in memory of Terry Crowley [Creole Language Library 30]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic change in the English passive. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. van der Wurff, Wim. (ed.) 2007. Imperative clauses in generative grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Linguistics Aktuell/Linguistics Today Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2007. Experiential constructions in Yucatec Maya: a typologically based analysis of a functional domain in a Mayan language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 87 Wanner, Leo. (ed.) 2007. Selected lexical and grammatical issues in the meaning-text theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Studies in Language Companion Series 84 Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation [Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics]Oxford: Oxford University Press. Z??iga, Fernando. 2007. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Typological Studies in Language 70 From sclancy at uchicago.edu Fri Apr 10 12:49:26 2009 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:49:26 -0500 Subject: Final CFP: Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference (SCLC-2009) in Prague, October 15-17, 2009 Message-ID: THE 2009 SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (SCLC-2009) October 15-17, 2009 EXTENDED DEADLINE: APRIL 15, 2009 NOTE TO ICLC PARTICIPANTS: We would like to encourage those of you who had planned to participate in the ICLC-2009 conference in Berkeley to consider joining us in Prague in October. Among affiliate organizations of the ICLA, the SCLA is unique in that it is not a national organization of cognitive linguists, but rather an international group of cognitive linguists concerned with research on Slavic languages. We also accept papers on topics dealing with other languages of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia. If you would like to submit your ICLC abstract on a topic related to the concerns of the SCLA for our conference, please follow the submission guidelines below and indicate that your abstract was accepted to the ICLC in your submission email. The SCLC is usually a small conference of around 30 papers, but we will do our best to accommodate additional presentations this year. The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the final call for papers for the 2009 Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Conference (SCLC-2009), October 15-17, 2009. We are very pleased to hold SCLC-2009 in conjunction with the Department of Czech Language and Theory of Communication of the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Full information about the conference may be found at the official conference website (http://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/sclc/sclc_eng.htm ). Papers concerning all aspects of Slavic languages (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, as well as broadly cultural or literary topics) from the perspective of cognitive linguistics are welcome. We also accept papers on topics dealing with other languages of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Central Asia. Abstracts may be submitted up until the extended deadline of April 15, 2009 to Steven Clancy . Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2009. Please see the official conference website (http://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/sclc/sclc_eng.htm ) for more details. We hope you will be able to join us in Prague for SCLC-2009. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. All the best, Steven Clancy Steven Clancy Tore Nesset President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA on behalf of the SCLC-2009 organizing committee Team of organizers in Prague: Mgr. Jan Chrom? (chief coordinator) doc. PhDr. Ivana Bozd?chov?, CSc. Veronika ?urdov? PhDr. Jas?a Pacovsk?, CSc. PhDr. Lucie Saicov? ??malov?, Ph.D. PhDr. Lucie ??chov? doc. PhDr. Irena Va?kov?, CSc. Pre-Conference Workshop in Corpus and Experimental Methods at SCLC-2009 in Prague October 15, 2009 We also plan to organize a one-day pre-conference workshop on corpus linguistics, experimental methods and statistical analysis. This will take place on October 15, 2009 before the start of the main SCLC-2009 conference. More details forthcoming at the SCLA website (http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla/ ). From Salinas17 at aol.com Sat Apr 11 19:26:11 2009 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:26:11 EDT Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: In a message dated 4/7/09 1:22:29 PM, keithjohnson at berkeley.edu writes: <> Keith - You SHOULD look forward to reading the paper. It is one of the funniest parodies of a scientific paper you can find outside of the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Either that or it is a stark reminder of how close "evolutionary psychology" has come to being the study of pixies, moondbeams and extrasensory perception. I prefer to see the paper as just an elaborate inside joke. There sure are lots of guffaws throughout, but the laughably twisted logic that Tom seems to be addressing has to do with the use of the term "semantic" to describe the different kind of objects that appeared in photographs that were showed to subjects in the experiment. Why the authors choose to use the word "semantic" isn't clear. But the "five semantic categories" they give are "two animate (people and animals)" and "three inanimate... [plants; moveable/ manipulable artifacts designed for interaction with human hands/body (e.g., stapler, wheelbarrow); fixed artifacts construable as topographical landmarks (e.g., windmill, house)." Tom's objection I suspect, is to the reason given in the paper for this Sesame Street-style scheme: "These categories were chosen because converging evidence from neuropsychology and cognitive development suggests each is associated with a functionally distinct neural substrate..." citing two papers by Alphonso Caramazza from 1998 and 2000. Of course, the article's title tells us how the authors are using these "semantic" categories: "Category-specific attention for animals reflect ancestral priorities, not expertise." But it doesn't tell us why they used the word "semantic" as opposed to something like "object-type" or "objects shaped like animals or humans." It is one thing to suggest that the brain stores language according to lexical categories, as Caramazza did. But it's quite another to say that we're paying extra attention to something we look at not because of what it looks like, but because it falls into a word group. Remember that this attention is supposed to be "not goal directed" - so you're not looking for Elmo. In this experiment, you're supposedly not looking for anything. But what you're paying attention to is determined by word categories like "animate" or "human", not by the fact you've just been shown, say, a blonde in a bikini. As I think Tom pointed out, it would really take some straight-faced explaining to account for how "language-less" animals are so adroit at the fundamentally same recognition task. But, because the authors of this paper were obviously being funny, they were looking for some absurd and humorous "neurological" way the human shape would grab more immediate attention than a stapler or a wheelbarrow. Since they couldn't find research for a neurological pre-set for the human shape, they dug up some old research on the storage of words in the brain according to meaning categories. And then they say that's also why we innately pay attention to certain things, because of word categories like "animate" or "inanimate". Now, that's comedy. But that's not the really funny thing about this paper. What's really funny is some great convoluted logic. For example, we're told that the reason evolution favored us this pre-wired attention to "animals" is because: "Not only were animals (human and non-human) vital features of the visual environment, but they change their status far more frequently than plants, artifacts, or features of the terrain. Animals can change their minds, behavior, trajectory, or location in a fraction of a second, making their frequent reinspection as indispensable as their initial detection." Well, of course, one might suggest that an efficient way to spot something that moves is by paying attention to movement. (A cat's incredible response time in reaction to motion is exactly that -- a triggering in the optic organ that by-passes normal neural processing.) But the authors are not bothered by their own reasoning. True, "animate" objects tend to be animated, but motion is not what's catching our attention here. And, in the spirit of Mel Brooks, the authors have made sure that this has to be right by using an experimental technique called Change Detection, where "viewers are asked to spot the difference between two rapidly alternating [STILL PHOTOGRAPHS] that are identical except for a change to one object." Hilarously, they discount motion by using STILL photographs of cars in this phase of the experiment -- because cars move right? Now, that's funny. Why not use video instead of stills? Because still photographs show motion just fine, we are told. I'll give the authors the benefit of the doubt. They don't think we are idiots. They are just being comedians. The best part are the photographs themselves. We see a small figure of a human in a forest or by a resort harbor. This change is circled. We are told the objects are in "natural situations." Overwhelmingly the photos are filled with "inanimate" objects. Inanimate objects added to the inanimate objects don't do as well as human images added to the inanimate objects. Wow, what a surprise! Of course, we see lots of vague human shapes added to a forest scene or river scenes or travel scenes. But, with one exception, we don't see is a series of photos of something like someone holding a Christmas tree on a crowded subway platform. So the human form always wins out over the wheelbarrow, the stapler and the silo. Of course, it's common knowledge that good artists, graphic designers, photographers, film editors know how to drive attention where they want it. Each of these photos could have been re-designed to produce eaxctly the opposite result. Luckily, the choice of photos is so obviously biased that we might think that the researchers were clumsily trying to fix the result - if we didn't already know they were trying to be funny. And here's another punch line. How do you know that the attention you are seeing isn't goal-directed? How do you know that the subjects aren't already looking to spot fellow humans in the photograhs? The answer is simple. The subjects have no ulterior interests because they weren't given any. To qoute the article: "they are not given any task-specific goal that would direct their attention to some kinds of objects over others. Thus, the CD paradigm can be used to investigate how attention is deployed in the absence of a voluntary goal-directed search." Thus is a human who has spent most of his waking life interacting with other humans is wiped clean of any "goals" when looking at a photo that might include other humans, and his "ancestral priorities" are stripped bare. Just because we showed him a photo without telling him what to look for. Evolutionary psychology has generated much incredibly funny research, with the help of the NAS and numerous institutions listed in the article and elsewhere. Together this effort has done much to satisfy our national need for humor. In fact, sometimes when I read this stuff, I laugh so hard, I could cry. Regards, Steve Long ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 11 21:07:12 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:07:12 -0600 Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: RE: The New/Cosmides/Tooby paper: It is, of course, comforting to have someone find so much hilarity in someone else's attempt to be serious (and, concomitantly, to be taken seriously, something I suspect we all strive for, consciously or not). Still, before we tar a whole research program(me), and many interesting results, with the tainted brush of one study, perhaps we ought to be a bit more charitable. The best summary I know of the research program(me) of Ev.Psych. is Dave Geary's book "Origin of Mind". It is a coherent, indeed admirable summary of an investigation begun by Darwin in "The Descent of Man", which basically takes it for granted that if the body has evolved under adaptive selection, and if the brain has likewise, then the mind, behavior, and--God forbid--culture, probably have too. This doesn't mean that every practitioner in every study along this program(me) is infallible. Every far-reaching research program(me) is, almost by definition, open to multiple abuses of simplification and over-generalization. We are all prone to this, if we do non-trivial work. One could perhaps also say something about the logic of the experimental paradigm that Steve finds most offensive--or risible. The logic of NOT priming experimental subjects with purposive context in this type of experiment has to do with expectations of automaticity, habituation, innateness or "ingrained old adaptation". It is not difficult, as Steve observes, to prime responses by giving the subjects purposive contexts. But some contexts are more (much more) prevalent than others, and over time they tend to lead to habituation, automaticity & genetic coding (re. Joan Bybee's work on frequency effects). Such highly-frequent contexts lead to setting up a default/markedness organization of experiential categories, and processing. So if one deliberately does NOT prime the subject with a purposive context, but rather seeks their un-primed responses, chances are--so the logic goes--that if the results are coherent and statistically not attributed to chance, they reflect some pre-set (innate, marked, default) biases that are the result of repeated PAST--evolutionary past--frequency priming. I see nothing inherently wrong with this logic. It can be abused, and the interpretation/explanation of the result may on occasion be funny, a just-so narrative. But the logic springs from a coherent research program(me). Frequency effects over one's lifetime lead to automaticity. Frequency effects over multiple generations lead to adaptive-selective-genetic evolution. Cheers, TG ============ Salinas17 at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/7/09 1:22:29 PM, keithjohnson at berkeley.edu writes: > < evaluating research on > the basis of the outcome not on the validity of the process. > So, I look forward to reading the Cosmides, Tooby & New paper.>> > > Keith - You SHOULD look forward to reading the paper. It is one of > the funniest parodies of a scientific paper you can find outside of > the Journal of Irreproducible Results. Either that or it is a stark > reminder of how close "evolutionary psychology" has come to being the > study of pixies, moondbeams and extrasensory perception. I prefer to > see the paper as just an elaborate inside joke. > > There sure are lots of guffaws throughout, but the laughably twisted > logic that Tom seems to be addressing has to do with the use of the > term "semantic" to describe the different kind of objects that > appeared in photographs that were showed to subjects in the experiment. > > Why the authors choose to use the word "semantic" isn't clear. But > the "five semantic categories" they give are "two animate (people and > animals)" and "three inanimate... [plants; moveable/ > manipulable artifacts designed for interaction with human hands/body > (e.g., stapler, wheelbarrow); fixed artifacts construable as > topographical landmarks (e.g., windmill, house)." > > Tom's objection I suspect, is to the reason given in the paper for > this Sesame Street-style scheme: "These categories were chosen because > converging evidence from neuropsychology and cognitive development > suggests each is associated with a functionally distinct neural > substrate..." citing two papers by Alphonso Caramazza from 1998 and 2000. > > Of course, the article's title tells us how the authors are using > these "semantic" categories: "Category-specific attention for animals > reflect ancestral priorities, not expertise." But it doesn't tell us > why they used the word "semantic" as opposed to something like > "object-type" or "objects shaped like animals or humans." > > It is one thing to suggest that the brain stores language according to > lexical categories, as Caramazza did. But it's quite another to say > that we're paying extra attention to something we look at not because > of what it looks like, but because it falls into a word group. > > Remember that this attention is supposed to be "not goal directed" - > so you're not looking for Elmo. In this experiment, you're supposedly > not looking for anything. But what you're paying attention to is > determined by word categories like "animate" or "human", not by the > fact you've just been shown, say, a blonde in a bikini. > > As I think Tom pointed out, it would really take some straight-faced > explaining to account for how "language-less" animals are so adroit at > the fundamentally same recognition task. > > But, because the authors of this paper were obviously being funny, > they