From tpayne at uoregon.edu Wed Dec 1 20:12:12 2010 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:12:12 -0800 Subject: Books available for review Message-ID: A updated list of books available for review in Studies in Language has just been posted. Please contact the Review Editor, Thomas E. Payne, if you are interested in reviewing one or more of these books. With your request, 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 Reviews and Review Articles can be found at http://pages.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 reviewing one or more of these books. http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/BooksAvailable-12-2010.pdf Yours, Thomas E. Payne Review Editor Studies in Language http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=SL From language at sprynet.com Wed Dec 1 21:16:33 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:16:33 -0500 Subject: What Have We Learned...? Message-ID: I found one by-product from our recent discussion truly heartening: I actually received just one or two off-line messages admonishing me that I came across as an ignorant amateur, totally unaware of the depth and glory attained by mainstream linguistics. And this of course explained why so few true professionals had bothered to respond on-line. But even these messages were rather friendly and apologetic in tone. So let me also be as apologetic as I can for what follows. This was in fact a far cry from the response I first met with back in 1991, about five years before the Web, when using UNIX modules I crept onto the USENET group sci.lang.translation, then a hot bed of TGG, to dispute the various reigning dogmas. On that occasion I was roundly denounced as a rank, untrained novice, a mere translator who had no right to post on the group at all. Not to mention the uproar I provoked when I began publishing articles as early as 1987 questioning these same dogmas in the pages of "Language Monthly," "Language Technology," "Language International," "Sci-Tech Translation Journal" (along with its electronic heir "Translation Journal"), and the "ATA Chronicle." Or when I dared to introduce my complaints on that holiest of holy TGG USENET sanctuaries, alt.fan.noam-chomsky. And let's not forget the even more outraged cries that rang out ten years ago when I first published my "33 Reasons Why the Chomskyans Are Mistaken" (soon with help from Sergio Navega to become "44 Reasons...") on language-related newsgroups and my own website ten years ago. Consistent throughout all these complaints was the assumption by my critics that they were true professionals, and I was nothing but a total amateur, someone who could never even hope to realize how totally all my arguments had long ago been demolished by TGG experts. I found this remarkably amusing, since as early as 1990 I had begun writing my invited paper "Limitations of Computers As Translation Tools," published by Routledge in 1992 in John Newton's "Computers in Translation: A Practical Appraisal," alongside papers by a number of MT and Linguistics figures. In the second section of that essay I demonstrated in no uncertain terms that the only amateurish arguments were in fact the ones presented by TGG advocates. I accomplished this by applying the sole applicable standards, as presented by Leonard Bloomfield in his essay "Secondary and Tertiary Responses to Language." Using Bloomfield's benchmarks, it quickly becomes clear that every single notion in the Chomskyan canon is itself an example of rank amateurism. These standards still apply today, as you can confirm for yourselves by examining this piece here: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/limtran2.htm Once you have reviewed this text, I do not believe you will be able to refute a single one of its points. As appealing as some mainstream arguments may sound to the ignorant, no one but an amateur linguist advances the notion that there is a universal structure underlying all languages, that any one language is most likely to be a model for learning others, that "deep structure" and "hard wiring" prove, taking all circumstances into account, that the creations of one language can be held up as better, wiser, or richer than those of another (or any other of the many mainstream solecisms). In other words, as measured by Bloomfield's standards, all those who embraced generative arguments proved merely by doing so that they were the true amateurs, the ones clearly ignorant of language and linguistics. At this point there is no way of avoiding some truly imposing questions: Precisely how could an entire school of would-be scholars embrace such a vacuous theory, what made them coalesce around this theory in the late Fifties, and why did these events take place at MIT? The answer to all three of these questions can be found in a single name: Norbert Wiener. Wiener's 1948 blockbuster "Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine" was probably as available on the shelves of would-be intellectuals--and as little read--as Stephen Hawking's books are today. Wiener first came to MIT after World War I and remained a commanding presence there until his death in 1967. A MIT mathematics prize in his name has been available since that year. As we all know, Wiener's work set the stage for everything computers have done--or failed to do--since then, even prefiguring much of artificial intelligence. So it was neither brave nor creative that a young would-be linguist in his twenties would have hitched his wagon to the dominant academic star--if anything it was simply playing safe. Nor is it remotely surprising that a number of other young linguists would have followed his lead. But there was an even deeper problem: not only did these young linguists have no real notion about the workings of language as described by Bloomfield, but rather that they were almost equally ignorant of computers. It was assumed at the time that sooner or later computers were capable of solving everything (or failing that, close to everything). Even then these machines were conceived on what seemed to be a inconceivably vast scale, which as we know would only become geometrically more enormous. The hardware was there, which meant to those working in the field that most problems would sooner or later be solved. Even if their solution turned out to be work-intensive or vastly time-consuming, once the work and time had been invested, the solution would appear in retrospect to have been a trivial task. But hardware does not work without software, and it was in the creation of this software that the whole mainstream project started to fall apart, even from the very beginning. Software cannot be created without an algorithm, which in turn must be elaborated first as pseudocode, and finally as working code that will run without bugs on the machine. But even creating an algorithm for "language" soon became an intractable task. Perhaps this explains the chaotic lurching of mainstream theory over the years from TGG to G&B to P&P to something called "Minimalism." And finally leading to the devious decision, when these would-be linguists finally caught on that they weren't getting anywhere with language, that what they had really and truly been doing all along was "philosophy." But here too amateurism may have crept in, since they remained blissfully unaware that the true relationship between language and philosophy had been spelled out two centuries earlier by the German physicist and wit Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, when he wrote: "Language originated before philosophy, and that is what is the matter with philosophy." In any case these savants had no chance of creating an adequate algorithm for language, simply because the work of mainstream linguists has not been anchored in any genuine realities of language since 1957. Wiener himself recognized the shortcomings of the mainstream approach as early as 1966, when he wrote about MT in his work "God and Golem, Inc.": "I do not believe that linguistic science is so far advanced as to make a set of rules of this sort practicable, nor that there is any prospect of its being so advanced in the predictable future." He was also acutely aware of how dangerous the many errors created by MT could become: "Short of this state of affairs, a translating machine will have a chance of error. If any important consideration of action or policy is to be determined by the use of a translation machine, a small error or even a small chance of error may have disproportionately large and serious consequences." Wiener also insisted that translators should be actively included in every stage of creating and critiquing MT, and in many ways he foresaw the advent of CAT and to some extent even TM systems. But he was not correct in his supposition that back-translation by an MT system from Language B to Language A (after another system had gone from Language A to Language B) would necessarily uncover all errors. And as gifted a mathematician as he undoubtedly was, he did not grasp the many problems set theory holds for all MT or TM systems, as discussed just a few paragraphs beyond the Bloomfield section in my paper. (Citations & summary from Wiener, op. cit., pp. 77-80, available on-line) Wiener was also deeply concerned by the contradiction between the practice of science and funding by the military, and as early as 1947 he authored an article in "The Atlantic," urging his fellow scientists to avoid such funding. We all know that a family living beyond its means may risk going into bankruptcy. The same is true of small businesses or even, as we have recently seen, vast commercial consortiums previously imagined as "too big to fail." Even governments or entire nations can fail and be subjected to a humiliating process of disbanding and total reorganization. But what is the fate of a whole learned faculty when it has visibly and dramatically failed in its objectives over fifty years, consuming the lives of three generations of linguists in the process? It may be time to seriously ask this question and formulate responsible answers. Julien Benda came close to this topic in his famous "La Trahison des Clercs," translatable at various points between "The Betrayal of the Intellectual Class" and "The Treason of the Academics." In its wholesale desertion of provable linguistic principles and willing acceptance of DOD funding, it may well be that an entire learned class has once again become guilty of a comparable act of treason. Once again, I wish to apologize if I have gone too far in describing the negative aspects of much recent linguistics work. I realize that some of you have had little choice in this matter and have in fact worked well and creatively despite an unfriendly climate. I promise not to discuss this matter any further from a negative point of view, and in my next posting (early in 2011, if I am permitted to post it) I would like to provide a more positive vision of how the study of language can develop in coming years and decades. All the best to everyone! alex PS--after my first message on this topic here, I noticed a slight spike in sales of my 60s book. Thanks to those of you who may have been responsible! More info still available at: www.untoldsixties.net ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** From n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl Fri Dec 3 10:05:21 2010 From: n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Stukker, N.M.) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:05:21 +0100 Subject: Final cfp: Stylistics Across Disciplines Message-ID: FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS Deadline December 15, 2010 STYLISTICS ACROSS DISCIPLINES Leiden University, The Netherlands June 16-17, 2011 CONFIRMED KEYNOTE SPEAKERS * Prof. dr. Douglas E. Biber, Northern Arizona University (USA) * Prof. dr. Barbara Dancygier, University of British Columbia (Canada) * Prof. dr. Arie Verhagen, Leiden University (Netherlands) Stylistics is a field of study that is growing and developing fast. Its central concern is the way cognitive and communicative effects are achieved by means of linguistic choices. It therefore encompasses literary studies and linguistics as well as discourse studies. In spite of the shared, overarching definition of what it is, the field of study of Stylistics is highly fragmented. It mainly takes place within the boundaries of the various, more traditional, domains of study, e.g. literary analysis, rhetoric, (critical) discourse analysis, applied linguistics, etc. As a result, a comprehensive understanding of the wide variety of interests and foci of attention in stylistic studies, as well as exchange of knowledge between these research domains, is developing relatively slowly. In recent years, successful attempts have been made to take an integrative, cross-disciplinary perspective on Stylistics, focusing on the shared research object: language use. An example is the expanding body of studies associated with the International Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA). Especially fruitful has proven to be the developing area of 'cognitive poetics', a field closely allied with the theoretical framework of cognitive linguistics, which includes attention for contextual factors and the inherently 'subjective' basis of language in linguistic analysis. This Stylistics across disciplines conference links up with these developments and intends to offer a platform for exchange of ideas and to stimulate fruitful collaboration among linguists, literary scholars and discourse scholars studying 'style'. We invite participants from all relevant fields to participate in the Stylistics across disciplines conference to discuss the opportunities and problems regarding the development of Stylistics as a coherent and methodologically sound research discipline. We welcome papers on (but not limited to) the subject of: * Possibilities and limitations of an interdisciplinary perspective: what can literary scholars learn from the way style is studied in linguistics or rhetoric, and vice versa? * Opportunities and problems of a 'linguistic stylistics' * Methodological issues: qualitative (interpretive analysis) or quantitative methods (digital humanities, corpus stylistics) and different research methods (corpus analysis, experimental effect studies) in relation to various research contexts * Development of theoretical notions and analytical tools especially suited for stylistic analysis * Context-sensitivity of stylistic patterns and analysis: how does stylistic choice interact with contextual factors such as institution, genre characteristics, etc.? * Language specificity and culture specificity of stylistic phenomena and analysis ABSTRACT SUBMISSION AND IMPORTANT DATES Please submit your abstract (in Word or PDF format, containing the title of your paper, author's name(s) and affiliation(s), max. 500 words) to stylistics at hum.leidenuniv.nl. The deadline for abstract submission is December 15, 2010. Notification of acceptance will be by February 1, 2011. ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Suzanne Fagel Maarten van Leeuwen Ninke Stukker stylistics at hum.leidenuniv.nl SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Jaap Goedegebuure (literary studies) Ton van Haaften (language and communication) Jaap de Jong (rhetoric) Arie Verhagen (linguistics) The Stylistics across disciplines conference is organized by researchers from the NWO research project Stylistics of Dutch (Leiden University 2007-2012). Website: www.stylistics.leidenuniv.nl. From yutamb at mail.ru Fri Dec 3 19:57:48 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 01:57:48 +0600 Subject: Chance or regularity? Message-ID: Dear colleagues, can we think that in primitive that is seminal languages the speech sounds were also simple? I compared the frequency of occurrence of speech sounds of some 300 languages which I have in my phonetics collection and came to the conclusion that simple phonemes occur more frequently in speech and in more world languages. Is there any law under it or is it just a chance? And what is a chance in a language speech chain? Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk From yutamb at mail.ru Mon Dec 6 19:59:44 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:59:44 +0600 Subject: Who really wrote TIHIJ DON? Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I was 62 on the 4th of December 2010. I thank you for your earlier kind words about my long list of publications. In fact, my first article was published in 1976, that is some 40 years ago. I wonder if you can send it to some bibliography department. Now I am working on Sholohov. Actually, Sholohov might have immitated Fiodor Kriukov's style. They say that Sholohov took his seminal text from Fiodor Kriukov, the Don writer who died in 1918. I wonder if any new articles on Sholohov's authorship were published during the last 5 years? Looking forward to hearin abou that to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk From asanso at gmail.com Tue Dec 7 15:34:38 2010 From: asanso at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andrea_Sans=F2?=) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:34:38 +0100 Subject: 2nd Transalpine Typology Meeting - Pavia, 10-11 December Message-ID: *** Apologies for cross-posting *** 2nd Transalpine Typology Meeting 10-11 December 2010, Aula Scarpa, University of Pavia, Italy Promoted by: Università degli Studi di Pavia Dipartimento di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata Dottorato Internazionale in Linguistica Laurea Specialistica in Linguistica Universität Bern Institut für Sprachwissenschaft Description This typology meeting aims at intensifying the contacts between students of linguistic typology on both sides of the Alps and grew out of a collaboration between the linguistic departments of Pavia and Bern. Contributions cover a large variety of topics in linguistic typology, including ideophones, the expression of motion, number marking, adverbs, auxiliaries, alignment and grammatical relations, transitivity, clause combining, and competing motivations. Program 12/10/2010 10.00-11.00 Christa Koenig (Koeln): Marked Nominative: An Exotic Language Type? 11.00-11.30 Coffee break 11.30-12.00 Silvia Luraghi (Pavia): Basic valency orientation in Hittite 12.00-12.30 Arnd Soelling (Bern): Diverging lexicalization patterns of a semantic domain of goal-orientation in two North-American languages: Takelma and Maidu 12.30-14-30 Lunch 14.30-15.00 Deborah Edwards (Bern): Obligatory and Optional Nominal Plural Marking - A Typology Based on Original Texts 15.00-15.30 Pietro Cerrone and Emanuele Miola (Pavia): Auxiliary Selection in Piedmontese 15.30-16.00 Ruprecht von Waldenfels (Bern): Verbal categories across Slavic - a corpus driven study 16.00-16-30 Coffee break 16.30-17.00 Chiara Fedriani and Emanuele Miola (Pavia): From temporal adverbs to discourse markers in the languages of Europe: between cooptation, grammaticalization, and pragmaticalization 17.00-17.30 Caterina Mauri and Andrea Sanso' (Pavia): Reality status and interclausal relations: synchronic and diachronic variation 12/11/2010 10.00-10.30 Ashild Naess (Zurich): Transitivity and word classes in Äiwoo 10.30-11.00 Bernhard Waelchli (Bern): Ištiktukai „happenlings“ – How Baltic linguistics anticipated ideophones and why this is not known in typology. 