were looking for some absurd and humorous "neurological" way the > human shape would grab more immediate attention than a stapler or a > wheelbarrow. Since they couldn't find research for a neurological > pre-set for the human shape, they dug up some old research on the > storage of words in the brain according to meaning categories. And > then they say that's also why we innately pay attention to certain > things, because of word categories like "animate" or "inanimate". > Now, that's comedy. > > But that's not the really funny thing about this paper. What's really > funny is some great convoluted logic. For example, we're told that > the reason evolution favored us this pre-wired attention to "animals" > is because: > > "Not only were animals (human and non-human) vital features of the > visual environment, but they change their status far more frequently > than plants, artifacts, or features of the terrain. Animals can change > their minds, behavior, trajectory, or location in a fraction of a > second, making their frequent reinspection as indispensable as their > initial detection." > > Well, of course, one might suggest that an efficient way to spot > something that moves is by paying attention to movement. (A cat's > incredible response time in reaction to motion is exactly that -- a > triggering in the optic organ that by-passes normal neural processing.) > > But the authors are not bothered by their own reasoning. True, > "animate" objects tend to be animated, but motion is not what's > catching our attention here. > > And, in the spirit of Mel Brooks, the authors have made sure that this > has to be right by using an experimental technique called Change > Detection, where "viewers are asked to spot the difference between two > rapidly alternating [STILL PHOTOGRAPHS] that are identical except for > a change to one object." > > Hilarously, they discount motion by using STILL photographs of cars in > this phase of the experiment -- because cars move right? Now, that's > funny. > > Why not use video instead of stills? Because still photographs show > motion just fine, we are told. > > I'll give the authors the benefit of the doubt. They don't think we > are idiots. They are just being comedians. > > The best part are the photographs themselves. We see a small figure > of a human in a forest or by a resort harbor. This change is circled. > We are told the objects are in "natural situations." Overwhelmingly > the photos are filled with "inanimate" objects. Inanimate objects > added to the inanimate objects don't do as well as human images added > to the inanimate objects. Wow, what a surprise! > > Of course, we see lots of vague human shapes added to a forest scene > or river scenes or travel scenes. But, with one exception, we don't > see is a series of photos of something like someone holding a > Christmas tree on a crowded subway platform. So the human form > always wins out over the wheelbarrow, the stapler and the silo. > > Of course, it's common knowledge that good artists, graphic designers, > photographers, film editors know how to drive attention where they > want it. Each of these photos could have been re-designed to produce > eaxctly the opposite result. Luckily, the choice of photos is so > obviously biased that we might think that the researchers were > clumsily trying to fix the result - if we didn't already know they > were trying to be funny. > > And here's another punch line. How do you know that the attention you > are seeing isn't goal-directed? How do you know that the subjects > aren't already looking to spot fellow humans in the photograhs? The > answer is simple. The subjects have no ulterior interests because > they weren't given any. To qoute the article: "they are not given any > task-specific goal that would direct their attention to some kinds of > objects over others. Thus, the CD paradigm can be used to investigate > how attention is deployed in the absence of a voluntary goal-directed > search." > > Thus is a human who has spent most of his waking life interacting with > other humans is wiped clean of any "goals" when looking at a photo > that might include other humans, and his "ancestral priorities" are > stripped bare. Just because we showed him a photo without telling him > what to look for. > > Evolutionary psychology has generated much incredibly funny research, > with the help of the NAS and numerous institutions listed in the > article and elsewhere. Together this effort has done much to satisfy > our national need for humor. In fact, sometimes when I read this > stuff, I laugh so hard, I could cry. > > > Regards, > Steve Long > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. > (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From Salinas17 at aol.com Sun Apr 12 03:30:41 2009 From: Salinas17 at aol.com (Salinas17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:30:41 EDT Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: tgivon wrote: <> Tom, there are a lot of ways to respond to absurd ideas. Humor may not be the kindest or the safest, but it sure beats fury. <> But it also takes a rather narrow view of how that evolution could have occurred, and as Jonathan Kaplan, Panksepp and others have pointed out, there is an evidence gap. On the other hand, it could be a great deal more productive to investigate less how biological evolution affected human culture, and more how human culture affected evolution. In terms of morphology, it is short-work to distinguish between natural selection (including non-human sexual selection) and human-directed selection. No species out in the wild shows the morphological diversity we see in the domesticated dog and that diversity was acheived in a few thousand years at most (think Chihuahua versus Great Dane versus wolf). The gap between humans and early hominids and other primates smacks of the same kind of intervention. Human culture is a powerhouse when it comes to changing the environment and the things in it, and that includes biology. If I were Professor Geary, I'd start looking in the other direction. And that includes the notion that "sexual selection" among humans has been as much or more a communal matter than it has been one of "intra-species' competition. <> Tom, there are ways to control for these variables in experimentation. At minimum, see how subjects perform when both instructed and not instructed. And of course different instructions as control may make a difference. This is after all basic scientific methodology. But also something else. Why even assume that any lack of "goal-direction" would uncover innateness? What if if nothing but learned responses are available? How many "goals' are on the normal human to-do sheet every minute of every day? How would one know the difference? (Can a response to a stimulus get any faster than stomping on the breaks when you see a red light or Eric Clapton fingering his guitar at the right cue? These things are not innate responses. Clapton said at first he just didn't get how to play guitar and I watched a student driver blissfully drive thru a red light yesterday.) <> They also lead overwhelminly to extinction for probably a billion species. Genetically inherited behavior may be adaptive today, but it may be a disaster tomorrow. The breakthrough in adaptability appears to be when organisms stop relying on inherited behavior, not the other way around. It's not like Joan Bybee's language paradigm. Pre-wired appears to have come first. Plasticity, not automaticity, was the next big step in biological adaptation. Speaking of evolutionary psychology in the strict sense, the wonderful work done by Bernd Heinrich and Thomas Bugnyar on the "intelligence" of the Raven may have a lot more meaning than anything coming out of Santa Barbara. Here's one of their observations: "By some process that still remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology, exquisitely precise behaviors can be genetically programmed in animals with brains no larger than a pinhead... [eg] a wasp that makes paper expertly from the time it is born, that fashions a nest of precise architecture with that paper... The big question, then, is why, if behavior can be so precisely programmed, some animals [like ravens and humans] are consigned to muddling. Why are they not endowed as most animals are 'to do it right,' except after the many things that can go disasterously wrong... from muddling." Here's a suggestion. How about "evolutionary psychology" spends a bit more of its time on the "muddling" part and a little less time on how people spot other humans in photographs quicker than they spot staplers? Regards, Steve Long ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sun Apr 12 07:50:20 2009 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:50:20 -0400 Subject: attention? (Or Pixie Dust and Moonbeams) Message-ID: Steve Long ti:kama:nude: < Message-ID: Jess, Good points! In other words, there are cycles in evolution as well as in language? Best, --Aya On Sun, 12 Apr 2009, jess tauber wrote: > Steve Long ti:kama:nude: > > < > Oh, I dunno- aren't the Cichlid fishes of the African great lakes supposed to be extremely diverse both morphologically and behaviorally, and naturally evolved in a very short time after the lakes refilled at the end of the Ice Ages to take advantage of the many different microenvironments that the expansion of the lake system created? Unless hypothetical Homo Aquaticus (where are you when we need you Kevin Costner...?) was into breeding tropical fish. > > < > Not so fast- evidence from genes over phylogenesis seems to indicate slow cumulation of hard-wiring over very long stretches of time, as systems became much more interactive and less 'modular'. This would imply that earlier on, morphology and behavior were more flexible in response to the environment (if not necessarily in control). Late, derived, flexibility is due to losses in the cumulative system- genes shut off, nonworking proteins, and other broken links. Witness neotenization, where earlier life stages become reproductively successful, and the older later stages just drop out entirely. One step forward is in many ways two steps back. Retro is in. > > As for 'muddling'- there is still controversy about the Hobbit from Indonesia and the size of its brain- how could such a creature be 'human' with such reductions. The answer may be (assuming one doesn't take these forms to be simply retarded moderns) that it automated the relevant prehuman behaviors- hunting, cave dwelling, and so on. Robo-erectus. With a limited and stable environment, no Sapiens competition, and with loads of TIME, such things are possible, and help one optimize one's potential fit in the stultifying monotony. Be the best you can be, with blinders on. > > Neotenization and similar processes, on the other hand, would do best in unstable environments where there was pleny of competitive threat in a short time, which would be to the detriment of specialists. The Toba eruption and its aftermath would certainly have provided the kind of pressures on the environment needed to get the ball rolling- and I'd imagine the comet that hit North America leading to the Younger Dryas event did as well. Sometimes all one needs is a good kick in the pants, on a planetary scale. > > Overall, one might want to look for evidence of repeated episodes of increased/decreased automation in behavior through the eons. > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 13 18:09:32 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:09:32 -0400 Subject: New Co-editor Studies in Language (Benjamins) Message-ID: New Co-editor Studies in Language Foundations of Language and John Benjamins Publising are pleased to announce that Balthasar Bickel has agreed to join Bernard Comrie as general editor of Studies in Language. Balthasar Bickel currently holds a chair position in linguistic typology and variation at the University of Leipzig (Department of General Linguistics). His core interest is the worldwide distribution of linguistic diversity. Current foci of research include the typological profile of the Himalayas and the Caucasus, which deviate from the surrounding Eurasian spread areas; the development of new methods for measuring and testing areal distributions and their historical development; and the implications of typological variance in the structure of grammatical relations for discourse style and language processing. His fieldwork experience began with Bantu and Turkish, but since the early 1990s his main focus has been on typological outlier languages in the Himalayas, where he has been engaged in extensive research on the Kiranti people of Eastern Nepal, and also on the neighboring Indo-Aryan languages (Nepali and Maithili). His most recent effort in this area is an interdisciplinary documentation project on Chintang and Puma. Balthasar Bickel is co-director (with Johanna Nichols at UC Berkeley) of the AUTOTYP research program for typological databasing, and he serves on the editorial boards of Folia Linguistica and Himalayan Linguistics. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Association for Linguistic Typology and the Linguistic Advisory Board of the Documentation of Endangered Languages Program (DOBES). 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 kfeld at citrus.ucr.edu Mon Apr 13 20:45:44 2009 From: kfeld at citrus.ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:45:44 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Linguistics professor] Message-ID: I received this, and am sympathetic. But I have no idea of what to recommend. Perhaps someone on this list could be more helpful. Presumably the thing to do, if you have some suggestions (or need more information), is to write to Mr. Bohannon. Thanks much, David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Linguistics professor Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) From: To: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu References: <20090409095349.AMU84788 at mh2.ucr.edu> <49DEB1E0.7070500 at ucr.edu> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Dr. Kronenfeld, I appreciate your time and consideration. I have a friend in Iran who is interested in speaking to linguistics graduate students. I was wondering if you could tell me if there are any particular faculty members about this, or if you know any graduate students that might be interested. Again, thank you for your time. Darren Bohannon ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) I (DK) asked for more information, and received the following: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Thank you for your time, professor. We both really appreciate it! My friend sent this paragraph to me to clarify what exactly she wanted: Dear Sir, I am an Iranian student in English language. I would like to know more what kind of sources and books being studied in Linguistics for graduate students in M.A courses overseas, especially in English-speaking countries. I am heading to "Book Exhibition" held on Tehran, so I would very appreciate it if you can introduce those books which are being studied for M.A in Linguistics field. Best regards, Leila Taghavi Again, your efforts are greatly appreciated. -- David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department:http://Anthropology.ucr.edu/ Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From sweetser at berkeley.edu Mon Apr 13 20:56:10 2009 From: sweetser at berkeley.edu (Eve Sweetser) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:56:10 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Linguistics professor] In-Reply-To: <49E3A478.6010602@citrus.ucr.edu> Message-ID: It sounds to me as if this person should actually be contacting graduate advisors, who generally have a full picture of their departmental curriculum. I shall write her (being a departmental Head Grad Advisor). Eve Sweetser > I received this, and am sympathetic. But I have no idea of what to > recommend. Perhaps someone on this list could be more helpful. > Presumably the thing to do, if you have some suggestions (or need more > information), is to write to Mr. Bohannon. > > Thanks much, > David > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Linguistics professor > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) > From: > To: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu > References: <20090409095349.AMU84788 at mh2.ucr.edu> > <49DEB1E0.7070500 at ucr.edu> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1) > > Dr. Kronenfeld, > > I appreciate your time and consideration. I have a friend in Iran who is > interested in speaking to linguistics graduate students. I was wondering > if you could tell me if there are any particular faculty members about > this, or if you know any graduate students that might be interested. > Again, thank you for your time. > > Darren Bohannon > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2) > I (DK) asked for more information, and received the following: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 3) > > Thank you for your time, professor. We both really appreciate it! My > friend sent this paragraph to me > to clarify what exactly she wanted: > > Dear Sir, > > I am an Iranian student in English language. I would like to know more > what kind of sources and books > being studied in Linguistics for graduate students in M.A courses > overseas, especially in English-speaking > countries. I am heading to "Book Exhibition" held on Tehran, so I would > very appreciate it if you can > introduce those books which are being studied for M.A in Linguistics > field. > Best regards, > Leila Taghavi > > Again, your efforts are greatly appreciated. > > > > -- > David B. Kronenfeld Phone Office 951 827-4340 > Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 > University of California Fax 951 827-5409 > Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu > Department:http://Anthropology.ucr.edu/ > Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 21:45:43 2009 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:45:43 +0300 Subject: "control" in functionalist perspective and related questions Message-ID: Hi all, I've been reading, with much interest and to the detriment of dissertation-writing, the archives of this list. I want to pose a few questions which may have been asked and answered before, but I'd be grateful for any comments and/or references. Has anyone written a full-fledged functional analysis of "control" phenomena for any language or in typological perspective? It seems like all the pieces are there, from Giv?n's work on event integration and clause union, Haspelmath's frequentist explanations, and so on. There are two things that I wonder about especially: * To what does "control shift" or the fact that for a given verb, one can find both "subject control" and "object control", correlate in functional terms, cross-linguistically? Generative treatments seem to be silent on this. * With verbs like "beg (someone to do something)," would the "subject control" construction ("He begged me to join my team") be interpreted as causative, i.e., "to (let him) join my team"? And if so, would it be considered syntactically/actantially more complex than the "object control" construction ("He begged me to go with him")? Would the syntactic/actantial status of "me" be the same in both constructions? I'm interested in functional approaches that prefer "implicit argument" to "gap" or "zero" analyses, and how they would handle this sort of thing. I tend to think that if one applies Giv?n's work on manipulation verbs to this, one might arrive at concepts like "internal" vs. "external" manipulee (from the point of view of the target event/complement clause), the former for the "object control" construction, the latter for the "subject control" construction. This would reflect whether or not the manipulee is coreferential with the agent of the target event or not. * Has anyone tried to continue Giv?n's cross-linguistic studies of the * functional* aspects of formal oppositions between, e.g., more- and less-finite complements? What about between equally-finite constructions (e.g., two "infinitives" or two "subjunctives" that are found with the same verb lexeme?). * Has anyone offered a functional explanation for why languages might have a diachronically stable system in which one has both overt- and non-overt-subject complement constructions for verbs like "want" (see, for example, Haspelmath's article on "want" in WALS)? For example, a language with both "I want to go" and "I want that-I-go/for-me-to-go." If the answer is that there's a communicative interest in maintaining a difference in function, then what does one do with the fact that in other languages the diachrony played out differently, and either the overt-subject or the non-overt-subject construction was lost? There are some interesting treatments of this in the framework of Functional Grammar (e.g., Dik and Bolkestein), but they tend to replace formalism with formalism. I'm working on this problem in a language (Coptic), where the notion of "control" doesn't seem useful, since for the same verb one often finds both subject and object "control." Moreover, both more- and less-finite constructions are almost always found in the same environments, and here I don't refer just to typical "control" environments. Roughly, "I am ready to go/I am ready that-I-go," "He cannot go/He cannot that-he-go," "I want to go/I want that-I-go", etc., so there is no complementary distribution of the sort often discussed. It seems highly unlikely that this is "just" variation; rather, it looks like different functions are encoded by the different constructions. Interestingly and perhaps unsurprisingly, the diachrony of the various complement clause constructions is a pretty good diagnostic for the functional differences found. I apologize if the questions are half-baked or naive. I would be very grateful for any comments, and will gladly post a summary. Eitan From eitan.eg at gmail.com Thu Apr 16 16:07:21 2009 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:07:21 +0300 Subject: summary Message-ID: Hi all, I recently posted a question about functional analyses of "control," and received the following responses: Both Robert Van Valin and Chris Butler suggested looking at the RRG treatment of "control" in Van Valin and LaPolla 1997 (Syntax: structure, meaning and function, CUP), chapters 8 and 9, and in Van Valin 2005 (Exploring the syntax-semantics interface, CUP), chapters 6 and 7. Chris Butler pointed out Francisco Gonz?lvez-Garc?a's work on Giv?n's Binding Hierarchy, in: Gonz?lvez-Garc?a, F. (2001). ?A contrastive analysis of Giv?n?s complement binding hierarchy in English and Spanish?. In A. Gomis Van Heteren, M. Mart?nez L?pez, C. Portero Mu?oz and C. Wallhead (eds.), *First International Conference on English Studies: Past, Present and Future*. Almer?a: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Almer?a, 121-136. There is extensive discussion of relevant bibliography of the binding hierarchy. Talmy Giv?n referred me to his forthcoming book *The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution* (John Benjamins, 2009). Some of those who responded were kind enough to send me articles and book chapters, for which I am very grateful. Thanks to all who answered! Once I process these recommendations, I will write a more substantive summary. Eitan From peter_jacobs at squamish.net Thu Apr 16 16:54:52 2009 From: peter_jacobs at squamish.net (Peter Jacobs) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:54:52 -0700 Subject: "control" of a different type Message-ID: Hi all, I'm writing to you all about a different type of "control" which I am researching for my dissertation. I'm writing to you all to see if there are other language families or individual languages that have the "control" phenomena as is found in Salish languages of the Pacific Northwest of North America. The standard description of this distinction, which takes place in the (in)transitivizing system, is as follows: 1) chen kwelash-t ta mixalh I shoot-ctr det bear (ctr = control transitivizer, det= determiner) "I shot the bear (intentionally)" 2) chen kwelash-nexw ta mixalh I shoot-lctr det bear (lctr = limited control transitivizer) "I shot bear, I managed to shoot the bear, I accidentally shot the bear." The term "control" is used instead of "volitionality" because in (2) the agent?/subject could well intend and carry out the action of shooting, but just have more than usual difficulty in completing it. They had "limited control" in completing the action. The context for the "accidental" reading, with this sentence at least, could be where someone was intending to shoot to scare the bear away but not to hit it, but then they accidentally shot it. The "accidental" meaning occurs more naturally with some predicates than with others (e.g. xewtl'-nexw break, mu-nexw drop, etc.). One further wrinkle is that the "control" sentences can felicitously be cancelled, while the "limited control" ones can't. So if we add a clause saying "but I missed it" we obtain two different readings: 3) chen kwelash-t ta mixalh, welh chen t'emt'am I shoot-ctr det bear but I missed "I shot (at) the bear, but I missed." 4) *chen kwelash-nexw ta mixalh, welh chen t'emt'am I shoot-lctr det bear but I missed "I shot the bear, but I missed." All the various "control" forms (transitive, intransitive, reflexive, reciprocal) can be cancelled felicitously, but the "limited control" can't. So, I am writing you all to see if such a system exists elsewhere, and if it's documented and even better, analyzed. I am aware of something similar in Austronesian, and I have seen something which looks to be similar in Hindi. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I will post a summary. Chen kw'enmantumiyap (thank you all), Peter Jacobs Skwxw?7mesh Uxwumixw (Squamish Nation) Ns7eyxnitm ta Snew'?yelh (Department of Education) peter_jacobs at squamish.net Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you. From tpayne at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 16 23:49:36 2009 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:49:36 -0700 Subject: Books available for Review in Studies in Language -- update Message-ID: An updated list of books available for review in Studies in Language has been posted at: http://www.uoregon.edu/~tpayne/BooksAvailable-4-09.pdf I would like to remind readers that reviewers will be selected according to their qualifications, and the appropriateness of the books requested to the potential reviewer's areas of expertise. For that reason, I am requesting a brief statement of why you would like to review the book you are requesting and a link to a CV or other webpage that indicates your qualifications. I will also need a valid postal address where I may send the book Thank you very much for your understanding. Thomas E. Payne Review Editor Studies in Language http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=SL From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 20 18:14:13 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:14:13 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title - Bar=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F0dal/Chelliah:?= The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case Message-ID: The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic, and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case Edited by J?hanna Bar?dal and Shobhana L. Chelliah University of Bergen / University of North Texas Studies in Language Companion Series 108 2009. xx, 432 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0575 9 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 [] e-Book ? Not yet available 978 90 272 8992 6 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 The aim of this volume is to bring non-syntactic factors in the development of case into the eye of the research field, by illustrating the integral role of pragmatics, semantics, and discourse structure in the historical development of morphologically marked case systems. The articles represent fifteen typologically diverse languages from four different language families: (i) Indo-European: Vedic Sanskrit, Russian, Greek, Latin, Latvian, Gothic, French, German, Icelandic, and Faroese; (ii) Tibeto-Burman, especially the Bodic languages and Meithei; (iii) Japanese; and (iv) the Pama-Nyungan mixed language Gurindji Kriol. The data also show considerable diversity and include elicited, archival, corpus-based, and naturally occurring data. Discussions of mechanisms where change is obtained include semantically and aspectually motivated synchronic case variation, discourse motivated subject marking, reduction or expansion of case marker distribution, case syncretism motivated by semantics, syntax, or language contact, and case splits motivated by pragmatics, metonymy, and subjectification. ---------- Table of contents List of contributors vii?viii Introduction: The role of semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors in the development of case J?hanna Bar?dal and Shobhana L. Chelliah ix?xx Part I. Semantically and aspectually motivated synchronic case variation Case variation in Gothic absolute constructions Tonya Kim Dewey and Yasmin Syed 3?21 Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in Early Vedic Eystein Dahl 23?55 Part II. Discourse motivated subject marking The case of the shifty ergative marker: A pragmatic shift in the ergative marker of one Australian mixed language Felicity Meakins 59?91 How useful is case morphology? The loss of the Old French two-case system within a theory of Preferred Argument structure Ulrich Detges 93?120 Part III. Reduction or expansion of case marker distribution The development of case in Germanic J?hanna Bar?dal 123?159 A usage-based approach to change: Old Russian possessive constructions Hanne Martine Eckhoff 161?180 Lacking in Latvian: Case variation from a cognitive and constructional perspective Sturla Berg-Olsen 181?202 Verb classes and dative objects in Insular Scandinavian J?hannes G?sli J?nsson 203?224 Transitive adjectives in Japanese Daniela Caluianu 225?257 Part IV. Case syncretism motivated by syntax, semantics or language contact Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages Michael Noonan 261?282 The evolution of local cases and their grammatical equivalent in Greek and Latin Silvia Luraghi 283?305 Argument structure and alignment variations and changes in Late Latin Michela Cennamo 307?346 Case loss in Texas German: The influence of semantic and pragmatic factors Hans C. Boas 347?373 Part V. Case splits motivated by pragmatics, metonymy and subjectification Semantic role to new information in Meithei Shobhana L. Chelliah 377?400 From less personal to more personal: Subjectification of ni-marked NPs in Japanese discourse Misumi Sadler 401?422 Author index 423?426 Subject index 427?432 ---------- "This volume is an important collection of in-depth studies dealing with case evolution, case variation, case syncretism and case loss in a variety of languages. As contributions to the volume convincingly show, the evolution of case systems cannot be explained in syntactic terms exclusively, but it is guided by a variety of factors among which semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors play an important role. The volume contributes not only to the field of historical linguistics but also to linguistic theory insofar as it extends the scope of usage-based theories to diachronic studies." Andrej Malchukov, Max Planck Institute, Leipzig "This volume brings together empirically rich studies on how factors of syntactic structure, discourse usage, and lexical valency shape the development of case marking in various languages around the world. The diachronic orientation of this research fits well with the 'historical turn' that characterizes modern typology, and the present volume therefore provides a key resource for future research on the typology of case marking and alignment." Balthasar Bickel, University of Leipzig 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 paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 20 18:10:55 2009 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:10:55 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title - Newman: The linguistics of Eating and Drinking Message-ID: The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking Edited by John Newman University of Alberta Typological Studies in Language 84 2009. xii, 280 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 2998 4 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 [] e-Book ? Not yet available 978 90 272 9015 1 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 This volume reviews a range of fascinating linguistic facts about ingestive predicates in the world's languages. The highly multifaceted nature of 'eat' and 'drink' events gives rise to interesting clausal properties of these predicates, such as the atypicality of transitive constructions involving 'eat' and 'drink' in some languages. The two verbs are also sources for a large number of figurative uses across languages with meanings such as 'destroy', and 'savour', as well as participating in a great variety of idioms which can be quite opaque semantically. Grammaticalized extensions of these predicates also occur, such as the quantificational use of Hausa shaa 'drink' meaning (roughly) 'do X frequently, regularly'. Specialists discuss details of the use of these verbs in a variety of languages and language families: Australian languages, Papuan languages, Athapaskan languages, Japanese, Korean, Hausa, Amharic, Hindi-Urdu, and Marathi. ---------- Table of contents Preface vii?xii A cross-linguistic overview of 'eat' and 'drink' John Newman 1?26 How transitive are 'eat' and 'drink' verbs? ?shild N?ss 27?43 Quirky alternations of transitivity: The case of ingestive predicates Mengistu Amberber 45?63 All people eat and drink. Does this mean that 'eat' and 'drink' are universal human concepts? Anna Wierzbicka 65?89 'Eating', 'drinking' and 'smoking': A generic verb and its semantics in Manambu Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald 91?108 Athapaskan eating and drinking verbs and constructions Sally Rice 109?152 The semantic evolution of 'eat'-expressions: Ways and byways Peter Edwin Hook and Prashant Pardeshi 153?172 Literal and figurative uses of Japanese 'eat' and 'drink' Toshiko Yamaguchi 173?193 What (not) to eat or drink: Metaphor and metonymy of eating and drinking in Korean Jae Jung Song 195?227 Metaphorical extensions of 