11.00-11.30 Coffee break 11.30-12.00 Sonia Cristofaro (Pavia): Competing motivations and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? 12.00-12.30 Erik Van Gijn (Nijmegen): Subordination strategies in South-American languages: an interim report 12.30-13.30 Martine Vanhove (CNRS-LLACAN - Paris): TBA Organizers - Sonia Cristofaro (Pavia) sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it - Bernhard Waelchli (Bern) bernhard.waelchli at isw.unibe.ch For additional information, please contact Sonia Cristofaro or visit: https://sites.google.com/site/transalpinetypologymeeting/ From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Dec 7 23:00:03 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:00:03 -0800 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses Message-ID: Hi, Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English majors). I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language – and language about language – that exists around them. I'm sure this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that require no previous linguistics training. I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my undergrads can handle. Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! Best, Jo Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From jlmendi at unizar.es Wed Dec 8 15:37:42 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:37:42 +0100 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Dear Johanna: I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, published in 2010): Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press Best regards: José-Luis Mendívil Johanna Rubba wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro > linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively > generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with > aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? > Well-educated citizens need to know about things like > language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, > myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about > language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of > grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language > experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical > discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and > heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in > everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of > semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, > utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of > information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic > understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of > literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students > are English majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing > textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor > job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work > that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, > prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word > definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype > theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for > non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for > non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, > fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, > phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics > described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted > to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal > with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week > quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks > teach generative theory as god's truth; they address > counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, > like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point > of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never > address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they > simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or > "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond the shadow of a > doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of > their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as > proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training > future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the > details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students > their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't > see any point in these students learning to solve phonology > problems or draw tree diagrams for a tiny fraction of the sentence > types that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them > learn how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. > I'm not even sure how important it is for them to understand speech > articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd > far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language – > and language about language – that exists around them. I'm sure this > would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and > Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most > important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast > majority of the students respond with something about dialect > prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based > on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have > mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree > diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to > *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is > necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many > linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate > students and have teaching loads and service obligations that > severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses > in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, > which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that > require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts > early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field > exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using > Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found > a better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure > and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's > not easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology > and syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my > undergrads can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > -- Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From grvsmth at panix.com Wed Dec 8 15:53:49 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:53:49 -0500 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <20101208163742.6fe2moz6ogss04go@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements > (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, > published in 2010): > > Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and fourth editions), and I agree. It has the basic mainstream theoretical stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna mentions. It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for non-majors that Johanna describes. For that, we touched lightly on each chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each. I supplemented it with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece about nouns and gender in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's presentation to Google). We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've had to supplement it with material from Language Files and other sources. For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the rest of the book. The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is less heavy on the generative stuff. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From mark at polymathix.com Wed Dec 8 17:14:24 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:14:24 -0600 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Sounds like you need to write the textbook you envision. I'd teach from it in a heartbeat if you did (and if I were still teaching). Failing that, I guess you'd have to continue to wing it with DIY readings and exercises. If I remember right, the lecturer who taught intro ling in the English department where I worked simply pulled together a collection of readings (probably Saussure, Whorf, Bloomfield, very little from the Chomskyan era) and came up with his own "exhibits" from newspapers and other media to make the points he wanted to make (which were similar to your laundry list below). Just as a random example, I recall him finding two headlines for the same story in two different newspapers on the same day, and pointing out the effect of the grammatical difference between the headlines. I don't remember the precise example at the time, but it was along the lines of 1. Republicans Block Vote On Free Beer For All Act in Senate 2. Vote On Free Beer For All Act Blocked in Senate His point, of course, was that passive voice buys you the ability to play down the agent. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Johanna Rubba wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for > non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone > know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are > practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know > about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual > education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information > about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of > grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" > like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse > analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language > policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech > acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, > semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the > role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic > understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature > (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English > majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, > but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing > the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the > network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the > role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks > (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for > non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ > and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages > mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, > and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a > significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I > don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and > especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And > too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address > counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like > island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, > prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address > specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say > that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") > prove their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the > impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they > intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being > worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future > linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of > language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only > introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in > these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams > for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't > see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument > based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them > to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling > textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the > language ? and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure > this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and > Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most > important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast > majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. > Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they > speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to > solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them > on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that > they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary > knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at > institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching > loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts > (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average > amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach > only courses that require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early > Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or > activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files > 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for > undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot > of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter > system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level > may be above what my undergrads can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > From wsmith at csusb.edu Wed Dec 8 17:45:43 2010 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:45:43 -0800 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <4CFFAA0D.1030101@panix.com> Message-ID: I used George Yule's book one semester and found myself developing a huge amount of materials to supplement it. It's rather skimpy. On 12/8/2010 7:53 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >> I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your >> requierements (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, >> the fourth, published in 2010): >> >> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > > I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and > fourth editions), and I agree. It has the basic mainstream > theoretical stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna > mentions. It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: > > http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 > > At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: > Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for > non-majors that Johanna describes. For that, we touched lightly on > each chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each. I > supplemented it with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece > about nouns and gender in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's > presentation to Google). > > We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. > For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've > had to supplement it with material from Language Files and other > sources. For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the > rest of the book. > > The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is > less heavy on the generative stuff. > From grvsmth at panix.com Wed Dec 8 19:51:43 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:51:43 -0500 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <4CFFC447.1070203@csusb.edu> Message-ID: On 12/8/2010 12:45 PM, Wendy Smith wrote: > I used George Yule's book one semester and found myself developing a > huge amount of materials to supplement it. It's rather skimpy. I've done that to some extent myself. It makes for good stone soup! -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Dec 8 20:41:24 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:41:24 -0500 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: William McGregor has a "functionalist" introductory textbook "Linguistics: An introduction"...you may also find "Language Myths" edited by Laure Bauer and Peter Trudgill of interest. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to >        funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >        https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >        funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at >        funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >   1. Alternative Intro Ling courses (Johanna Rubba) >   2. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (jlmendi at unizar.es) >   3. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) >   4. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Mark P. Line) >   5. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Wendy Smith) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:00:03 -0800 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of information flow in discourse structure >  , and perhaps a basic understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") prove >  their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams  for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language ? and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most important single idea they will take away from my course. >  The vast majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my undergrads can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:37:42 +0100 > From: jlmendi at unizar.es > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <20101208163742.6fe2moz6ogss04go at webmail.unizar.es> > Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=UTF-8;  DelSp="Yes";    format="flowed" > > Dear Johanna: > > I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements > (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, > published in 2010): > > Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > > Best regards: > Jos?