'eat' --> [OVERCOME] and 'drink' --> [UNDERGO] in Hausa Philip J. Jaggar and Malami Buba 229?251 Amharic 'eat' and 'drink' verbs John Newman and Daniel Aberra 253?271 Author index 273?275 Language index 277?278 Subject index 279?280 ---------- "This volume is the third in a set edited by John Newman exploring the conceptualizations of basic and universal human activities such as giving; sitting, standing and lying; and eating and drinking, and the effects they have on language development: how they are coded, and what sorts of metaphorically-based grammaticalizations develop from the forms used to code these activities. This work is important in that it looks at fine details of structure and conceptualization in several languages not often covered in standard grammars, and adds greatly to the literature on ethnosyntax, that is, literature establishing the connections among cognition, social behaviour, and linguistic structure. In that it will be of value not only to linguists, but to anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists as well." Randy J. LaPolla, La Trobe University 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 akbari_r at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 16:12:17 2009 From: akbari_r at yahoo.com (Ramin Akbari) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:12:17 -0700 Subject: International applied linguistics conference: second call for papers Message-ID: Second call for papers ? The International Conference on Applied Linguistics: Developments, Challenges, and Promises will be held in Tehran ?s ( Iran ) ?Milad Tower Conference Hall on September 26-27, 2009. The conference aims at exploring some vital issues in applied linguistics that have shaped, and are still shaping the identity of the profession. Applied linguists from across the globe are invited to contribute to a lively debate that would include ideas from some of the prominent figures of the field. ? Different themes will be explored in the course of the two-day conference: applied linguistics and its definitions; globalization and its impact on ELT; applied linguistics and English as the world?s lingua franca; post method era and teacher qualifications; research debates in applied linguistics ?. ? The keynote speakers for the conference are (alphabetically arranged): ? Professor Guy Cook, The Open University Professor Hossein Farhady, American University of Armenia Professor Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney Professor Barbara Seidlhofer, University of Vienna Professor Henry Widdowson, University of Vienna ? Pre-conference workshop (September 25): Alternative assessment: Dr. Chirstine Coombe, Higher College of Technology, UAE ? The deadline for abstract submission is June 14, 2009. Notification of acceptance will be sent by July 10. Early registration deadline is August 5; all the participants whose papers have been accepted must register before the deadline. ? To submit an abstract, please visit the conference website at: www.appliedlinguistics.ir ? For any queries, please contact me at: akbari_ram at yahoo.com ? Ramin Akbari Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics Department of ELT Tarbiat Modares University Tehran Iran From c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk Wed Apr 22 18:49:15 2009 From: c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:49:15 +0100 Subject: First CFP - 3rd UK Cognitive Linguistics Papers Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - 3rd UK COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS CONFERENCE (UK-CLC3) CONFERENCE WEBSITE: http://uk-clc3.org The third UK Cognitive Linguistics conference (UK-CLC3) will take place at the University of Hertfordshire, over three days: 6-8th inclusive, July 2010. The conference theme is meaning, mind and (social) reality. The following distinguished scholars will be giving keynote lectures relating to aspects of the conference theme: Professor William Croft (University of New Mexico, USA) Professor Ewa Dabrowska (University of Sheffield, UK) Professor John Lucy (University of Chicago, USA) Professor Peter Stockwell (University of Nottingham, UK) Professor Gabriella Vigliocco (University College London, UK) We now invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. These include but are by no means limited to: Domains and frame semantics Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy Metaphor and metonymy Mental spaces and conceptual blending Cognitive and construction grammar Embodiment and language acquisition Language evolution and language change Language use and linguistic relativity Cognitive linguistics is an inherently interdisciplinary enterprise which is broadly concerned with the connection between language and cognition in relation to body, culture and contexts of use. We are therefore especially interested in interdisciplinary research ? theoretical, empirical, applied - that combines theories and methods from across the cognitive, biological and social sciences. These include but are not limited to: Linguistics Anthropology Evolution Paleoanthropology Primatology Neuroscience Cognitive and developmental psychology (Critical) Discourse and Communication studies Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for question. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be sent by email as a Word attachment to c.j.hart at herts.ac.uk by 15 December 2009. The document should contain presentation title, the abstract and preference for paper or poster presentation. Please DO NOT include information identifying the author(s) in the email attachment. Author(s) information including name, affiliation and email address(es) should be detailed in the body of the email. All abstracts will be subject to peer review by an international Scientific Committee. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by February 15th 2010. Presenters will be invited to submit papers based on the conference theme for an edited volume to be published by Equinox Publishing Co. in the Advances in Cognitive Linguistics series. Accepted papers will be subject to peer-review. Keep up-to-date by bookmarking and checking the conference website regularly: http://uk-clc3.org. For details of the UK-CLA see: www.uk-cla.org.uk . -- Christopher Hart Lecturer in English Language and Communication School of Humanities University of Hertfordshire www.go.herts.ac.uk/cjhart From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Apr 23 14:13:19 2009 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:13:19 +0300 Subject: 'substantial surprise' Message-ID: Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Apr 23 14:22:15 2009 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:22:15 +0300 Subject: correction Message-ID: Please, replace 'Proto-Tamil' by 'Proto-Dravidian'. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 16:46:38 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:46:38 -0600 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Esa, I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as against substantive/functional) that "universals" are observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to evolution & child language development, the most powerful developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to my mind, somewhat self-defeating. One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and related species may adopt different solutions, each having both advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on the subject. In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing mirage. Best, TG ================= Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". > > In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus > t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. > > How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." > > In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) > > This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. > > To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > From dlevere at ilstu.edu Thu Apr 23 17:24:39 2009 From: dlevere at ilstu.edu (Daniel L. Everett) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:24:39 -0500 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <49F09B6E.2050605@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tomas, I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. All the best, Dan On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Dear Esa, > > I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will > try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you > quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. > > I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals > go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on > apriori definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme > Bloomfieldian position assumes that universals must be concrete > SURFACE FEATURES of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY > PRINCIPLES that govern the distribution of surface features. The > extreme Chomsakian position makes the facts themselves so abstract > and so formal (as against substantive/functional) that "universals" > are observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is > one useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The > insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features > that must appear in all languages, but rather controlling > "principles & parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in > my view apt, distinction between "factual generalizations" and > "theoretical statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, > that Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from > real (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian > universals are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. > > It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, > biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle > ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been > espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals > are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; > "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that > underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the > diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary > and molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles > in biology. In biology, these universals of development account for > the distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to > evolution & child language development, the most powerful > developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete > surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of > Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, > to my mind, somewhat self-defeating. > > One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is > the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single > exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This > again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based > complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are > strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because > biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between > conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive > principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & > mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually > more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and > related species may adopt different solutions, each having both > advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a > range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative > task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. > > Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about > surface features, but the controlling principles of the > developmental processes that create complex systems. Diachronic > change behaves, in this regard, very much like biological evolution > (see ch. 3 of my 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), > and produces seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. > Speaking of old books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) > "Where does crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how > diachrony can often produced counter-universal surface features. My > 2000 paper "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a > TSL volume edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of > seeming violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the > Athabaskan (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent > discussion on the subject. > > In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a > regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based > approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics > for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do > not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical > generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of > the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am > afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the > Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for well- > understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives availably > to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and Chomsky, a > real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing mirage. > > Best, TG > > ================= > > > Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self- >> evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >> guarantees substantial surprises". >> >> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but >> neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient >> Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is >> assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil >> had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has >> eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this >> rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn >> that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by >> the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is >> further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as >> Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping >> extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical >> sentence is jus >> t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite >> verb) as the only inflecting one. >> >> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that >> all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This >> could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >> >> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be >> more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper >> (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by >> two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO >> claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >> insanity.) >> >> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/ >> discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have >> dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. >> This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has >> more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the >> referees' opinion. >> >> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine >> surprise" ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page >> (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable >> and optional endings" (2003). >> >> Esa >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Thu Apr 23 17:58:26 2009 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:58:26 -0700 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Esa Itkonen, Thanks for this interesting posting. I will go to your site to download the paper. Without having read it yet, one explanation has occurred to me: The language may have been highly fusional to begin with, so that each sentence was really a single word. Then as the parts became more independent, each separate word acquired its own inflection... The inflections may have already existed, because in a prior part of the linguistic cycle the language was less fusional. So the development may have been: agglutinative ---> fusional --> inflectional To get a full circle, you'd need to add this: inflectional --> isolating --> agglutinative. Some languages have a history of coming full circle. But even if we don't see a full circle, this is how the cycle goes, a la Dixon. It's a unidrectional progression -- but it cycles! Best, --Aya On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still guarantees substantial surprises". > > In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence is jus > t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) as the only inflecting one. > > How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." > > In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on insanity.) > > This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to the referees' opinion. > > To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and optional endings" (2003). > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 19:11:33 2009 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:11:33 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query Message-ID: Hi all, My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We are an English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and Anthropological Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of fluency (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second and third year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course and no other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our graduates tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- or Socio- Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public schools here in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or Sociolinguistics. My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much as that might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral I am thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a "theory" free course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one member who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead in the spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like to ask: 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have used or are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in linguistics; 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" course vs. a "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked particularly well? Thank you for time, Shannon From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Apr 23 19:53:10 2009 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:53:10 -0800 Subject: intro to syntax query Message-ID: Here at CSUSB, we are five linguists also in an English dept. Our graduate lingusitics courses are discourse and pragmatics centered. The original linguist who designed the "English Syntax" course did so because she felt deficient in theoretical (i.e., Chomskyan) syntax because it was not covered in her grad program at Berkeley. I have tried to a couple times over the years to teach formal syntax, but ulimately gave it up because I simply could not see the relevance. We have now changed the course's name to English Grammar II and use George Yule's semantically-based grammar text, which has its flaws but does spark inquiry. Wendy Smith From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 20:18:38 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:18:38 -0600 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dan. Alas, the article is not yet published, and is not available on the web, leastwise not to me. The only thing I could get was an abstract (courtesy of my friend Phil Young, who knows how to get to those elusive items); and having read the abstract I (so far) don't see anything there that would suggest the article's orientation is other than what Esa suggested. I am of course looking forward to reading the full article, as obviously we all should. And of course, it is not exactly surprising you like the article, given what you have been saying about Piraha. Best, TG ========== Daniel L. Everett wrote: > Tomas, > > I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a > BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, > critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. > > The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite > convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. > > In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more > important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of > the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. > > I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other > readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. > > All the best, > > Dan > > > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Dear Esa, >> >> I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will >> try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you >> quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. >> >> I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals >> go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori >> definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian >> position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES >> of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that >> govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian >> position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as >> against substantive/functional) that "universals" are >> observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one >> useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The >> insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that >> must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & >> parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, >> distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical >> statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that >> Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real >> (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals >> are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. >> >> It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, >> biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle >> ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been >> espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals >> are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; >> "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that >> underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the >> diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and >> molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in >> biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the >> distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to >> evolution & child language development, the most powerful >> developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete >> surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of >> Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to >> my mind, somewhat self-defeating. >> >> One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is >> the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single >> exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This >> again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based >> complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are >> strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because >> biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between >> conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive >> principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & >> mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually >> more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and >> related species may adopt different solutions, each having both >> advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a >> range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative >> task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about >> surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental >> processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in >> this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my >> 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces >> seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old >> books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does >> crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can >> often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper >> "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume >> edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming >> violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan >> (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on >> the subject. >> >> In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a >> regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based >> approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics >> for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do >> not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical >> generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of >> the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am >> afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the >> Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for >> well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives >> availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and >> Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing >> mirage. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================= >> >> >> Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >>> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >>> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >>> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most >>> self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >>> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >>> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >>> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >>> guarantees substantial surprises". >>> >>> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >>> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected >>> one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. >>> Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to >>> have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or >>> eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if >>> benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather >>> unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that >>> case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >>> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >>> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the >>> (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further >>> confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas >>> Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends >>> to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence >>> is jus >>> t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= finite verb) >>> as the only inflecting one. >>> >>> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all >>> existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could >>> be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >>> >>> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more >>> widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in >>> 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two >>> referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >>> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed >>> it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >>> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >>> insanity.) >>> >>> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >>> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >>> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of >>> inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I >>> have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite >>> view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it >>> has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to >>> the referees' opinion. >>> >>> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" >>> ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click >>> below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and >>> optional endings" (2003). >>> >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >>> >>> >> >> > From hopper at cmu.edu Thu Apr 23 23:14:38 2009 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:14:38 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Shannon, The problem is always: how to cram some real grammatical knowledge into a single semester without skimping on theory. I don't think Chomskyan approaches can accomplish this, as the theoretical prerequisites are too demanding of time. I regularly teach a master's degree course called "Rhetorical Grammar" using my own textbook (A Short Course in Grammar, W W Norton, 1999). This is about as theory-neutral a treatment as you can get and still have a technical syntactic orientation. It is monostratal in approach and makes use of Mickey Noonan's "form-function diagrams", a revealing way of simultaneously displaying syntactic forms and sentence-level functions. It assumes a single semester. The book has been quite widely used. I'll be happy to answer questions and send you sample chapters as Word files. - Paul Hopper > Here at CSUSB, we are five linguists also in an English dept. Our > graduate lingusitics courses are discourse and pragmatics centered. The > original linguist who designed the "English Syntax" course did so because > she felt deficient in theoretical (i.e., Chomskyan) syntax because it was > not covered in her grad program at Berkeley. I have tried to a couple > times over the years to teach formal syntax, but ulimately gave it up > because I simply could not see the relevance. We have now changed the > course's name to English Grammar II and use George Yule's > semantically-based grammar text, which has its flaws but does spark > inquiry. Wendy Smith > > > -- Prof. Dr. Paul J. Hopper Senior Fellow Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies Albert-Ludwigs-Universit?t Freiburg Albertstr. 19 D-79104 Freiburg and Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 From ken.grammar at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 02:50:04 2009 From: ken.grammar at gmail.com (Ken Manson) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:50:04 +1000 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <49F0CD1E.4080805@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, A preprint of the article is available online at http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_pr eprint.pdf. Regards Ken -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Tom Givon Sent: Friday, 24 April 2009 6:19 AM To: Daniel L. Everett Cc: Esa Itkonen; Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] 'substantial surprise' Thanks, Dan. Alas, the article is not yet published, and is not available on the web, leastwise not to me. The only thing I could get was an abstract (courtesy of my friend Phil Young, who knows how to get to those elusive items); and having read the abstract I (so far) don't see anything there that would suggest the article's orientation is other than what Esa suggested. I am of course looking forward to reading the full article, as obviously we all should. And of course, it is not exactly surprising you like the article, given what you have been saying about Piraha. Best, TG ========== Daniel L. Everett wrote: > Tomas, > > I think it would be better to read the article first. Moreover, as a > BBS target article, it will have many, many published comments, > critical and supportive, accompanying it when it comes out. > > The article is not naive and it does comment, I think quite > convincingly, on the reasoning linking surface vs. deeper traits. > > In fact, I would go so far as to rate this article as one of the more > important pieces to appear in the field in years, written by one of > the best fieldworkers and one of the best psycholinguists around. > > I agree with some of your caveats below, but I urge you and other > readers of this list to have a careful look at the article. > > All the best, > > Dan > > > > On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:46 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Dear Esa, >> >> I don't have the original Evans/Levinson BBS article, which I will >> try to obtain ASAP. So the following is based on the assumption you >> quoted them--and yourself-- accurately. >> >> I must say that these picky laments about (the demise of) universals >> go back to (at least) Bloomfield, and are really dependent on apriori >> definitions, or a philosophical stance. The extreme Bloomfieldian >> position assumes that universals must be concrete SURFACE FEATURES >> of language, rather than CONTROLLING/EXPLANATORY PRINCIPLES that >> govern the distribution of surface features. The extreme Chomsakian >> position makes the facts themselves so abstract and so formal (as >> against substantive/functional) that "universals" are >> observed--really, posited--virtually by fiat. Still, there is one >> useful element one could extract from Chomsky's extremism: The >> insistence that universal are not just concrete surface features that >> must appear in all languages, but rather controlling "principles & >> parameters". This is fully in line with Carnap's, in my view apt, >> distinction between "factual generalizations" and "theoretical >> statements". So far so good. The problem is, of course, that >> Chomsky's P&Ps are abstract, non-substantive and divorced from real >> (Carnapian) factual generalizations. Above all, Chomskian universals >> are of EXTANT STATE states rather than DEVELOPMENT. >> >> It would be useful to point out that there is a middle-ground, >> biologically-based alternative to our view of universals, a middle >> ground that has existed at least since H. Paul, and has been >> espoused, at least in late life, by Joe Greenberg: That universals >> are NOT concrete surface features ("all living beings have cells"; >> "all languages have verbs"), but rather more general principles that >> underlie the phylogeny and ontogeny--and for language, the >> diachrony--of the distribution of all surface forms. Evolutionary and >> molecular biology are constructed to elucidate those principles in >> biology. In biology, these universals of development account for the >> distribution of surface forms. In linguistics, in addition to >> evolution & child language development, the most powerful >> developmental process that explains the distribution of concrete >> surface forms is DIACHRONY. So talking about the distribution of >> Tamil forms without understanding the diachrony of those forms is, to >> my mind, somewhat self-defeating. >> >> One more philosophical/definistional element in this discussion is >> the notion that universals must be 100%, either or. A single >> exception throws out a strong statistical tendency (say 99.9%). This >> again flies in the face of what is known about biologically-based >> complex systems, where most surface-feature generalizations are >> strong statistical tendencies rather than 100%. This is so because >> biological systems & behaviors are adaptive compromises between >> conflicting tho equally valid general ('universal') adaptive >> principles. As Ernst Mayr observed long ago, only physics & >> mathematics have exceptionless laws. What is more, there is usually >> more than one possible solution to an adaptive imperative, and >> related species may adopt different solutions, each having both >> advantages & drawbacks. Language typology reveals exactly that--a >> range of possible ways of solving the same adaptive-communicative >> task, each having adaptive advantages and disadvantages. >> >> Again, what is universal is/are not 100% generalizations about >> surface features, but the controlling principles of the developmental >> processes that create complex systems. Diachronic change behaves, in >> this regard, very much like biological evolution (see ch. 3 of my >> 2008 book "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity"), and produces >> seemingly-conflicting, oft puzzling surface facts. Speaking of old >> books, ch. 6 of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979) "Where does >> crazy syntax comes from?" is dedicated to showing how diachrony can >> often produced counter-universal surface features. My 2000 paper >> "Internal reconstruction:" As method, as theory" (in a TSL volume >> edited by Spike Gildea) discusses a monumental case of seeming >> violations of well-known synchronic generalization in the Athabaskan >> (Tolowa) verb complex. Bern Heine has also some recent discussion on >> the subject. >> >> In sum, I think the position you attribute to Evans/Levinson is a >> regrettable throwback to non-biologically- based, non-process-based >> approach to "surface universals" that has been dogging linguistics >> for a long time. For as long as functionally-oriented linguists do >> not strive to produce, in Carnap's words, "theoretical >> generalizations" that are explanatory rather than mere summaries of >> the fact (thus really Carnap's "factual generalizations"), I am >> afraid we will continue to cede the field of "theory" to the >> Chomskians, who have of course botched it royally, for >> well-understood reasons. And as long as the only alternatives >> availably to us are the two extreme positions of Bloomfield and >> Chomsky, a real understanding of universals will remain a tantalizing >> mirage. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================= >> >> >> Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters: Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson have written >>> an important article 'The myth of language universals' (Behavioral >>> and Brain Sciences). Their thesis is that our knowledge of >>> linguistic diversity is far from complete. Even the most >>> self-evident generalizations may be, and are, falsified. On two >>> occasions they mention the fact that one way to express sentence >>> negation in Ancient Tamil is by means of zero (i.e. lack of tense >>> marker). In brief, "almost every new language description still >>> guarantees substantial surprises". >>> >>> In fact, it need not even be a NEW language description which >>> produces a substantial surprise, it can also be an old but neglected >>> one. Again, interestingly, we have to do with Ancient Tamil. >>> Proto-Tamil (from which Ancient Tamil had descended) is assumed to >>> have had at least four inflecting cases, Ancient Tamil had seven (or >>> eight if vocative counts too), and Modern Tamil has eight (if >>> benefactive in N-DAT-aaka does not count). Against this rather >>> unexceptional background it is rather surprising to learn that >>> case-endings could be, and were, either interchanged or simply >>> dropped in Ancient Tamil. There can be no doubt about this fact. It >>> is directly documented by all existing texts; it is confirmed by the >>> (two thousand years old) grammar Tolkaappiyam; and it is further >>> confirmed by such living authorities on Ancient Tamil as Thomas >>> Lehmann and Asko Parpola. This phenomenon of suffix-dropping extends >>> to non-finite verbs as well, with the result that a typical sentence >>> is jus t a string of uninflected roots, with the final word (= >>> finite verb) as the only inflecting one. >>> >>> How can this phenomenon be explained? Is it due to the fact that all >>> existing texts are poems? When asked, Lehmann replied: "This could >>> be the answer", while Parpola shrugged: "Nobody knows." >>> >>> In any case, this phenomenon is surely interesting enough to be more >>> widely known (or so I naively thought). Hence, I wrote a paper (in >>> 2003) and sent it to a typological journal. It was rejected by two >>> referees both of whom declared the phenomenon in question to be >>> impossible.(And, believe it or not, one of the referees ALSO claimed >>> it to be thoroughly common, and even one that occurs in the >>> author's, i.e. my, native language, i.e. Finnish, which borders on >>> insanity.) >>> >>> This was not the first time that my ideology has clashed with that >>> of referees. I do not see the value of repeating what has been said >>> hundreds of times before; rather, I see the value of >>> inventing/discovering something new. 90% of the referees with whom I >>> have dealt with during the last 35 years or so, hold the opposite >>> view. This is why, if my contribution has been accepted at all, it >>> has more often than not been accepted by the editor and contary to >>> the referees' opinion. >>> >>> To sum up, this phenomenon is real; it provides a "genuine surprise" >>> ? la Evans & Levinson; and it can be read on my home-page (click >>> below) under the title "A case system with interchangeable and >>> optional endings" (2003). >>> >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >>> >>> >> >> > From pyoung at uoregon.edu Fri Apr 24 03:32:28 2009 From: pyoung at uoregon.edu (Phil Young) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:32:28 -0700 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <1D64D79618454C07B0C8645FA899B7F6@klap> Message-ID: Thanks Ken. When I checked earlier in the day I got a message saying the preprint was no longer available because the period for offering to comment had expired. None of the sites that came up in Google gave me this URL. Cheers, Phil Young pyoung at uoregon.edu From kemmer at rice.edu Fri Apr 24 03:53:36 2009 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:53:36 -0500 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: <1D64D79618454C07B0C8645FA899B7F6@klap> Message-ID: Hi all, The paper in .pdf format is at the weblink given by Ken Manson, although note that you have to put the entire URL on one line: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_preprint.pdf This discussion is a great illustration of how it's easy to talk at cross-purposes. Tom's right if we read the abstract one way, but then looking at the paper, you see that in the context of the paper the abstract makes sense in a different way. From the abstract: "there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. .... While there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition. " The last sentence is precisely how functionalists WOULD explain significant recurrent patterns in organization-- but we'd also take these significant recurrent patterns as exactly what WE call the universals (implicational, statistical, diachronic, etc.) of language. Once you read the paper's introduction, it becomes clear that the authors are arguing against Chomsky's view of structural universals, which they point out is the assumed one in psycholinguistics--and that is the basis of comparison (for "better explained") that is not explicated in the abstract. It is so disappointing that whole careers of research dismantling these abstract and mutable "universals" in favor of a more realistic, and to us much more exciting, conception of universals--one that actually relates to the mind and to culture, communication, and history-- still hasn't seemed to have touched a lot of psychology and cognitive science. I'll copy the abstract and the first paragraph of the introduction. The paper is very much worth reading despite its framing of the issue in this way. The horse never dies, however often it's beaten. As to how this article might affect cognitive science--I don't know if "plac[ing] diversity at center-stage" is going to resonate as much as a Chomskyan view, since the aims of cognitive science harmonize much better, I think, with a search for universals of the human mind--it is a powerful idea stressing common humanity. The focus ought to be on both universality and diversity at the same time, as functional typology insists, but it's probably too hard to get a whole field like cognitive science NOT to focus on one side of the coin (especially given how hard it is even to get across a proper conception of universals.) Suzanne --------- The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science Nicholas Evans and Stephen Levinson To be published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (in press) ? Cambridge University Press 2009 (unedited, uncorrected final draft of a BBS target article that has been accepted for publication. This preprint has been prepared for potential commentators who wish to nominate themselves for formal commentary invitation. Please DO NOT write a commentary until you receive a formal invitation. If you are invited to submit a commentary, a copyedited, corrected version of this paper will be posted.) Abstract: Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective. The article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are, once we honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world?s 6-8000 languages. After surveying the various uses of ?universal?, we illustrate the ways languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organization, then examine in more detail the core grammatical machinery of recursion, constituency, and grammatical relations. While there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition. Linguistic diversity then becomes the crucial datum for cognitive science: we are the only species with a communication system which is fundamentally variable at all levels. Recognising the true extent of structural diversity in human language opens up exciting new research directions for cognitive scientists, offering thousands of different natural experiments given by different languages, with new opportunities for dialogue with biological paradigms concerned with change and diversity, and confronting us with the extraordinary plasticity of the highest human skills. 1. Introduction ?According to Chomsky, a visiting Martian scientist would surely conclude that aside from their mutually unintelligible vocabularies, Earthlings speak a single language? (Pinker 1994, p.232) Languages are much more diverse in structure than cognitive scientists generally appreciate. A widespread assumption among cognitive scientists, growing out of the generative tradition in linguistics, is that all languages are English-like, but with different sound systems and vocabularies. The true picture is very different: languages differ so fundamentally from one another at every level of description (sound, grammar, lexicon, meaning) that it is very hard to find any single structural property they share. The claims of Universal Grammar, we will argue, are either empirically false, unfalsifiable, or misleading in that they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals. Structural differences should instead be accepted for what they are, and integrated into a new approach to language and cognition that places diversity at centre stage. The rest is at: http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/Evans-08042008/Referees/Evans-08042008_preprint.pdf --------- From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Apr 24 04:02:01 2009 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:02:01 +0200 Subject: 'substantial surprise' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Aya, just a brief comment: This (how we call it) Grand Cycle is not necessarily unidirectional, as shown e.g. by Ossetian (North East Iranian) and Tokharian, both languages that have shifted from basically inflectional to agglutinating, without passing through the stage of 'isolating' (most likely motivated by language contact, I have to admit)... Best wishes, Wolfgang A. Katz schrieb: > (...) The language may have been highly fusional to begin with, so > that each sentence was really a single word. Then as the parts became > more independent, each separate word acquired its own inflection... > The inflections may have already existed, because in a prior part of > the linguistic cycle the language was less fusional. > > So the development may have been: > > agglutinative ---> fusional --> inflectional > > > To get a full circle, you'd need to add this: > > inflectional --> isolating --> agglutinative. > > Some languages have a history of coming full circle. But even if we > don't see a full circle, this is how the cycle goes, a la Dixon. It's > a unidrectional progression -- but it cycles! > > Best, > > --Aya > > -- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 Postanschrift / Postal address: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 // 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / Katedra Germanistik? Fakulta humanitn?ch vied Univerzita Mateja B?la / Bansk? Bystrica Tajovsk?ho 40 SK-97401 Bansk? Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr Fri Apr 24 10:35:18 2009 From: vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr (Alice Vittrant) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35:18 +0200 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <1c1f75a20904231211w2dc88f64r27be41c4f808b551@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Shannon, dear funknetters, - Teaching syntax in a Linguistic Department in Universit? de Porvence, I (and my colleagues) use different books (french and english ones). For non native english speaker, I would recommand Paul R.KROEGER's books ("Analyzing grammar : an introduction" and "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE) although it is more 'practical' than 'theorical' (with exercices at the end of each chapter). Alice Vittrant Le 23 avr. 09 ? 21:11, s.t. bischoff a ?crit : > Hi all, > > My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We > are an > English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one > Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and > Anthropological > Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of > fluency > (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second > and third > year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course > and no > other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our > graduates > tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- > or Socio- > Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public > schools here > in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or > Sociolinguistics. > My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our > community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much > as that > might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral > I am > thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An > Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a > "theory" free > course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one > member > who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead > in the > spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler > Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like > to ask: > > 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have > used or > are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for > undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in > linguistics; > > 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should > include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); > > 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" > course vs. a > "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; > > 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked > particularly well? > > Thank you for time, > Shannon ------------------- Alice Vittrant Universit? de Provence CNRS-LACITO vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Apr 24 11:45:55 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:45:55 +0300 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <9D4DB438-D4C1-471C-B6C9-D0B6141BD9A7@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Dear Shannon and all, Having been unsatisfied with teaching materials, I have designed my own set of PPT presentations for my Intro to Syntax course. It is bare-bone syntax in the sense that it is mainly designed to make the students acquainted with syntactic terminology, not with syntactic theory. It is, however, biased by a constructionist approach. Most of the course is devoted to the major sentence patterns: verbal, copular (nominal, adjectival, and prepositional), existential, extraposition, and locative inversion. It also has chapters on it-cleft and wh-cleft sentences. At the moment I have 11 presentations, and I intend to add another 2, so it will cover a 14 week semester (including 1 midterm). It is a course of one (1.5 hr) meeting a week, but it can also be the basis for a heavier schedule. I'll be glad to make it available to anybody interested and to get your feedback on it. Below is a list of items touched upon in the course. It may be slightly inaccurate, because I made it two years ago, when I first designed the course. Meanwhile I have introduced some changes. But you get the spirit of it. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- > Introduction to Syntax > > 1. MORPHO-SYNTAX and PHRASAL SYNTAX: > Word classes: > verb, noun, adjective, preposition, adverb. > Phrases: NP, AP, PP, AdvP, VP > Phrase: head and modifier. > NP modifiers: > specifier: article, demonstrative, quantifier, possessive. > Other modifiers: AP, NP, PP. > Diagnostic tests for structure. > Verb complex: grammatical verb (modal, auxiliary), lexical verb. > phrases as sentence constituents. > Valency: predicates and arguments. > Word classes of predicates: V, N, A, and P. > Lexical (not grammatical) verbs have valency. > Grammar and lexicon. > Possible number of arguments: Zero- to three-place predicates > intransitive, (mono-)transitive, ditransitive. > Zero-place predicates: expletives. > It: pronoun or expletive. > Case: nom., acc. > Pronouns have case, phrases - abstract case. > Phrasal parts of sentence: subject, (direct) object, oblique (object), > indirect object, adjuncts. > > 2. SENTENTIAL SYNTAX: > Sentence patterns: verbal, copular (3 kinds), existential, extrapositional > (2 types), and locative inversion. > Sentence patterns are constructions. > > The verbal sentence: > Different predicate-argument structures in the V sentence. > Markedness. > Unmarked word order. > Word order alternations. > The maximal formula of the V sentence. > V sentence: the (functionally) unmarked sentence pattern. > Agent(ivity). > All agentive sentences are V sentences. > Prototype and unmarkedness. > Agentive V sentence: prototypical. > Narratives:The central role of agentive events (and sentences) in > narratives. > > Copular sentences: > Sub-patterns: nominal, adjectival, prepositional. > The copula be. > The predicate-argument structure of copular sentences. > The maximal formula of N, A, and P Cop sentences. > Non-maximal realizations. > The function of Cop sentences: reporting states. > Done via the assignment of the content of the predicate to the subject. > N assigns equation; A - attribution, P - relation. > The unmarked V sentence can also express states. > Linking verbs as copula. > Distribution in the N, A, and P patterns. > Verbs as linking or lexical verbs. > Idiomatic linking verbs (rest assured, fall silent). > Word order alternations in Cop sentences. > > Existential sentences: > Expletive there. > Differentiating locative and expletive there. > Expletive there as a subject. > The existential pattern formula. > Existential be = lexical verb (has valency). > The post-verbal NP: the existent: subj. or obj.? > Other types of existential verbs. > Marked word order. > > Locative inversion: > The locative phrase: an adjunct. > Types of locative phrases: participP, PP, AdvP. > Constraining LocP: deictic. > Constraining V: existential. > The final NP is a spectacle (vivid presentation). > The formula of the LI pattern. > Comparing LI and existential sentences. > > Extraposition (XP) sentence pattern: > (Morpho-syntax and phrasal syntax: infinitive and gerund > Phrases: InfP and GdP. > InfP and GdP: phrase or clause? > Some syntactic positions of InfP and GdP. > Nominals: InfP, GdP, and that-clause) > Nominals in valency. > Nominals are components in extraposition sentences. > It is an expletive. > The formula of the XP sentence. > Sub-patterns: evaluative, quotative. > Adding an affectee to the formula. > Maximal formula of XP sentences. > Omission of that. > Is the nominal subj. or obj.? > > Structural alternations: Wh-cleft: > Structural vs. order alternations: added elements in str. alternations > Alternations vs. patterns: alternations work across patterns. > The formula of Wh-clefts. > Wh-cleft and simplex. > Tense of the copula in Wh-clefts > Linking verbs cannot replace the copula in Wh-clefts. > Sentential function of Wh-clefts: identification. > Discourse function of Wh-cleft: the identified is new. > Inverse order of Wh-clefts. > Various discourse functions of inverse Wh-clefts. > > Structural alternations: It-cleft sentences. > The formula of the it-cleft sentence. > Copula be: no linking verbs. > That or zero. > Sentential function of it-clefts: identification. > Different discourse functions of it-clefts. > Prosodic alternation of it-clefts. > It- vs. Wh-clefts: partial equivalences. =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From edith at uwm.edu Fri Apr 24 17:05:35 2009 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith Moravcsik) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:05:35 -0500 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <20090424142222.81B6.BA0BAB47@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: In 2006, I published a theory-neutral introductory syntax textbook: Edith A. Moravcsik: "An introduction to syntax". New York: Continuum. A sequel to it is a survey of syntactic theories: Edith A. Moravcsik: "An introduction to syntactic theory". 2006. New York: Continuum. The prefaces and table of contents of the two books are available on my website: http://www.uwm.edu/DEPT/FLL/faculty/moravcsik.html -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Ron Kuzar Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 6:46 AM To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] intro to syntax query Dear Shannon and all, Having been unsatisfied with teaching materials, I have designed my own set of PPT presentations for my Intro to Syntax course. It is bare-bone syntax in the sense that it is mainly designed to make the students acquainted with syntactic terminology, not with syntactic theory. It is, however, biased by a constructionist approach. Most of the course is devoted to the major sentence patterns: verbal, copular (nominal, adjectival, and prepositional), existential, extraposition, and locative inversion. It also has chapters on it-cleft and wh-cleft sentences. At the moment I have 11 presentations, and I intend to add another 2, so it will cover a 14 week semester (including 1 midterm). It is a course of one (1.5 hr) meeting a week, but it can also be the basis for a heavier schedule. I'll be glad to make it available to anybody interested and to get your feedback on it. Below is a list of items touched upon in the course. It may be slightly inaccurate, because I made it two years ago, when I first designed the course. Meanwhile I have introduced some changes. But you get the spirit of it. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- > Introduction to Syntax > > 1. MORPHO-SYNTAX and PHRASAL SYNTAX: > Word classes: > verb, noun, adjective, preposition, adverb. > Phrases: NP, AP, PP, AdvP, VP > Phrase: head and modifier. > NP modifiers: > specifier: article, demonstrative, quantifier, possessive. > Other modifiers: AP, NP, PP. > Diagnostic tests for structure. > Verb complex: grammatical verb (modal, auxiliary), lexical verb. > phrases as sentence constituents. > Valency: predicates and arguments. > Word classes of predicates: V, N, A, and P. > Lexical (not grammatical) verbs have valency. > Grammar and lexicon. > Possible number of arguments: Zero- to three-place predicates > intransitive, (mono-)transitive, ditransitive. > Zero-place predicates: expletives. > It: pronoun or expletive. > Case: nom., acc. > Pronouns have case, phrases - abstract case. > Phrasal parts of sentence: subject, (direct) object, oblique (object), > indirect object, adjuncts. > > 2. SENTENTIAL SYNTAX: > Sentence patterns: verbal, copular (3 kinds), existential, extrapositional > (2 types), and locative inversion. > Sentence patterns are constructions. > > The verbal sentence: > Different predicate-argument structures in the V sentence. > Markedness. > Unmarked word order. > Word order alternations. > The maximal formula of the V sentence. > V sentence: the (functionally) unmarked sentence pattern. > Agent(ivity). > All agentive sentences are V sentences. > Prototype and unmarkedness. > Agentive V sentence: prototypical. > Narratives:The central role of agentive events (and sentences) in > narratives. > > Copular sentences: > Sub-patterns: nominal, adjectival, prepositional. > The copula be. > The predicate-argument structure of copular sentences. > The maximal formula of N, A, and P Cop sentences. > Non-maximal realizations. > The function of Cop sentences: reporting states. > Done via the assignment of the content of the predicate to the subject. > N assigns equation; A - attribution, P - relation. > The unmarked V sentence can also express states. > Linking verbs as copula. > Distribution in the N, A, and P patterns. > Verbs as linking or lexical verbs. > Idiomatic linking verbs (rest assured, fall silent). > Word order alternations in Cop sentences. > > Existential sentences: > Expletive there. > Differentiating locative and expletive there. > Expletive there as a subject. > The existential pattern formula. > Existential be = lexical verb (has valency). > The post-verbal NP: the existent: subj. or obj.? > Other types of existential verbs. > Marked word order. > > Locative inversion: > The locative phrase: an adjunct. > Types of locative phrases: participP, PP, AdvP. > Constraining LocP: deictic. > Constraining V: existential. > The final NP is a spectacle (vivid presentation). > The formula of the LI pattern. > Comparing LI and existential sentences. > > Extraposition (XP) sentence pattern: > (Morpho-syntax and phrasal syntax: infinitive and gerund > Phrases: InfP and GdP. > InfP and GdP: phrase or clause? > Some syntactic positions of InfP and GdP. > Nominals: InfP, GdP, and that-clause) > Nominals in valency. > Nominals are components in extraposition sentences. > It is an expletive. > The formula of the XP sentence. > Sub-patterns: evaluative, quotative. > Adding an affectee to the formula. > Maximal formula of XP sentences. > Omission of that. > Is the nominal subj. or obj.? > > Structural alternations: Wh-cleft: > Structural vs. order alternations: added elements in str. alternations > Alternations vs. patterns: alternations work across patterns. > The formula of Wh-clefts. > Wh-cleft and simplex. > Tense of the copula in Wh-clefts > Linking verbs cannot replace the copula in Wh-clefts. > Sentential function of Wh-clefts: identification. > Discourse function of Wh-cleft: the identified is new. > Inverse order of Wh-clefts. > Various discourse functions of inverse Wh-clefts. > > Structural alternations: It-cleft sentences. > The formula of the it-cleft sentence. > Copula be: no linking verbs. > That or zero. > Sentential function of it-clefts: identification. > Different discourse functions of it-clefts. > Prosodic alternation of it-clefts. > It- vs. Wh-clefts: partial equivalences. =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 11:45:15 2009 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:45:15 -0400 Subject: intro to syntax query In-Reply-To: <9D4DB438-D4C1-471C-B6C9-D0B6141BD9A7@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Hi all, Just a quick not of thanks to those the responded on and off list. A number of folks asked for a list of the texts recommended so they are listed below with publisher links. Also, thanks to those that have sent syllabi. Givon, Tom 1993 English Grammar (2 vols, Benjamins 1993) http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20ENGRAM%201 / http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20ENGRAM%202 Givon, Tom 2001 Syntax (2 vols, Benjamins, 2001) http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20SYN%201 http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bookid=Z%20SYN%202 Paul R.KROEGER "Analyzing grammar : an introduction" http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521016537&ss=cop Paul R. Kroeger "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521016544&ss=toc Paul Hopper "A Short Course in Grammar, W W Norton, 1999 http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/english/grammar/highlights.htm van Valen "An introduction to syntax" http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521635660 Thanks again, Shannon On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Alice Vittrant wrote: > Dear Shannon, dear funknetters, > - Teaching syntax in a Linguistic Department in Universit? de Porvence, I > (and my colleagues) use different books (french and english ones). > For non native english speaker, I would recommand Paul R.KROEGER's books > ("Analyzing grammar : an introduction" and "Analyzing Syntax" - CAMBRIDGE) > although it is more 'practical' than 'theorical' (with exercices at the end > of each chapter). > > Alice Vittrant > > > Le 23 avr. 09 ? 21:11, s.t. bischoff a ?crit : > > Hi all, > > My department is developing an "Introduction to Syntax" course. We are an > English department made up of about 8 Applied linguists with one > Sociolinguists and myself (trained in generative syntax and > Anthropological > Linguistics). Our students are ESL and EFL with various degrees of fluency > (the dominate language is Spanish). The course will be for second and third > year students with perhaps one introduction to linguistics course and no > other linguistic experience. It will be taught in English. Our graduates > tend to matriculate into our MA program where they study Applied- or Socio- > Linguistics and generally go on to teach English in the public schools here > in Puerto Rico. A few do go on to get PhDs in Applied or Sociolinguistics. > My personal feeling is that to meet the needs of our students and our > community, that we should should have a "theory-neutral" (as much as that > might be possible) general introductory course...when I say neutral I am > thinking of the work of Noel Burton-Roberts "Analysing Sentences: An > Introduction to English Syntax" (I realize we cannot teach a "theory" > free > course, but I hope the spirit of the comment is clear). We have one member > who is strongly in favor of a "theoretical syntax" course instead in the > spirit of the Generative Program, and would like us to adopt "Simpler > Syntax" as the textbook. With that bit of background I would like to ask: > > 1) Would anyone be kind enought to send a syllabus or two they have used or > are familiar with for any type of "introduction to syntax" course for > undergraduates in the second year with little or no background in > linguistics; > > 2) Does anyone have any thoughts on what content such a course should > include (an introductory "general" or "theoretical" syntax course); > > 3) Does anyone have arguments for or against a "General Syntax" course vs. > a > "Theoretical Syntax" course at the introductory level; > > 4) Any suggestions on introductory syntax books that have worked > particularly well? > > Thank you for time, > Shannon > > > ------------------- > > Alice Vittrant > > Universit? de Provence > > CNRS-LACITO > > vittrant at vjf.cnrs.fr > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 25 13:04:14 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 07:04:14 -0600 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <147889AFDB014A43A5A9318270C826C97801CE61C4@MAILER.mpi.nl> Message-ID: Dear Steve, Thanks for your most temperate note. I have already received the paper & have read it. In a way, I see multiple points of possible convergence. We both see the futility of either the "surface universals" approach, which for better or worse people have attributed to Greenberg. This is not unnatural, since Joe was only an implicit, reluctant theoretician. So his later forays into diachrony and evolution have been largely left out of his presumed "canon". And of course, you are absolutely right about his word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is diachronic. And in person, in case it matters, Joe fully agreed with this interpretation. It is thus a pity that his self-appointed inheritors (Haspelmath, Comrie, Dryer) have converted typology into a strictly synchronic, decidedly a-theoretical enterprise. And you are absolutely right in pointing out that no universals filter out of their