-Luis Mend?vil > > > Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro >> linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively >> generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with >> aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? >> Well-educated citizens need to know about things like >> language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, >> myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about >> language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of >>  grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language >> experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical >>  discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and >> heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in >> everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of >>  semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, >> utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of >> information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic >> understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of >> literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students >> are English majors). >> >> I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing >> textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor >> job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work >> that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, >> prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word >> definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype >> theory, but very cursorily). >> >> Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for >> non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for >> non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, >> fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, >> phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics >> described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted >>  to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal >> with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week >> quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks >> teach generative theory as god's truth; they address >> counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, >> like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point >> of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never >> address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they >>  simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or >> "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond the shadow of a >> doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of >> their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as >> proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. >> >> People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training >> future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the >> details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students >> their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't >>  see any point in these students learning to solve phonology >> problems  or draw tree diagrams  for a tiny fraction of the sentence >> types  that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them >> learn  how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. >> I'm not  even sure how important it is for them to understand speech >>  articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd >> far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language ? >> and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure this >>  would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and >> Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most >> important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast >> majority of the students respond with something about dialect >> prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based >>  on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have >> mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree >> diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to >> *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. >> >> It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is >> necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many >> linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate >> students and have teaching loads and service obligations that >> severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses >>  in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, >> which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that >> require no previous linguistics training. >> >> I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts >> early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field >> exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using >>  Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found >> a  better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure >>  and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's >> not  easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology >> and  syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my >> undergrads  can handle. >> >> Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! >> >> Best, >> Jo >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:53:49 -0500 > From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CFFAA0D.1030101 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >> I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements >> (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, >> published in 2010): >> >> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > >     I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and > fourth editions), and I agree.  It has the basic mainstream theoretical > stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna mentions. > It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: > > http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 > >     At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: > Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for > non-majors that Johanna describes.  For that, we touched lightly on each > chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each.  I supplemented it > with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece about nouns and gender > in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's presentation to Google). > >     We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. > For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've had > to supplement it with material from Language Files and other sources. > For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the rest of the book. > >     The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is less > heavy on the generative stuff. > > -- >                                -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >                                Saint John's University >                                grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:14:24 -0600 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: >        <4b67b2f09dc2a23538d352dc65daf328.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Sounds like you need to write the textbook you envision. I'd teach from it > in a heartbeat if you did (and if I were still teaching). > > Failing that, I guess you'd have to continue to wing it with DIY readings > and exercises. > > If I remember right, the lecturer who taught intro ling in the English > department where I worked simply pulled together a collection of readings > (probably Saussure, Whorf, Bloomfield, very little from the Chomskyan era) > and came up with his own "exhibits" from newspapers and other media to > make the points he wanted to make (which were similar to your laundry list > below). > > Just as a random example, I recall him finding two headlines for the same > story in two different newspapers on the same day, and pointing out the > effect of the grammatical difference between the headlines. I don't > remember the precise example at the time, but it was along the lines of > > 1. Republicans Block Vote On Free Beer For All Act in Senate > 2. Vote On Free Beer For All Act Blocked in Senate > > His point, of course, was that passive voice buys you the ability to play > down the agent. > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > Johanna Rubba wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for >> non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone >> know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are >> practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know >> about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual >> education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information >> about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of >> grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" >> like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse >> analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language >> policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech >> acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, >> semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the >> role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic >> understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature >> (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English >> majors). >> >> I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, >> but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing >> the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the >> network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the >> role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks >> (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). >> >> Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for >> non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ >> and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages >> mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, >> and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a >> significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I >> don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and >> especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And >> too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address >> counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like >> island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, >> prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address >> specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say >> that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") >> prove their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the >> impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they >> intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being >> worthy of their attention. >> >> People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future >> linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of >> language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only >> introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in >> these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams >> for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't >> see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument >> based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them >> to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling >> textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the >> language ? and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure >> this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and >> Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most >> important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast >> majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. >> Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they >> speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to >> solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them >> on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that >> they *need*. >> >> It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary >> knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at >> institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching >> loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts >> (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average >> amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach >> only courses that require no previous linguistics training. >> >> I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early >> Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or >> activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files >> 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for >> undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot >> of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter >> system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level >> may be above what my undergrads can handle. >> >> Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! >> >> Best, >> Jo >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:45:43 -0800 > From: Wendy Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CFFC447.1070203 at csusb.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > I used George Yule's book one semester and found myself developing a > huge amount of materials to supplement it. It's rather skimpy. > > On 12/8/2010 7:53 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >>> I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your >>> requierements (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, >>> the fourth, published in 2010): >>> >>> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press >> >>     I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and >> fourth editions), and I agree.  It has the basic mainstream >> theoretical stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna >> mentions.  It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: >> >> http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 >> >>     At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: >> Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for >> non-majors that Johanna describes.  For that, we touched lightly on >> each chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each.  I >> supplemented it with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece >> about nouns and gender in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's >> presentation to Google). >> >>     We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. >> For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've >> had to supplement it with material from Language Files and other >> sources.  For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the >> rest of the book. >> >>     The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is >> less heavy on the generative stuff. >> > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6 > ************************************** > From mischlerj at nsula.edu Wed Dec 8 20:47:00 2010 From: mischlerj at nsula.edu (James J. Mischler) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:47:00 -0600 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I second the motion for "Language Myths." I have also used that book as a supplementary text in an introductory linguistics class, and it was useful for explaining complex concepts and language use issues in prose that non-linguists can understand. Students appreciated the concrete examples and descriptions. I will check out McGregor; thanks for the suggestion. Jim Mischler Assistant Professor Language & Communication Northwestern State University of Louisiana Natchitoches, LA 71497 -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of s.t. bischoff Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 2:41 PM To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6 William McGregor has a "functionalist" introductory textbook "Linguistics: An introduction"...you may also find "Language Myths" edited by Laure Bauer and Peter Trudgill of interest. On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Alternative Intro Ling courses (Johanna Rubba) > 2. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (jlmendi at unizar.es) > 3. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) > 4. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Mark P. Line) > 5. Re: Alternative Intro Ling courses (Wendy Smith) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:00:03 -0800 > From: Johanna Rubba > Subject: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B at calpoly.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of information flow in discourse structure > , and perhaps a basic understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") prove > their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language ? and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most important single idea they will take away from my course. > The vast majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my undergrads can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:37:42 +0100 > From: jlmendi at unizar.es > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <20101208163742.6fe2moz6ogss04go at webmail.unizar.es> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" > > Dear Johanna: > > I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements > (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, > published in 2010): > > Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > > Best regards: > Jos?-Luis Mend?vil > > > Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro >> linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively >> generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with >> aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? >> Well-educated citizens need to know about things like >> language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, >> myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information about >> language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of >> grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language >> experts" like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical >> discourse analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and >> heterosexism, language policy, the role of frames/schemas in >> everyday life, pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of >> semantics beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, >> utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of >> information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic >> understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of >> literature (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students >> are English majors). >> >> I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing >> textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor >> job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work >> that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, >> prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word >> definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype >> theory, but very cursorily). >> >> Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for >> non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for >> non-linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, >> fill their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, >> phonology, morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics >> described above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted >> to some of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal >> with all of them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week >> quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks >> teach generative theory as god's truth; they address >> counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, >> like island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point >> of view, prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never >> address specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they >> simply say that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or >> "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond the shadow of a >> doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't think of >> their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as >> proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. >> >> People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training >> future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the >> details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students >> their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't >> see any point in these students learning to solve phonology >> problems or draw tree diagrams for a tiny fraction of the sentence >> types that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them >> learn how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. >> I'm not even sure how important it is for them to understand speech >> articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd >> far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language ? >> and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure this >> would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and >> Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most >> important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast >> majority of the students respond with something about dialect >> prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based >> on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have >> mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree >> diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to >> *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. >> >> It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is >> necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many >> linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate >> students and have teaching loads and service obligations that >> severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses >> in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, >> which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that >> require no previous linguistics training. >> >> I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts >> early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field >> exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using >> Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found >> a better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure >> and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's >> not easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology >> and syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my >> undergrads can handle. >> >> Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! >> >> Best, >> Jo >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:53:49 -0500 > From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CFFAA0D.1030101 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >> I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your requierements >> (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, the fourth, >> published in 2010): >> >> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > > I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and > fourth editions), and I agree. It has the basic mainstream theoretical > stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna mentions. > It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: > > http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 > > At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: > Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for > non-majors that Johanna describes. For that, we touched lightly on each > chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each. I supplemented it > with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece about nouns and gender > in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's presentation to Google). > > We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. > For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've had > to supplement it with material from Language Files and other sources. > For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the rest of the book. > > The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is less > heavy on the generative stuff. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:14:24 -0600 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > <4b67b2f09dc2a23538d352dc65daf328.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Sounds like you need to write the textbook you envision. I'd teach from it > in a heartbeat if you did (and if I were still teaching). > > Failing that, I guess you'd have to continue to wing it with DIY readings > and exercises. > > If I remember right, the lecturer who taught intro ling in the English > department where I worked simply pulled together a collection of readings > (probably Saussure, Whorf, Bloomfield, very little from the Chomskyan era) > and came up with his own "exhibits" from newspapers and other media to > make the points he wanted to make (which were similar to your laundry list > below). > > Just as a random example, I recall him finding two headlines for the same > story in two different newspapers on the same day, and pointing out the > effect of the grammatical difference between the headlines. I don't > remember the precise example at the time, but it was along the lines of > > 1. Republicans Block Vote On Free Beer For All Act in Senate > 2. Vote On Free Beer For All Act Blocked in Senate > > His point, of course, was that passive voice buys you the ability to play > down the agent. > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > Johanna Rubba wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for >> non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone >> know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are >> practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know >> about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual >> education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information >> about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of >> grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" >> like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse >> analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language >> policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech >> acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, >> semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the >> role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic >> understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature >> (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English >> majors). >> >> I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, >> but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing >> the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the >> network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the >> role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks >> (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). >> >> Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for >> non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ >> and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages >> mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, >> and the poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a >> significant amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I >> don't think teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and >> especially not a ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And >> too many textbooks teach generative theory as god's truth; they address >> counterarguments minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like >> island constraints. They bring in data that, from their point of view, >> prove modularity and Universal Grammar, but they never address >> specifically any arguments that non-generativists make; they simply say >> that the data (e.g., genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") >> prove their theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the >> impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether they >> intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges not being >> worthy of their attention. >> >> People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future >> linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of >> language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only >> introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in >> these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams >> for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't >> see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument >> based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them >> to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling >> textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the >> language ? and language about language ? that exists around them. I'm sure >> this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and >> Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most >> important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast >> majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. >> Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they >> speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to >> solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them >> on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that >> they *need*. >> >> It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary >> knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at >> institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching >> loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts >> (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average >> amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach >> only courses that require no previous linguistics training. >> >> I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early >> Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or >> activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files >> 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for >> undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot >> of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter >> system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level >> may be above what my undergrads can handle. >> >> Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! >> >> Best, >> Jo >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:45:43 -0800 > From: Wendy Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > To: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CFFC447.1070203 at csusb.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > I used George Yule's book one semester and found myself developing a > huge amount of materials to supplement it. It's rather skimpy. > > On 12/8/2010 7:53 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> On 12/8/2010 10:37 AM, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >>> I think George Yule's popular handbook fits most of your >>> requierements (I've used the second edition, but there's a new one, >>> the fourth, published in 2010): >>> >>> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press >> >> I've been using this for the past four semesters (the third and >> fourth editions), and I agree. It has the basic mainstream >> theoretical stuff, but it also covers a lot of the topics that Johanna >> mentions. It's also available as an ebook, which I've found very handy: >> >> http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=502434 >> >> At Saint John's, we have a course called "Language and Culture: >> Linguistics," which is basically the kind of survey course for >> non-majors that Johanna describes. For that, we touched lightly on >> each chapter, and I assigned a few exercises from each. I >> supplemented it with a few articles (I love David Sedaris's piece >> about nouns and gender in French) and videos (such as Lakoff's >> presentation to Google). >> >> We also have a two-semester Introduction to Linguistics series. >> For the first semester, I've used only Chapters 3-9 and 15, but I've >> had to supplement it with material from Language Files and other >> sources. For the second semester I plan to use at least some of the >> rest of the book. >> >> The book doesn't say much about functional theories, but it is >> less heavy on the generative stuff. >> > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 87, Issue 6 > ************************************** > From cxr1086 at louisiana.edu Wed Dec 8 21:23:50 2010 From: cxr1086 at louisiana.edu (Charles C Rice) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:23:50 -0600 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Looks like a good outline for a textbook, Johanna. There's one that resembles your outline a bit, Introducing Language in Use, by Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison. They have the usual chapter on pragmatics, mostly Grice, but it is preceded by a chapter on Conversation Analysis and followed by one on power and politeness. The drawback is that it is British, so most of the example are suited to a British audience. Have you looked at Curzan and Adams, How English Works? The benefit of that one is that it focuses on English more specifically. You lose the dimension of cross-linguistic comparison but they can therefore squeeze in topics more specifically oriented to American English--more details on dialects, discussions of classroom issues, history of English. Clai Rice > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet- > bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:00 PM > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses > > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics for > non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does anyone > know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are > practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know > about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual > education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information > about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state of > grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" > like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse > analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, language > policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and speech > acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, implicature, > semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the > role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic > understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of literature > (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English > majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, > but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of addressing > the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on the > network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the > role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks > (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for non- > linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ and > Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages mostly > with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and the > poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a significant > amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I don't think > teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and especially not a > ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks > teach generative theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments > minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. > They bring in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and > Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments that > non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., genetic > language disability or "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond the > shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't > think of their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but as > proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training future > linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of > language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only > introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point in > these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree diagrams > for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't > see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument > based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them > to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling > textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the > language - and language about language - that exists around them. I'm sure > this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and > Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most > important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast > majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. > Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way they > speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to > solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count them > on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that > they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary > knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at > institutions at which they never train graduate students and have teaching > loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts > (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average > amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach > only courses that require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts early > Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or > activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files > 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for > undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot > of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a quarter > system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the level > may be above what my undergrads can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Dec 8 21:42:07 2010 From: cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Carol Genetti) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:42:07 -0800 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <0EA11F1A39674DE29A3C60D73AF8E991@win.louisiana.edu> Message-ID: FYI, I am in the process of putting together a textbook introducing the field from a functional-typological perspective, with primary chapters by Matthew Gordon (phonetics, phonology), Marianne Mithun (morphology, language change), myself (intro, word classes, syntax, fieldwork and lg documentation), Wallace Chafe (discourse, prosody), Michael Israel (semantics), Mira Ariel (pragmatics), Bernard Comrie (Typology), Alexandra Aikhenvald (language contact and areal linguistics), Mary Bucholtz (sociolinguistics), Patricia Clancy (first-language acquisition), and Jan Frodesen and Dorothy Chun (second-language acquisition). In addition, the book will contain fourteen "language profiles", studies of individual languages from around the globe, each of which provides a basic overview of the situation and core typological features of the langauge, then focuses on one particular facet ties into a main chapters. The title will be "How languages work", and it is slated to be published by Cambridge University Press, we hope by the end of 2011. The book teaches core structural linguistics and analysis, but I am hopeful that there will be enough other materials to