tight "empirical" mesh. My point is, and has been for a long time, that empirical generalizations, to use Carnap's term, should not be expected to be, by themselves, Universals. Only theoretical generalizations, hopefully taking into account the empirical ones but going far beyond them in constructing explanatory hypotheses, could yield Universals. In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and evolution. This was the main thesis of my "On Understanding Grammar" (1979), and in the intervening years I have tried to flesh this out with some of the gory details. You are, of course, equally right in pointing out that the Chomskian UG is a hopeless enterprise, for reasons we are all (all) too familiar with: Non-substantive "data", non-substantive "universals", ignoring the three developmental trends as venues of universals, and ignoring the actual empirical descriptive data. So far so good. What I think is unfortunate, and perhaps unintended on your part, is the implication that because the two extreme positions on universals, Chomsky's and Bloomfield's, are misguided for clear philosophical reasons, the whole enterprise of Universals is bankrupt. It is not only in my own work that the alternative "middle-ground" approach to universals has been pursued, for a long time. The whole body of grammaticalization literature has pointed in the same direction. True, they concentrated only on diachrony & paid scant attention to biology, evolution, neurology, cognition and child language. Indeed, Slobin has scared them away from considering child language part of the agenda, by his rather intemperate comments about its presumed irrelevance to evolution & diachrony (in a volume I edited in 2002; "The Evoluition of Language out of Pre-language"). But if you look at Heine & Kuteva (2007) "The Genesis of Grammar", I think you will find the right theoretical impulses there. So what I have been worried about in the case of your article is the same thing that worried me about a recent summary of the Universal literature by Fritz Newmeyer: There is either Chomsky or Comrie, nobody in-between (of course, with the gratis anointment of Chomsky's "deep universals" as the right(eous) approach...). Well, there have been some of us in-between, explicitly, and for a long time. Since you have been so sweet about this, and since fundamentally we have been working in the same direction, maybe I should regale you with a copy of my "The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity" (Benjamins2008; I'm waiting for extra copies from the publisher), where all these issues are covered in great detail, and where I think I have gone as far as I can, given current knowledge. In the interim, I will zip you the e-version of the intro chapter of the book (incl. table of contents & preface), which might give you an idea about the scope. Thanks again & my best regards, TG =========== Stephen C. Levinson wrote: > > Dear Tom, > > Nick Enfield passed on you Funknet comment, which I find interesting. > I think you are right about development as key in biology, and also > about exceptions. But the question is can we list the strong > tendencies? We also have a paper under review that shows that the > Greenberg word-order universals do not work in language development > over time ? > > The BBS commentary is now closed, but LINGUA is putting together a > follow up set of commentaries if you are interested. Attached is the > offending paper. > > Best wishes, > > Steve > From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Apr 25 20:10:10 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:10:10 +0300 Subject: Intro to Syntax: PPT files Message-ID: Dear FunkNetters, I have received several requests for my Introduction to Syntax course, so here it is. Looking forward to your feedback. Ron Kuzar ---------- http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro02-Pred-Arg-Syn-Roles.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro03-V-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro04-COP-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro05-Link-Verb-Word-Ord.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro06-Exist-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro07-Loc-Inv-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro08-Extrap-Sent.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro09-Wh-Cleft.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro10-It-Cleft.ppt http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro11-Rel-Clause.ppt =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Apr 26 04:50:51 2009 From: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il (Ron Kuzar) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:50:51 +0300 Subject: Intro to Syntax: PPT files Message-ID: Dear FunkNetters, There were some errors in Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt due to last minute editing prior to the uploading, which Yael Ziv has kindly pointed out to me. I have corrected them. As of the time of this message, the corrected file is now up. Best Ron Kuzar ---------- http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar/Intro01-Morph-Syn.ppt =============================================== 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: +972-77-481-9676, Mobile: +972-54-481-9676 Email: kuzar at research.haifa.ac.il Homepage: http://research.haifa.ac.il/~kuzar =============================================== From oesten at ling.su.se Mon Apr 27 09:27:35 2009 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=96sten_Dahl?=) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:27:35 +0200 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <49F30A4E.5060904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Tom, you write: > In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, > communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and > evolution. This is hard to disagree with, although I think a few more areas could be added (demography, language contact, social structure etc.). However, a bit earlier in your posting you say: >And of course, you are absolutely right > about his [Greenberg's] word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 > paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is >diachronic. So do you want to say that word-order universals are not in need of any of the other areas that you listed? Maybe you were here having in mind a generous definition of "diachrony". Indeed, there are many different kinds of diachronic explanation, but the problem is that some of them are not exclusively diachronic. One kind of explanation that you have advocated in your work is "source-oriented": linguistic structures retain properties of their diachronic sources. But another kind would be "target-oriented": language change tends to give rise to certain structures because these structures are in some sense "preferred". And such an explanation may become quite hard to distinguish from ones which explain cross-linguistic tendencies in purely functional, synchronic terms. If we try to apply this to Greenberg's word-order universals, the source-oriented approach may be used to explain the implicational ones (languages with word-order A tend to also have word-order B, since B can be showed to be historically derived from A), but are less plausible for non-implicational ones (such as "subjects tend to precede objects"). So it seems to me that your generalization is a bit too sweeping. Best regards, ?sten From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 12:20:21 2009 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:20:21 -0600 Subject: our BBS paper In-Reply-To: <4790249.178541240824455623.JavaMail.oesten@ling.su.se> Message-ID: Good points, Oesten. If you look at my 1988 paper on the pragmatics of word-order flexibility (a TSL volume out of a Milwaukee symposium), you will see that these questions are addressed there from a cognitive-communicative perspective--accessibility, communicative centrality/topicality and focus-of-attention. So certainly one would interpret the SUBJECT-before-OBJECT ordering tendency as a reflection of PRIMARY-TOPIC-before- SECONDARY-TOPIC principle, one I labeled in 1983 (Topic Continuity in Discourse) "attend first to the most important task". (These are, by the way, only short-hand labels, to this day still in need of detailed neuro-cognitive elaborations). Though of course, diachronic processes are themselves constrained (i.e. motivated) by cognitive- communicative universals. So by saying "diachronic" one does not aim to ignore those. Best, TG ========= ?sten Dahl wrote: > Dear Tom, > > you write: > > >> In the case of language, explanatory hypotheses must take into account, >> communication, cognition, neurology, diachrony, acquisition and >> evolution. >> > > This is hard to disagree with, although I think a few more areas could be added > (demography, language contact, social structure etc.). However, a bit earlier in > your posting you say: > > >> And of course, you are absolutely right >> about his [Greenberg's] word-order universals. Beginning with 1971 (CLS #7 >> paper), I have tried to show that their only cogent interpretation is >> diachronic. >> > > So do you want to say that word-order universals are not in need of any of the > other areas that you listed? Maybe you were here having in mind a generous > definition of "diachrony". Indeed, there are many different kinds of diachronic > explanation, but the problem is that some of them are not exclusively > diachronic. One kind of explanation that you have advocated in your work is > "source-oriented": linguistic structures retain properties of their diachronic > sources. But another kind would be "target-oriented": language change tends to > give rise to certain structures because these structures are in some sense > "preferred". And such an explanation may become quite hard to distinguish from > ones which explain cross-linguistic tendencies in purely functional, synchronic > terms. If we try to apply this to Greenberg's word-order universals, the > source-oriented approach may be used to explain the implicational ones > (languages with word-order A tend to also have word-order B, since B can be > showed to be historically derived from A), but are less plausible for > non-implicational ones (such as "subjects tend to precede objects"). So it seems > to me that your generalization is a bit too sweeping. > > Best regards, > ?sten > > From autotype at uni-leipzig.de Wed Apr 29 13:22:07 2009 From: autotype at uni-leipzig.de (Balthasar Bickel) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:22:07 +0200 Subject: Ph D student position available in Leipzig Message-ID: (with apologies for cross-posting) ******************************************** The Department of Linguistics at the University of Leipzig offers a Ph D student position (German pay-scale TVL-E13/2, for three years, subject to statisfactory progress) The successful candidate will work on his or her doctoral dissertation within a research project on differential object marking and optional object agreement in two languages of Nepal, Chintang (Sino-Tibetan, Kiranti) and Nepali (Indo-Aryan), as part of a newly funded EuroBABEL project on "Referential Hierarchies in Morphosyntax" (http://www.esf.org/activities/eurocores/programmes/eurobabel/ ). More information on the project can be found athttp://www.uni-leipzig.de/~typology/differential/ . The student is expected to do fieldwork in Nepal and to work with existing electronic corpora (additional tagging, statistical analysis). The ideal candidate has - a thorough training in general linguistics, with particular emphasis on field methods, typology and semantics - at least basic knowledge of computational tools in corpus work and statistics, ideally some basic programming skills - excellent social skills and aptitude to collaborate with colleagues in a large and multi-ethnic research team - good competence in spoken and written English (which is the lingua franca in the project) Knowledge of Nepali is essential. It can be acquired in an intensive course at the beginning of the project (and paid by the project), but if a candidate is already familiar with the language, this is an additional asset. Applicants must have an MA in linguistics. Please send your application (CV, abstract of MA thesis (max. 2 pages), and a list of courses taken) by e-mail to Prof. Dr. Balthasar Bickel (bickel at uni-leipzig.de, attachments as PDF or plain text only). Review of applications will begin May 25 but applications will be received until the position is filled. The starting date of the position is August 1, 2009, but under special circumstances this may be negotiable. From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Wed Apr 29 14:15:19 2009 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:15:19 +0200 Subject: PhD Scholarships at the MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen Message-ID: Doctoral fellowships (2) in the Max Planck Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Two doctoral fellowships are available in the Max Planck Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, led by Prof. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (Heinrich Heine University, D?sseldorf) and Dr. Dejan Matic. A description of the research project can be found at http://www.mpi.nl/research/research-projects/syntax-typology-and-information-structure . The doctoral fellows will be expected to conduct dissertation research in the area of the project, and background in syntactic theory (especially relevant are functional-typological models), in pragmatics/discourse analysis/information structure, or in handling field data is desirable. The doctoral fellows should already have an MA in Linguistics or an equivalent qualification at the time of taking up the fellowships. The doctoral fellowships are funded for 3 years (2 year initial contract with a 1 year extension). The research group provides fully equipped research facilities, technical support and research assistance, as well as a generous conference and travel budget, and support for possible fieldwork. As the MPI for Psycholinguistics is not a degree awarding body, doctoral fellowship holders will normally be enrolled either at HHU D?sseldorf or Radboud University Nijmegen (where the International Max Planck Research School for the Language Sciences offers special interdisciplinary training opportunities). The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics is a vibrant research environment in a charming university town. Nijmegen is situated 1.5 hours from Amsterdam, and has easy access to Belgium and Germany. Except for approved absences (e.g. fieldwork, conferences, vacation), the place of work is Nijmegen. The Max Planck Society is an equal opportunity employer. The business of the institute is conducted in English, and therefore good knowledge of spoken and written English is required. Applications should be made electronically. Applicants should send their CV, a statement of research interests, a sample of their writing (such as the M.A. thesis or a research article), as PDF files, and the names and e-mail addresses of at least two potential referees to: Prof. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. Research Group Syntax, Typology and Information Structure vanvalin at ling.uni-duesseldorf.de Review of applications will begin June 1, 2009, and applications will be accepted until the positions are filled. The fellowships are available from October 1, 2009. *********** Prof. Dr. Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. University Professor Department of General Linguistics Institute for Language and Information Heinrich Heine University D?sseldorf Universit?tsstr. 1 40225 D?sseldorf Germany Tel: +49 (0)211 81 10717 Fax: +49 (0)211 81 11325 vanvalin at ling.uni-duesseldorf.de From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Apr 30 17:32:56 2009 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:32:56 -0400 Subject: For the birds? Message-ID: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090430/sc_livescience/dancingwiththebirds So apparently vocal mimicry and dancing skills go hand in hand (or is that foot in mouth, etc.), according to some of the other things I've read on the web. Tecumseh Fitch is impressed (what does Chomsky have to say? Do we need to care?). Increased tempo associated with different mass of body. Low frequency with whole body movement, mid with head only and high with foot only. Hmm- same order that the parts evolved in over phylogeny? Related in any way perhaps to the ontogenic sequence observed with gesture by McNeill? What about frequency sweeping in sonar-using animals? Is active usage opposite in direction to development. Jakobson's phonological hierarchy starting with labials and /a/? Iconically, initial labials in ideophones strongly associate with maximal degrees of freedom of movement of a body, while high frequency phones minimal ones (in different dimensions)- the opposite is true for final segments in ideophones in many languages. How 'bout brain waves vs. conciousness and control? I wonder how Eugene Morton's Motivation Structure Theory, and John Ohala's Frequency Theory would fit here too. Any clashes, or does all of this fit into a nice seamless whole? Jess Tauber