make a rich course for students who will not be continuing in linguistics. The textbook will have an associated website, with lots of materials, such as sound files, "how to" sheets, interactive homework sets, PowerPoints, etc. This has been years in the making, but we are now moving towards completion. We'll circulate an announcement once it is in press. Carol Genetti --On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:23 PM -0600 Charles C Rice wrote: > Looks like a good outline for a textbook, Johanna. > > There's one that resembles your outline a bit, Introducing Language in > Use, by Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison. They have the usual chapter on > pragmatics, mostly Grice, but it is preceded by a chapter on Conversation > Analysis and followed by one on power and politeness. The drawback is that > it is British, so most of the example are suited to a British audience. > > Have you looked at Curzan and Adams, How English Works? The benefit of > that one is that it focuses on English more specifically. You lose the > dimension of cross-linguistic comparison but they can therefore squeeze in > topics more specifically oriented to American English--more details on > dialects, discussions of classroom issues, history of English. > > Clai Rice > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet- >> bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Johanna Rubba >> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:00 PM >> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Alternative Intro Ling courses >> >> Hi, >> >> Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro linguistics > for >> non-majors that does not take an exclusively generative line? Does > anyone >> know of books that deal primarily with aspects of language that are >> practically useful for non-majors? Well-educated citizens need to know >> about things like language/dialect prejudice, myths concerning bilingual >> education, myths concerning first-language acquisition, some information >> about language history and the history of English, the horrendous state > of >> grammar instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" >> like John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse >> analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, > language >> policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, pragmatics and > speech >> acts, a deeper understanding of semantics beyond entailment, > implicature, >> semantic features, utterance vs. sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the >> role of information flow in discourse structure, and perhaps a basic >> understanding of how linguistics can be applied to the study of > literature >> (for English majors, at least; most of my intro students are English >> majors). >> >> I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing textbooks, >> but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor job of > addressing >> the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work that has been done on > the >> network model, usage-based models, prototypes, categorization, and the >> role of schemas/frames in word definition are lacking in most textbooks >> (some allude to prototype theory, but very cursorily). >> >> Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for non- >> linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non-linguists_ and >> Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill their pages mostly >> with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and > the >> poor treatment of semantics described above). They do have a significant >> amount of space devoted to some of the above topics, but I don't think >> teachers can deal with all of them in a single term (and especially not > a >> ten-week quarter, which it is my fate to teach in). And too many > textbooks >> teach generative theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments >> minimally, and often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. >> They bring in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and >> Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments > that >> non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., genetic >> language disability or "linguistic savants") prove their theory beyond > the >> shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the impression that they don't >> think of their theory as theory (whether they intend this or not), but > as >> proven fact, with any challenges not being worthy of their attention. >> >> People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training > future >> linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the details of >> language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students their only >> introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't see any point > in >> these students learning to solve phonology problems or draw tree > diagrams >> for a tiny fraction of the sentence types that exist in English. I don't >> see the point of having them learn how to build a linguistic argument >> based on structural data. I'm not even sure how important it is for them >> to understand speech articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling >> textbooks. I'd far prefer that they learn to think critically about the >> language - and language about language - that exists around them. I'm > sure >> this would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and >> Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most >> important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast >> majority of the students respond with something about dialect prejudice. >> Many, many say they will never again judge a person based on the way > they >> speak. There may have been some students who have mentioned learning to >> solve phonology problems or drawing tree diagrams, but I could count > them >> on one hand. Students seem to *want* the understanding of language that >> they *need*. >> >> It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is necessary >> knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many linguists work at >> institutions at which they never train graduate students and have > teaching >> loads and service obligations that severely limit their research efforts >> (like me; I teach nine courses in the typical year, and do an average >> amount of committee work, which I actually like to do). Many of us teach >> only courses that require no previous linguistics training. >> >> I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts > early >> Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field exercises or >> activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using Language Files >> 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a better one for >> undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure and use_ covers a lot >> of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not easily managed on a > quarter >> system, the chapters on phonology and syntax are confusing, and the > level >> may be above what my undergrads can handle. >> >> Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: > Help! >> >> Best, >> Jo >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Wed Dec 8 22:47:16 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:47:16 -0700 Subject: Alternative Intro Ling courses In-Reply-To: <8505D88E-02F1-4275-9DD8-DCB88086A75B@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Hi, all. I gingerly suggested to Jo this morning that my intro to psycholinguistics might do a large part of what she wants. Maybe you other folks want to have a look at it, too? You can see a complete outline on the publisher's website (link below). The first half of the book is linguistics (from the standpoint of what we have to do to understand what we hear and say what we mean) and the second half is aphasia, language development, reading, L2, and other clinical/classroom applications. Here's the link: http://www.pluralpublishing.com/publication_psl.htm Best, Lise On Dec 7, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone else out there looking for a textbook for intro > linguistics for non-majors that does not take an exclusively > generative line? Does anyone know of books that deal primarily with > aspects of language that are practically useful for non-majors? Well- > educated citizens need to know about things like language/dialect > prejudice, myths concerning bilingual education, myths concerning > first-language acquisition, some information about language history > and the history of English, the horrendous state of grammar > instruction in our schools, the fakeness of "language experts" like > John Simon, propaganda techniques, results of critical discourse > analysis concerning things like racism, sexism and heterosexism, > language policy, the role of frames/schemas in everyday life, > pragmatics and speech acts, a deeper understanding of semantics > beyond entailment, implicature, semantic features, utterance vs. > sentence meaning, and the "nyms," the role of information flow in > discourse structure, and perhaps a basic understanding of how > linguistics can be applied to the study of literature (for English > majors, at least; most of my intro students are English majors). > > I know that a number of these topics are covered in existing > textbooks, but a number are not. Also, existing textbooks do a poor > job of addressing the lexicon, if they address it at all. The work > that has been done on the network model, usage-based models, > prototypes, categorization, and the role of schemas/frames in word > definition are lacking in most textbooks (some allude to prototype > theory, but very cursorily). > > Intro textbooks, even those that advertise themselves as being for > non-linguists, such as Parker & Riley's _Linguistics for non- > linguists_ and Denham and Lobeck's _Linguistics for everyone_, fill > their pages mostly with the core subjects (phonetics, phonology, > morphology, syntax, and the poor treatment of semantics described > above). They do have a significant amount of space devoted to some > of the above topics, but I don't think teachers can deal with all of > them in a single term (and especially not a ten-week quarter, which > it is my fate to teach in). And too many textbooks teach generative > theory as god's truth; they address counterarguments minimally, and > often by trundling out old data, like island constraints. They bring > in data that, from their point of view, prove modularity and > Universal Grammar, but they never address specifically any arguments > that non-generativists make; they simply say that the data (e.g., > genetic language disability or "linguistic savants") prove their > theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. One could easily get the > impression that they don't think of their theory as theory (whether > they intend this or not), but as proven fact, with any challenges > not being worthy of their attention. > > People are still writing these textbooks as though we are training > future linguists who already have an intrinsic interest in the > details of language structure. I have ten weeks to give my students > their only introduction to the scientific study of language. I don't > see any point in these students learning to solve phonology problems > or draw tree diagrams for a tiny fraction of the sentence types > that exist in English. I don't see the point of having them learn > how to build a linguistic argument based on structural data. I'm not > even sure how important it is for them to understand speech > articulation in the detail seen in most intro ling textbooks. I'd > far prefer that they learn to think critically about the language – > and language about language – that exists around them. I'm sure this > would engage them far more (my most popular course is Language and > Gender). When I do exit surveys in my classes, I ask for the most > important single idea they will take away from my course. The vast > majority of the students respond with something about dialect > prejudice. Many, many say they will never again judge a person based > on the way they speak. There may have been some students who have > mentioned learning to solve phonology problems or drawing tree > diagrams, but I could count them on one hand. Students seem to > *want* the understanding of language that they *need*. > > It would be interesting to know what most linguists believe is > necessary knowledge about language for the non-major. Many, many > linguists work at institutions at which they never train graduate > students and have teaching loads and service obligations that > severely limit their research efforts (like me; I teach nine courses > in the typical year, and do an average amount of committee work, > which I actually like to do). Many of us teach only courses that > require no previous linguistics training. > > I'm teaching intro ling to English majors in winter quarter (starts > early Jan.). I'm going to spend my winter break thinking up field > exercises or activities that will "sex up" the course. And I'm using > Language Files 10th edition. Not a great book, but I haven't found a > better one for undergraduates. Finegan's _Language: its structure > and use_ covers a lot of the territory I'm looking for, but it's not > easily managed on a quarter system, the chapters on phonology and > syntax are confusing, and the level may be above what my undergrads > can handle. > > Any thoughts, suggestions, practices you'd be willing to share? Or: > Help! > > Best, > Jo > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From edith at uwm.edu Thu Dec 9 01:53:12 2010 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:53:12 -0600 Subject: Conference on endangered languages - call for papers In-Reply-To: <735907832.492638.1291859515517.JavaMail.root@mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID:                  SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS   LANGUAGE DEATH, ENDANGERMENT, DOCUMENTATION AND REVITALIZATION   26th UWM Linguistics Symposium University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI, USA October 20-22, 2011   ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Fred Eckman, Elena Mihas, Edith Moravcsik, Sally Noonan, Hamid Ouali, Bernard Perley, Gabriel Rei-Doval , Bozena Tieszen, Kathleen Wheatley   DESCRIPTION In a globalized world where hundreds of languages are expected to become extinct in the 21st century, it is highly relevant to analyze the viability and continuity of threatened languages. The purpose of this symposium is to discuss this impending loss to humankind from a multidisciplinary perspective.   We invite contributions for the assessment of this process from Linguistics, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Education, and related fields. Equally welcome is the participation of practitioners in language revitalization efforts. We wish to combine theoretical and practical perspectives for the analysis of the linguistic and social processes involved in language death, endangerment, documentation and revitalization. Possible topics include the following: - The genetic and areal distribution of endangered   languages - Structural characteristics of endangered     languages - Cultural characteristics of endangered language   communities - Causes of language endangerment - Documentation of endangered languages - Language revitalization programs and practices - Academic ethics and advocacy in language     endangerment   SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS (a)    Length:         The abstract may be up to one page of text           plus up to half a page containing possible        examples, charts, and references.   (b)    Format:        The abstract should include the title of the           paper and the text of the abstract but not         the author’s name or affiliation. The e-mail        message to which it is attached should list       the title, the author’s name, and the       author’s affiliation. Abstracts will be         evaluated anonymously.   Please send the message with the abstract to 26thlinguistics-symposium at uwm.edu   SUBMISSION DEADLINE : FEBRUARY 1 st , 2011 Authors will be notified on their acceptance status by April 30 th , 2011.   CONFERENCE WEBSITE: https://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/linguistics2011 or search for UWM Linguistics Symposium -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From monica.gonzalez.marquez at gmail.com Thu Dec 9 16:50:56 2010 From: monica.gonzalez.marquez at gmail.com (monica gonzalez-marquez) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:50:56 +0100 Subject: Final Call: EMCL 5.1 - new faculty, extended deadline Message-ID: Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.1 – Freiburg **** March 6 – 11, 2011 https://sites.google.com/site/emcl5freiburg/ !!!!!!!!!Note extended deadline and new faculty!!!!!! --------------------Application deadline: extended to December 20, 2010---------------------- We invite applications for the, 5th Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics workshop, to be held in, Freiburg, Germany, March 6 – 11, 2011 The goal of EMCL is to facilitate dialogue among language researchers with different methodological backgrounds, i.e. theorists, experimentalists, corpus linguists, etc. We do this by creating an environment where specialists learn from each other by developing a research project together where their various skills are combined. Intended audience: Language researchers with an embodiment, situated cognition and/or cognitive linguistics background. No prior experimental or corpus training is required though an understanding of the theoretical issues is necessary. Participants can be at different early stages in their careers, i.e. graduate students, post-grads, post-docs, junior faculty, etc. Format: During the course of a week, participants will join one of 5 hands-on mini-labs. Each mini-lab will be responsible for completing a joint research project. A select group of students (max. 8 per group for a total of 40***) will be invited to participate. Each group will work with two researchers who will guide the group in selecting an idea for the group to investigate, structuring and organizing a research project, and carrying it out. The session will end with the presentation of findings and a general discussion. Topics to be covered include, - Deciding on a research topic - Transforming the research topic into a research question - Developing experimental hypotheses and designing an experiment - Data collection - Statistical analysis and interpretation - Presentation of findings to an audience Workshop Faculty NOTE: Competition for spots in the mini-labs is high. To avoid disappointment, please select at least 2 mini-labs, and give your order preference. Group 1: Alan Cienki, Vrije Universiteit Interests: cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, spoken language, gesture, political discourse, contrastive linguistics http://www.let.vu.nl/en/about-the-faculty/academic-staff/staff-listed-alphabetically/staff-a-d/dr-a-cienki/index.asp Raymond B. Becker, CITEC, Bielefeld University Interests: cognitive linguistics, time, action and affordances, cross-modal switching costs https://www.cit-ec.de/users/rbecker Group 2: Kenny Coventry, Northumbria University Interests: language and perception, spatial language, embodiment, decision making http://kenny.coventry.googlepages.com/home Katharina Rohlfing, Bielefeld University Interests: emergentist semantics, early literacy, human-machine interaction, rhetoric and communication https://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~rohlfing/website/data/index.html http://www.cit-ec.de/es Group 3: Lars Konieczny, University of Freiburg Interests: Theoretical, Empirical, and Computational Psycholinguistics, Eye-movements research, Reading, Spoken language comprehension in the Visual-World-paradigm, Spatial reasoning and wayfinding, Cognitive modeling (ACT-R, Connectionist Modeling), Embodied Cognition http://portal.uni-freiburg.de/cognition/Members/konieczny Michele Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Interests: lexical semantics, spatial language, psycholinguistics, acquisition of semantics, language and cognition http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232/ Group 4: Seana Coulson, University of California, San Diego Interests: Conceptual Blending, Joke Comprehension, Metaphor, Analogical Reasoning, Concept Combination, Sentence Processing http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/ Panos Athanasopoulos, Bangor University Interests: Bilingualism and Cognition, Language and Thought, Emotion, Language Acquisition, conceptual development http://www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics/about/panos.php.en Group 5: Kristian Tylén, Aarhus University Interests: Object Cognition, Social Cognition, Language and Cognition, Neurosemiotics, Neuroaesthetics http://www.cfin.au.dk/menu709-en Anatol Stefanowitsch, University of Hamburg Interests: Encoding of motion events, Second language research, Construction Grammar, Quantitative Corpus Linguistics, Metaphor, Negative evidence http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/stefanowitsch/ Accommodation: Accommodation at walking distance to the university will be arranged for all student participants. Cost will be €20 per night. (We “may” receive funds to cover student accommodation, in which case all applicants will be notified.) Participation Fee: €125 **, payable by bank transfer or upon arrival by prior arrangement. (This fee helps cover the costs of organization and faculty travel.) Application: To apply, please send the following by December 20, 2010. All materials must be submitted electronically to emcl5.freiburg (at) googlemail.com PLEASE WRITE 'APPLICATION' IN THE SUBJECT LINE. 1. A maximum of two (2) pages, (1000 words), describing, - your background, - your reasons for wanting to participate, - the research group you would like to work in and why. Please include in this section a brief description of your research interests. NOTE: Competition for spots in the mini-labs is high. To avoid disappointment, please select at least 2 mini-labs, and give your order preference. All topics listed above must be addressed. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed. 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. The application deadline is December 20, 2010 Accepted applicants will be notified on or before January 15, 2011 This workshop is supported by: the FRIAS at Freiburg University http://www.frias.uni-freiburg.de/ the Research training group (GRK DFG 1624/1) Frequency effects in language http://frequenz.uni-freiburg.de/abstract&language=de and the DFG (pending). www.dfg.de ** 2 (two) tuition scholarships will be awarded by lottery to students traveling from Eastern Europe and 3rd world countries. Please state in your application whether you would like to be included in the lottery. *** Please note: Attendance is strictly limited to invited participants. No exceptions will be made so as to preserve pedagogical integrity. **** EMCL 5.2 will be held in Chicago, USA, June 2011 with a different set of faculty. That notice will follow in January, 2011. --- EMCL 5 Organizing Committee: Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Chair, Cornell University Martin Hilpert, University of Freiburg Raymond Becker, Bielefeld University Lars Konieczny, University of Freiburg -- So that the form takes as many risks as the content. From, "Ava" by Carole Maso Monica Gonzalez-Marquez Psychology Department Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Currently visiting at: Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC) Bielefeld University Universitaetsstr. 25, Gebaeudeteil Q 33615 Bielefeld Germany From yutamb at mail.ru Mon Dec 13 19:27:47 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:27:47 +0600 Subject: Russian literature guru Mihail Bahtin and plagiarism Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We have analysed the text of the famous Russian literature guru Mihail Bahtin. Also his suspects Voloshinov and Madvedev. We are going to publish the results. What journals are suitable? We failed to find any. Plagiarism has been studied by functional words in the texts. Looking forward to hearing from you more on plagiarism to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk Ped.University, Novosibirsk, Russia From Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr Wed Dec 15 12:44:37 2010 From: Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr (Florence Chenu) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:44:37 +0100 Subject: LAST CALL 4th International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association Message-ID: =============== LAST CALL FOR PAPERS =============== (French version follows) AFLiCo IV Fourth International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association, Lyon, France, 24th-27th May 2011 SUBMISSION DEADLINES Deadline for general session papers: 22nd December 2010 Deadline for workshops/thematic sessions: 18th December 2010 INVITED SPEAKERS * Danièle DUBOIS (University of Paris 6, France) * Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia) * Harriet JISA (University of Lyon 2, France) * Maarten LEMMENS (University of Lille 3, France) * Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) * Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, UK) CONFERENCE WEBSITE http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ SUBMISSION DEADLINES Deadline for general session papers: 22nd December 2010 Deadline for workshops/thematic sessions: 18th December 2010 CONFERENCE THEME of AFLiCo IV 'Cognitive Linguistics and Typology: Language diversity, variation and change '. This conference aims to bring together linguists engaged in cognitively-oriented research with those working in a functional-typological framework on cross-linguistic variation and on language description. The emphasis will be on (1) language diversity of both spoken and signed languages; (2) inter- and intra-linguistic variation; (3) language change. The conference will bring together linguists working with various methodological approaches and using various kinds of spontaneous and elicited data, including spoken and written corpora, fieldwork data, and experimental data. Proposals are invited for workshops/thematic sessions, for general session papers, and for posters, on topics related to the theme, and on topics in Cognitive Linguistics generally. Papers that report empirically-grounded research on less-studied languages and on typologically, genetically and areally diverse languages will be particularly welcome. Topics include, but are not limited to: - methods and data in cognitive linguistics and in language typology and description - convergence and divergence between cognitive linguistics and functional-typological linguistics - studies from a cognitive and/or typological perspective in phonetics, phonology, morphosyntax, semantics and pragmatics - language variation within and across languages, both spoken and signed - language change from a cognitive and/or typological perspective - language acquisition - studies and advances in construction grammar - language and gesture in cross-linguistic perspective LANGUAGES OF THE CONFERENCE The languages of the conference are French and English. ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND POSTERS Proposals are invited for 30-minute slots (20-minute presentation plus question time) in the general sessions and for posters (A1 size). WORKSHOPS, INCLUDING THEMATIC SESSIONS Proposals are invited for half-day or full-day workshops/thematic sessions. Each workshop proposal should contain the following information: - the names and contact details of two workshop organizers - the title of the proposed workshop - an overview of the topic and aims of the workshop (up to 2 pages) - an indication of the desired schedule (number of slots: 4, 6 or 10; half day or full day; number and nature of presentations, discussions, round tables, etc. that the workshop will comprise). Note that, within a workshop, each presentation, discussion or round table will occupy one 30-minute slot in parallel with one general session slot. - an abstract (consistent with the indications below under 'Submission procedure') for each proposed 30-minute presentation Workshop proposals will be refereed in the same way as general session and poster proposals. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Proposals should be submitted online following the instructions to be found at the following address: http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ Author information (name, affiliation, email address) will be required on the submission website. An author may submit a maximum of two abstracts, of which at least one must be co-authored. In the case of co-authored abstracts, the first-named author will be the contact person. Abstracts will be anonymously reviewed and notification of acceptance will be sent out from 25th February 2011. The anonymous abstracts must be in 12 point Times or Times New Roman font, formatted for A4 or US Letter size paper with margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch. The maximum length for the text of the abstract is one page; a second page may be used only for figures, glossed examples and bibliographical references. ========================= DERNIER APPEL À COMMUNICATION ========================= AFLiCo IV Quatrième Colloque International de l’Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive Lyon, France, 24-27 Mai 2011 DATES LIMITES POUR LES PROPOSITIONS DE COMMUNICATION : Date limite pour les sessions générales : 22 décembre 2010 Date limite pour les sessions thématiques : 18 décembre 2010 CONFÉRENCIERS INVITÉS * Danièle DUBOIS (Université Paris 6, France) * Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australie) * Harriet JISA (Université Lyon 2, France) * Maarten LEMMENS (Université Lille 3, France) * Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, États-Unis) * Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, Royaume-Uni) SITE WEB DU COLLOQUE http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ THÈME DU COLLOQUE AFLiCo IV ‘Linguistique cognitive et typologie : diversité des langues, variation et changement’. L’objectif de ce colloque est de réunir des linguistes travaillant dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive et/ou dans le domaine de la linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique sur la variation inter-linguistique et la description des langues. L’accent du colloque sera mis sur (1) la diversité des systèmes linguistiques aussi bien oraux que signés, (2) la variation qui s’opère sur les plans inter- et intra- linguistiques et (3) les changements des systèmes linguistiques. Dans cette perspective, le colloque rassemblera des chercheurs qui travaillent sur des terrains linguistiques variés, qui abordent leur objet d’étude dans une perspective synchronique et/ou diachronique et qui utilisent différentes méthodes et différents types de données telles que des données spontanées ou élicitées, y compris orales ou écrites, des données de terrain ou encore des données expérimentales. Nous attendons des propositions de sessions thématiques, des propositions de présentations orales de sessions générales et de posters sur des problématiques en lien avec le thème du colloque et dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive en général. Les propositions portant sur des langues moins bien décrites et des langues qui varient du point de vue typologique, génétique et aréal seront particulièrement appréciées. Les thématiques incluent, mais ne se limitent pas aux suivantes : - méthodes et données en linguistique cognitive, typologie et description des langues ; - convergence et divergence entre linguistique cognitive et linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique ; - études menées dans une perspective cognitive et/ou typologique dans les domaines de la phonétique, phonologie, morphosyntaxe, sémantique et pragmatique ; - variation inter- et intra-linguistique dans les langues parlées et les langues signées ; - changements linguistiques dans une perspective cognitive et/ou typologique ; - acquisition du langage ; - recherches et avancées dans le domaine de la grammaire des constructions ; - langue et geste dans une perspective inter-linguistique. LANGUES OFFICIELLES DU COLLOQUE Les deux langues du colloque sont le français et l’anglais. COMMUNICATIONS ET POSTERS Nous invitons des propositions de communication aux sessions générales de 30 minutes (20 minutes de présentation et 10 minutes de questions) et des propositions de posters (format A1). ATELIERS ET SESSIONS THÉMATIQUES Nous accueillons des propositions d’une demi-journée ou d’une journée entière pour des ateliers et/ou sessions thématiques. Ces ateliers/sessions thématiques doivent être proposés par deux organisateurs. Chaque proposition doit inclure les informations suivantes : - les noms et les coordonnées des deux organisateurs - le titre de la session - une présentation du thème et des objectifs de la session (2 pages maximum) - une précision concernant le temps souhaité (nombre de créneaux horaires : 4, 6 ou 10 ; une journée ou une journée entière ; nombre et nature des présentations, discussions, tables rondes, etc.). - un résumé d’une page pour chaque présentation (une deuxième page peut être utilisée pour des figures, exemples glosés et références bibliographiques) Les propositions d’ateliers et/ou de sessions thématiques seront soumises à la même procédure d’évaluation que les propositions pour les sessions générales et les posters. La notification d’acceptation sera envoyée aux deux organisateurs à partir du 25 février 2011. SOUMISSION DES PROPOSITIONS Les propositions seront soumises en ligne suivant les instructions indiquées à l’adresse suivante : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ Un auteur ne peut soumettre que deux propositions de communication dont une au moins devrait être en co-auteur. Les informations concernant l’auteur (nom, affiliation, adresse email) seront requises lors de la soumission en ligne mais les propositions seront évaluées de façon anonyme. Dans le cas des propositions en co-auteur le premier auteur sera la personne référente/contact. Les propositions seront examinées de façon anonyme par 2 membres experts du comité scientifique. La notification d’acceptation sera envoyée aux auteurs à partir du 25 février 2011. Les propositions ne devront pas dépasser une page. Une deuxième page peut être utilisée pour des figures, exemples glosés et références bibliographiques. Format des propositions : papier A4, marges 2,5 cm, police Times ou Times New Roman. From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Thu Dec 16 23:26:58 2010 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:26:58 +0000 Subject: Permanent Lectureship in Linguistics [Bangor University] Message-ID: School of Linguistics and English Language, Bangor University Lecturer position in Linguistics Grade 7: £29,853 - £35,646 p.a. (Reference No: 11-10/118) Applications are invited for a full-time, permanent Lectureship in Linguistics. The post is tenable from July 1st 2011 or as soon as possible thereafter. The School of Linguistics and English Language has two research priorities: Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism. The successful candidate will have an established or emerging research programme, including publications, which fits with one (or both) of these research priorities. Candidates will have promise of producing research outputs at a level of international excellence and clear and realistic plans for successful grant capture. In addition, the successful candidate will be able to contribute to teaching in the undergraduate programmes in Linguistics and English Language, as well as one or more of the MA programmes, with evidence of teaching excellence. The School offers four MAs: Anthropological Linguistics, Bilingualism, Cognitive Linguistics, and Linguistics. Experience of teaching and/or the ability to teach a selection of modules from the following at undergraduate and postgraduate levels may be an advantage: grammar, language acquisition, anthropological/cultural linguistics, linguistic ethnography, language and mind/psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics. Applicants invited to interview will be asked to submit two representative articles, and will be asked to give a presentation providing an overview of their research. Closing date for applications: 1.00 p.m. Monday 24th January, 2011. Interviews will take place on 2nd March, 2011 See the web link for further details: http://www.bangor.ac.uk/corporate/vacancies/home.php.en?jobdetails=1&reference=11-10/118&category2=Academic *Specifications and Further Particulars* Background information: The School of Linguistics & English Language is the only School of Linguistics in Wales, one of the oldest in the UK, and Bangor University is the only Welsh institution to offer a degree in Linguistics. At present, the School has approximately 180 undergraduate and around 24 MA students and 20 PhD students. We offer single honours degrees in Linguistics, and English language plus combined degree programmes with other Schools. We also have four taught masters programmes, including an MA in Anthropological Linguistics, an MA in Bilingualism, an MA in Cognitive Linguistics, and an MA in Linguistics. The School has a vibrant research community and culture and is particularly known for its research in the areas of Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism. The purpose of this post, in part, is to further enhance capacity in these areas. The strength of Bilingualism in the School has led to the establishment of the ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice (www.bilingualism.bangor.ac.uk ), the first and only research centre in the UK to focus on bilingualism, bringing together researchers from the Schools of Linguistics, Psychology and Education. From August 2011, the School of Linguistics & English Language will be merging with the School of Modern Languages to form the largest School in the College of Arts, Education & Humanities, in the University. The new School of Languages and Linguistics will have around 20 full-time academic staff, as well as nearly 20 teaching support staff. The Lectureships will be based within the Linguistics & English Language section of the new School. Information on Linguistics & English Language, including its staff and their research interests can be found at http://www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics/ Post specification: The post-holder will maintain an active research programme leading to publications at a level of international excellence, while developing plans and applying for external funding. Teaching commitment will not exceed 8 hours per week, for 20 teaching weeks per year, with one semester of teaching remission granted periodically as agreed by the Head of School in order to support research activities. The post-holder will perform administrative duties, as agreed with the Head of School, be eligible for School research support funds, some of which are awarded on a merit basis in order to support the development of an internationally excellent reputation in areas of research expertise. The post-holder will also be expected to establish a record of teaching excellence at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and to offer at least one module in their area of research expertise at the MA level. The post-holder are also expected to establish a record of significant service to the School, including serving as a personal tutor to undergraduate and graduate students, and University and the academic community at large. The post-holder will be responsible to the Head of School. Person specification: Essential: . An established or emerging research programme that relates to one (or both) of the School's research priorities: Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism . A PhD in hand from date of appointment, in a relevant area . A publication record that shows promise of leading to research outputs that can be described as internationally excellent under the terms of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/) . Clear plans for grant application, and promise of successful grant capture, . An ability to contribute to teaching in the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes offered by Linguistics & English Language . Evidence of the promise of excellence in teaching provision . The ability to work well as part of a team, and in a collegial way . Demonstrate an understanding of the bilingual nature of the institution and the area. Desirable: . Experience of teaching or the ability to teach a subset of the following at undergraduate and postgraduate levels: grammar, language acquisition, anthropological/cultural linguistics, linguistic ethnography, language and mind/psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics . Evidence or promise of the ability to build national and international research collaborations . The ability/expertise to develop research synergies with colleagues in Modern Languages (www.bangor.ac.uk/ml/ ) . Experience of University administration How to apply: To receive full consideration, applicants are requested to provide i) a completed standard Bangor application form, available from the Bangor University Job Opportunities web-site, ii) a curriculum vitae including a full listing of publications, iii) a statement of research interests and plans, iv) a statement of teaching experience, including details of which modules at undergraduate and MA levels the applicant is able and willing to teach, and v) the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of three referees with knowledge of applicants' research and teaching credentials. The positions are permanent, tenable from July 1st 2011, or as soon as possible thereafter. For any informal enquiries about this post, please contact the Head of School, Professor Vyv Evans (tel. +44 (0)1248 383295, e-mail: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk). Evidence of Eligibility to work in the U.K. The University has a legal responsibility to ensure that all employees are eligible to live and work in the UK. For positions which require highly specialised skills and qualifications, and there are no suitable 'resident' (i.e European Economic Area (EEA)) applicants, the University will often be able to obtain a certificate of sponsorship for a suitably qualified applicant who is not currently eligible to work in the UK. For vacancies that are not academic, research or highly specialist it is extremely unlikely that a certificate of sponsorship would be granted. In such cases we will therefore be unable to consider an application from someone who is not currently eligible to work in the UK. The UK Border Agency website www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk has full details to help you assess whether you would be eligible to apply for one of our vacancies. Prior to being permitted to commence employment with the University, you will be required to produce documentary evidence of permission to work in the United Kingdom. Acceptable documents are items such as a passport showing you are a British Citizen, or that you have a right of abode in the United Kingdom; a document showing your permanent UK National Insurance Number and your full UK Birth Certificate; A document showing that you are a national of a European Economic Area country or Switzerland - this must be a national passport or national identity card; A passport or UK issued national identity card providing evidence of your Visa detailing the Tier for which your Certificate of Sponsorship covered you e.g. Tier 2, Tier 4, Tier 5 or indeed Tier 1 if you applied for this yourself. This list is not exhaustive. A full list of acceptable documentary evidence is available on request. An original document must be seen on or before your first day of employment. -- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net Head of School School of Linguistics & English Language Bangor University www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics General Editor of 'Language & Cognition' A Mouton de Gruyter journal www.languageandcognition.net -- Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Thu Dec 16 23:52:56 2010 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Evans) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:52:56 +0000 Subject: Permanent Senior Lecturer/Reader in Linguistics [Bangor University] Message-ID: Senior Lecturer/Reader position in the School of Linguistics and English Language, Bangor University Grade 9: £45,155 - £52,347 p.a. (Reference No: 11-10/119) Applications are invited for a full-time, permanent Senior Lecturer/Reader in Linguistics. The post is tenable from July 1st 2011 or as soon as possible thereafter. The School of Linguistics & English Language has two research priorities: Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism. The successful candidate will have an established and high profile research programme, including publications at a level of international excellence, which fits with one (or both) of these research priorities. The successful candidate will have a track record of securing external grant capture with clear and realistic plans for future grant capture. In addition, the successful candidate will be able to contribute to teaching in the undergraduate programmes in Linguistics and English Language, as well as one or more of the MA programmes, with evidence of teaching excellence. The School offers four MAs: Anthropological Linguistics, Bilingualism, Cognitive Linguistics, and Linguistics. Experience of teaching and/or the ability one or more of modules from the following at undergraduate and postgraduate levels may be an advantage: grammar, language acquisition, anthropological/cultural linguistics, linguistic ethnography, language and mind/psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics. The successful candidate will also be expected to mentor more junior research-active colleagues, and be involved in developing the School's research strategy. Applicants invited to interview will be asked to submit three representative articles, and will be asked to give a presentation providing an overview of their research. Closing date for applications: 1.00 p.m. Monday 24th January, 2011. Interviews will take place on 1st March, 2011. See the weblink at: http://www.bangor.ac.uk/corporate/vacancies/home.php.en?jobdetails=1&reference=11-10/119&category2=Academic * Specifications and Further Particulars* Background information: The School of Linguistics & English Language is the only School of Linguistics in Wales, one of the oldest in the UK, and Bangor University is the only Welsh institution to offer a degree in Linguistics. At present, the School has approximately 180 undergraduate and around 24 MA students and 20 PhD students. We offer single honours degrees in Linguistics, and English language plus combined degree programmes with other Schools. We also have four taught masters programmes, including an MA in Anthropological Linguistics, an MA in Bilingualism, an MA in Cognitive Linguistics, and an MA in Linguistics. The School has a vibrant research community and culture and is particularly known for its research in the areas of Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism. The purpose of this post, in part, is to further enhance capacity in these areas. The strength of Bilingualism in the School has led to the establishment of the ESRC Centre for Research on Bilingualism in Theory and Practice (www.bilingualism.bangor.ac.uk ), the first and only centre in the UK to focus on bilingualism, bringing together researchers from the Schools of Linguistics, Psychology and Education. From August 2011, the School of Linguistics & English Language will be merging with the School of Modern Languages to form the largest School in the College of Arts, Education & Humanities, in the University. The new School of Languages and Linguistics will have around 20 full-time academic staff, as well as nearly 20 teaching support staff. The Senior Lecturer/Reader will be based within the Linguistics & English Language section of the new School. Information on Linguistics & English Language, including its staff and their research interests can be found at http://www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics/ Post specification: The post holder will maintain an active research programme, including publishing research outputs at a level of international excellence, while applying for external funding. Teaching commitment will not exceed 8 hours per week, for 20 teaching weeks per year, with one semester of teaching remission granted periodically as agreed by the Head of School in order to support research activities. The post holder will perform administrative duties, as agreed with the Head of School, be eligible for School research support funds, some of which are awarded on a merit basis in order to maintain an internationally excellent reputation in areas of research expertise. The post holder will also be expected to maintain a record of teaching excellence at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and to offer at least one module in their area of research expertise at the MA level. The post holder will also maintain a record of significant service to the School, including serving as a personal tutor to undergraduate and graduate students, and the University and the academic community at large. The post holder is expected to be involved in mentoring more junior research-active colleagues, and to engage with and assist in developing the evolving research strategy of the School. Person specification: Essential: An established and high-profile research programme that relates to one (or both) of the School's research priorities: Cognitive Linguistics, and Bilingualism/Multilingualism A PhD in a relevant area An established publication record that is internationally excellent in nature as judged under the terms of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/) A track record of successful external grant capture, with clear plans for future grant applications An ability to contribute to teaching in the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes offered by Linguistics & English Language Evidence of excellence in teaching provision The ability to work well as part of a team, and in a collegial way Demonstrate an understanding of the bilingual nature of the institution and the area. Desirable: Experience of teaching or the ability to teach one or more of the following at undergraduate and postgraduate levels: grammar, language acquisition, anthropological/cultural linguistics, linguistic ethnography, language and mind/psycholinguistics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics Evidence of the ability to build national and international research collaborations The ability/expertise to develop research synergies with colleagues in Modern Languages (www.bangor.ac.uk/ml/ ) Experience of University administration How to apply: To receive full consideration, applicants are requested to provide i) a completed standard Bangor application form, available from the Bangor University Job Opportunities web-site, ii) a curriculum vitae including a full listing of publications, iii) a statement of research interests and plans, iv) a statement of teaching experience, including details of which modules at undergraduate and MA levels the applicant is able and willing to teach, and v) the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of three referees with knowledge of the applicant's research and teaching credentials. The position is permanent, tenable from July 1st 2011, or as soon as possible thereafter. For any informal enquiries about the posts, please contact the Head of School, Professor Vyv Evans (tel. +44 (0)1248 383295, email: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk). Evidence of Eligibility to work in the U.K. The University has a legal responsibility to ensure that all employees are eligible to live and work in the UK. For positions which require highly specialised skills and qualifications, and there are no suitable 'resident' (i.e European Economic Area (EEA)) applicants, the University will often be able to obtain a certificate of sponsorship for a suitably qualified applicant who is not currently eligible to work in the UK. For vacancies that are not academic, research or highly specialist it is extremely unlikely that a certificate of sponsorship would be granted. In such cases we will therefore be unable to consider an application from someone who is not currently eligible to work in the UK. The UK Border Agency website www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk has full details to help you assess whether you would be eligible to apply for one of our vacancies. Prior to being permitted to commence employment with the University, you will be required to produce documentary evidence of permission to work in the United Kingdom. Acceptable documents are items such as a passport showing you are a British Citizen, or that you have a right of abode in the United Kingdom; a document showing your permanent UK National Insurance Number and your full UK Birth Certificate; A document showing that you are a national of a European Economic Area country or Switzerland - this must be a national passport or national identity card; A passport or UK issued national identity card providing evidence of your Visa detailing the Tier for which your Certificate of Sponsorship covered you e.g. Tier 2, Tier 4, Tier 5 or indeed Tier 1 if you applied for this yourself. This list is not exhaustive. A full list of acceptable documentary evidence is available on request. An original document must be seen on or before your first day of employment. -- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net Head of School School of Linguistics & English Language Bangor University www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics General Editor of 'Language & Cognition' A Mouton de Gruyter journal www.languageandcognition.net -- Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From francisco.ruizdemendoza at unirioja.es Mon Dec 20 22:19:42 2010 From: francisco.ruizdemendoza at unirioja.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Francisco_Jos=E9_Ruiz_De_Mendoza_Ib=E1=F1ez=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 23:19:42 +0100 Subject: 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS) Message-ID: @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Courier New"; }@font-face { font-family: "Wingdings"; }@font-face { font-family: "Verdana"; }@font-face { font-family: "Tahoma"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: windowtext; }p.MsoCommentText, li.MsoCommentText, div.MsoCommentText { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: windowtext; }span.MsoCommentReference { font-size: 8pt; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }strong { }em { }p.MsoDocumentMap, li.MsoDocumentMap, div.MsoDocumentMap { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% navy; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; color: windowtext; }p { margin: 5.25pt 0cm; line-height: 135%; font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(34, 63, 105); }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: windowtext; }p.MsoCommentSubject, li.MsoCommentSubject, div.MsoCommentSubject { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; line-height: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; color: windowtext; font-weight: bold; }span.apple-style-span { }span.gi { }span.rwrro { }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0cm; }ul { margin-bottom: 0cm; } (Apologies for cross-postings)   FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea   8-11 September 2011   Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain   http://www.societaslinguistica.eu/ http://sle2011.cilap.es/   DEADLINE for ALL abstracts: 15 January 2011   The Societas Linguistica Europaea and the Centre for Research in the Applications of Language at the University of La Rioja, Logroño (Spain), invite you to submit abstracts for workshop, poster or general session papers for the next annual meeting.   SLE meetings provide a forum for high-quality linguistic research.   A list of the 18 accepted workshops to be held at SLE 2011 can be found at our website.     PLENARY SPEAKERS Bas Aarts (London) Martin Everaert (Utrecht) Adele Goldberg (Princeton) Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy (Murcia) Ruth Wodak (Lancaster)   LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Chair: Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez Secretary: Sandra Peña Cervel Treasurer: Andrés Canga Members: María Pilar Agustín, Asunción Barreras, Almudena Fernández, Rosa Mª Jiménez, Javier Martín, Juan Manuel Molina, Lorena Pérez, Roberto Torre.   SLE CONFERENCE MANAGER Bert Cornillie (Leuven) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Chair: Letizia Vezzosi (Perugia), Members: Laura Alba-Juez (Madrid, UNED), Johanna Barðdal (Bergen), Delia Bentley (Manchester), Marcella Bertuccelli (Pisa), Walter Bisang (Mainz), Kasper Boye (Copenhague), Anna Cieslicka (Poznan/TAMIU Laredo), Giuglielmo Cinque (Venice), João Costa (Lisbon), María Josep Cuenca (Valencia), Michael Daniel (Moscow), Kristin Davidse (Leuven), David Denison (Manchester), Ursula Doleschal (Wien), Patricia Donegan (Honolulu), Mirjam Fried (Prague), Francisco Gonzálvez (Almería), Stefan Th. Gries (UC Santa Barbara), Youssef Haddad (Florida), Liliane Haegeman (Ghent), Marja-Liisa Helasvuo (Turku), Daniel Hirst (Aix-en-Provence), Hans Henrich Hock (Urbana Champaign), Willem Hollmann (Lancaster), Michael Israel (Maryland), Gunther Kaltenboeck (Viena), Stanislav Kavka (Ostrava), Seppo Kittila (Helsinki), Grzegorz Kleparski (Rzeszow), Bernd Kortmann (Freiburg), Livia Kortvelyessy (Kosice), Gitte Kristiaensen (Madrid, Complutense), Leonid Kulikov (Leiden), Karen Lahousse (Leuven), Meri Larjavaara (Turku/Åbo), Maria Luisa Lecumberri (Vitoria-Gasteiz), Elisabeth Leiss (München), María Rosa LLoret (Barcelona), María José López-Couso (Santiago), Ricardo Mairal (Madrid, UNED), Andrej Malchukov (EVA, Leipzig), Amaya Mendikoetxea (Madrid, UAM), Lavinia Merlini (Pisa), Laura Michaelis (UC, Boulder), Edith Moravcsik (Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Jan Nuyts (Antwerp), Miren Lourdes Onederra (Vitoria-Gasteiz), Hamid Ouali (Wisconsin, Milwaukee), Eric Pederson (Oregon), Paola Pietrandrea (Roma III), José Pinto de Lima (Lisbon), Vladimir Plungjan (Moscow), Nikolaus Ritt (Viena), Nicoletta Romeo (Sydney), Fernando Sánchez Miret (Salamanca), Andrea Sansò (Como-Università dell'Insubria), Stephan Schmid (Zürich), Roland Schuhmann (Jena), Elena Seoane (Santiago), Augusto Soares da Silva (Braga), Jae Jung Song (Otago), Roeland van Hout (Nijmegen), Arie Verhagen (Leiden), Guido Vanden Wyngaerd (Brussels), Elly Van Gelderen (Arizona), Anna Verschik (Tallinn), Björn Wiemer (Mainz), Jan-Wouter Zwart (Groningen).     CALL FOR PAPERS: WORKSHOP PAPERS, POSTERS AND GENERAL SESSION PAPERS   Workshop papers, posters and individual papers are invited on any topic belonging to the field of linguistics. All abstracts have to be registered and uploaded on the website by 15 January 2011.   GENERAL SESSION - WORKSHOPS. General session papers can deal with any topic in linguistics. Workshop papers take into account the topic of the workshop proposal, and are usually pre-selected by the workshop convenors.   Abstracts will be evaluated by three referees. Abstracts submitted to the general session and to the poster session will be evaluated by three members of the Scientific Committee. Workshop papers receive two evaluations by SC members and one by the workshop convenors. The threshold for acceptance is the same for general session, poster and workshop abstracts. The acceptance of a paper depends on the quality of the abstract. The acceptance rate of the previous conferences was 60% for the general session.   POSTERS. The next SLE meeting will hold a poster session of an hour for both senior and junior researchers. Posters will be evaluated according to the same quality standards of other presentations. In order to foster interaction, all other sessions will be suspended during the poster session.   The maximum size of the poster is 1.10 m x 1 m. For more information about how to make a good poster, click here.   One person may submit a single-authored abstract, a single-authored abstract and a co-authored one (not as first author) or two co-authored abstracts (only one as first author). Note that keynote papers within workshops count as ordinary papers. Presentations will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes question time.   GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION   Abstracts should not exceed 500 words (exclusive of references) and should clearly state research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. The abstract will also contain three to five key words specifying the (sub)field, the topic and the approach.   The deadline for all abstracts (for the general session, the poster session and the workshops) is 15 January 2011. Notification of acceptance will be given by 31 March 2011.   Submit your title through the Submit Abstract form where you can upload your abstract as an attachment. The abstract should not mention the presenter(s) nor their affiliations or addresses. Abstracts are preferably in Word or .RTF format; if your abstract contains special symbols, please include a pdf version as well.     PRIZE FOR THE BEST PRESENTATION AND THE BEST POSTER   There will be a prize for the best oral presentation by a PhD student, a prize for the best oral presentation by a postdoc and a prize for the best poster.   For current purposes, PhD-students are students that have not completed their PhD before the conference. Postdocs have completed their PhD not earlier than January 2008. A nominated paper may be co-authored; in such a case the nominee will be the first author.   Applicants are invited to mark the button referring to the prize when they register their abstract. On the basis of the ranking of the abstracts, the Scientific Committee will set up an internal shortlist with nominees for the prizes.   Members of the Editorial Board of Folia Linguistica (Historica) and the Scientific Committee will decide who will be awarded the first prize in each category, which consists of 500 Euros and the 2nd and 3rd prize, which is a three-year SLE membership.     REGISTRATION Registration will start from 1 April 2011 onwards. SLE 2011 keeps the SLE 2010 conference fees (see our website).   Become a member of the Societas Linguistica Europaea and get a discount.   SOCIAL PROGRAMME There will be a reception (included in the registration fee) and a conference dinner. On Sunday afternoon there will be a post-conference excursion. Further information will be given in the second circular.   HOW TO GET TO LOGROÑO Logroño, the capital of La Rioja, is located in the North of Spain, 336 Km from Madrid, 478 Km from Barcelona, 171 Km from Zaragoza and 137 Km from Bilbao. The local airport offers daily flights to the international airport of Madrid. Other important international airports are Bilbao and Zaragoza, from where you can travel to Logroño by bus or by train.     IMPORTANT DATES 15 January 2011:    deadline for submission of all abstracts 31 March 2011:       notification of acceptance 1 April 2011:           early registration starts 1 June 2011:           registration (full fee) 30 June 2011:         registration closed for participants with a paper 20 August 2011:      registration closed.   CONTACT SLE 2011 Local Organizing Committee:   Sandra Peña Cervel (Secretary)   Tel. (+34) 941299437 Fax (+34) 941299419 E-mail: sle2011 at cilap.es   SLE Conference Manager:   Bert Cornillie sle at arts.kuleuven.be   Local Conference Secretariat:   University of La Rioja Centre for Research in the Applications of Language c/ San José de Calasanz s/n 26004, Logroño, La Rioja, Spain http://sle2011.cilap.es/     From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Dec 22 20:06:18 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:06:18 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions Message-ID: Thanks to the many people who responded to my request!! I think I may have found my book! Or, at least, a book that can be used alongside more-structure-oriented books. It's called _Language in the USA_, edited by Ed Finegan and John Rickford. It's relatively new (2004, Cambridge U Press, ISBN 0 521 77747 X ppbk., nearly 500 pp.), and contains dynamite material for students new to the serious study of language. It's mostly sociolinguistics, and has articles on topics that are bound to be of interest to students in one way or another. Here is a sample from the Table of Contents: American English: its origins and history, Richard W. Bailey (wow!) Social varieties of American English, Walt Wolfram (wow again!) Multilingualism and non-English mother tongues [in the USA], Joshua Fishman (okay, I'll stop saying 'wow' now) Native American languages, Akira Y. Yamamoto and Ofelia Zepeda Language ideology and language prejudice, Rosina Lipp-Green Language planning, language policy, and the English-only movement, Terrence G. Wiley Adolescent language, Penelope Eckert Hip Hop Nation Language, H. Samy Alim Linguistic identity and community in American literature, James Peterson The language of cyberspace, Denise E. Murray I have scanned or read parts of several of the chapters, and they look great. My only worry is that the level of the writing may be too demanding for sophomores, but I figure that even freshman are reading demanding prose in their composition books. Also, one can always prepare students for difficult concepts or terminology ahead of time. The book is terrific also for engaging students in critical thinking about American culture and how language is treated here. Of course, one of the usual goals in intro ling is to expose students to a variety of the world's languages to see how they are alike and how they differ. This is not lost in this book, as there are sketches of Native American languages, a chapter on ASL, and one on AAE. Also, as I noted above, I would use this book alongside other texts with a wider orientation. In fact, I find this book a godsend (pardon my manic enthusiasm) in another way: I've been wanting for years to propose intro ling as a gen ed course under our diversity rubric. This rubric limits the content to marginalized groups in the USA, and this book covers 'em all -- Native Americans, immigrants, African Americans, native Spanish-speakers of the Southwest, the Deaf, and there's also a chapter on language and gender. Yiddish, PA German, and similar language situations are discussed. So, it's an all-around linguistic profile of the USA, from a sound linguistic perspective (I think students will be taken aback by Fishman's chapter, which unabashedly assumes that the loss of immigrant and indigenous languages in the US is a tragedy). If you're not already familiar with the book, and teach courses to which it sounds relevant, I strongly recommend that you look at it. I would love to have others' opinions on the book, too, especially, of course, if they have used it in teaching. Here is a list of other titles that were recommended by folks who responded to my question: Language myths, Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill, eds. 1999. Plural Publishing How languages work, Carol Genetti, prospective 2011, Cambridge U Psycholinguistics: Introduction and Applications, Lise Menn, PhD. Plural Publishing 2010 Linguistics: An introduction,William McGregor Introducing Language in Use, by Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison (British English examples) Aspects of Language and Language: The Loaded Weapon -- Dwight Bolinger Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press Relevant Linguistics, Paul W. Justice (I've looked at this and found it wanting) Mark Rosenfelder's "The Language Construction Kit" (Yonagu Books, 2010) -- according to Victor Golla, who submitted the suggestion, it's "disguised as a primer for nerds who want to construct their own Klingon or Elvish," but his students loved the idea of building their own language! The Ascent of Babel, Altman Anthropological Linguistics, Bill Foley Language: Its Structure and Use (Edward Finegan) (I use this for my grad class) Contributors: Engin Arik, Rosario Caballero, Richard Cameron, Mary Clinton, Seana Coulson, Carol Genetti, Spike Gildea, Tom Givón, Victor Golla, Angus Grieve-Smith, George Lakoff, José-Luis Mendívil, James J. Mischler, Mark P. Line, Lise Menn, Charles C. Rice, Wendy Smith, Phil Young Peace to all during these holidays and always! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Dec 23 02:46:41 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:46:41 -0700 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <3F60AAB4-F254-42A4-A508-2E6BFC6FB159@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Well, it sounds like a most useful book, practically admirable. But would you still call your course "Intro to Linguistics for non-majors?" If so, perhaps you may wish to ask yourself this simple-minded question: After my students have finished reading this book (with my savvy helping hand embellishing, explaining, contextualizing all the way), what do they know now about Linguistics? Linguistics as the field dedicated to the study of human communication? Linguistics as the field charged with investigating language change or language acquisition? About its core preoccupation and intellectual history? About its main inter-disciplinary connections--philosophy, cognitive neuro-science, developmental psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, computer science? My answer, I am afraid,, would be disgustingly predictable. I wonder what your answer would be, Johanna? Cheers, TG ============ On 12/22/2010 1:06 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Thanks to the many people who responded to my request!! > > I think I may have found my book! Or, at least, a book that can be > used alongside more-structure-oriented books. It's called _Language in > the USA_, edited by Ed Finegan and John Rickford. It's relatively new > (2004, Cambridge U Press, ISBN 0 521 77747 X ppbk., nearly 500 pp.), > and contains dynamite material for students new to the serious study > of language. It's mostly sociolinguistics, and has articles on topics > that are bound to be of interest to students in one way or another. > Here is a sample from the Table of Contents: > > American English: its origins and history, Richard W. Bailey (wow!) > Social varieties of American English, Walt Wolfram (wow again!) > Multilingualism and non-English mother tongues [in the USA], Joshua > Fishman (okay, I'll stop saying 'wow' now) > Native American languages, Akira Y. Yamamoto and Ofelia Zepeda > Language ideology and language prejudice, Rosina Lipp-Green > Language planning, language policy, and the English-only movement, > Terrence G. Wiley > Adolescent language, Penelope Eckert > Hip Hop Nation Language, H. Samy Alim > Linguistic identity and community in American literature, James Peterson > The language of cyberspace, Denise E. Murray > > I have scanned or read parts of several of the chapters, and they look > great. My only worry is that the level of the writing may be too > demanding for sophomores, but I figure that even freshman are reading > demanding prose in their composition books. Also, one can always > prepare students for difficult concepts or terminology ahead of time. > > The book is terrific also for engaging students in critical thinking > about American culture and how language is treated here. > > Of course, one of the usual goals in intro ling is to expose students > to a variety of the world's languages to see how they are alike and > how they differ. This is not lost in this book, as there are sketches > of Native American languages, a chapter on ASL, and one on AAE. Also, > as I noted above, I would use this book alongside other texts with a > wider orientation. > > In fact, I find this book a godsend (pardon my manic enthusiasm) in > another way: I've been wanting for years to propose intro ling as a > gen ed course under our diversity rubric. This rubric limits the > content to marginalized groups in the USA, and this book covers 'em > all -- Native Americans, immigrants, African Americans, native > Spanish-speakers of the Southwest, the Deaf, and there's also a > chapter on language and gender. Yiddish, PA German, and similar > language situations are discussed. So, it's an all-around linguistic > profile of the USA, from a sound linguistic perspective (I think > students will be taken aback by Fishman's chapter, which unabashedly > assumes that the loss of immigrant and indigenous languages in the US > is a tragedy). > > If you're not already familiar with the book, and teach courses to > which it sounds relevant, I strongly recommend that you look at it. I > would love to have others' opinions on the book, too, especially, of > course, if they have used it in teaching. > > Here is a list of other titles that were recommended by folks who > responded to my question: > > Language myths, Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill, eds. 1999. Plural > Publishing > How languages work, Carol Genetti, prospective 2011, Cambridge U > Psycholinguistics: Introduction and Applications, Lise Menn, PhD. > Plural Publishing 2010 > Linguistics: An introduction,William McGregor > Introducing Language in Use, by Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison > (British English examples) > Aspects of Language and Language: The Loaded Weapon -- Dwight Bolinger > Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press > Relevant Linguistics, Paul W. Justice (I've looked at this and found > it wanting) > Mark Rosenfelder's "The Language Construction Kit" (Yonagu Books, > 2010) -- according to Victor Golla, who submitted the suggestion, it's > "disguised as a primer for nerds who want to construct their own > Klingon or Elvish," but his students loved the idea of building their > own language! > The Ascent of Babel, Altman > Anthropological Linguistics, Bill Foley > Language: Its Structure and Use (Edward Finegan) (I use this for my > grad class) > > Contributors: > > Engin Arik, Rosario Caballero, Richard Cameron, Mary Clinton, Seana > Coulson, Carol Genetti, Spike Gildea, Tom Givón, Victor Golla, Angus > Grieve-Smith, George Lakoff, José-Luis Mendívil, James J. Mischler, > Mark P. Line, Lise Menn, Charles C. Rice, Wendy Smith, Phil Young > > Peace to all during these holidays and always! > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Department > California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > Tel.: 805.756.2184 > Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 > Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 > URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > From Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr Thu Dec 23 11:52:42 2010 From: Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr (Florence Chenu) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 12:52:42 +0100 Subject: AFLiCo IV DEADLINE EXTENDED for general sessions (january 4th) Message-ID: =============== DEADLINE EXTENSION for general session papers: January 4th, 2011 =============== (French version follows) AFLiCo IV Fourth International Conference of the French Cognitive Linguistics Association, Lyon, France, 24th-27th May 2011 SUBMISSION DEADLINES Deadline for general session papers: January 4th, 2011 INVITED SPEAKERS * Danièle DUBOIS (University of Paris 6, France) * Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia) * Harriet JISA (University of Lyon 2, France) * Maarten LEMMENS (University of Lille 3, France) * Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, USA) * Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, UK) CONFERENCE WEBSITE http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ CONFERENCE THEME of AFLiCo IV 'Cognitive Linguistics and Typology: Language diversity, variation and change '. This conference aims to bring together linguists engaged in cognitively-oriented research with those working in a functional-typological framework on cross-linguistic variation and on language description. The emphasis will be on (1) language diversity of both spoken and signed languages; (2) inter- and intra-linguistic variation; (3) language change. The conference will bring together linguists working with various methodological approaches and using various kinds of spontaneous and elicited data, including spoken and written corpora, fieldwork data, and experimental data. Proposals are invited for workshops/thematic sessions, for general session papers, and for posters, on topics related to the theme, and on topics in Cognitive Linguistics generally. Papers that report empirically-grounded research on less-studied languages and on typologically, genetically and areally diverse languages will be particularly welcome. Topics include, but are not limited to: - methods and data in cognitive linguistics and in language typology and description - convergence and divergence between cognitive linguistics and functional-typological linguistics - studies from a cognitive and/or typological perspective in phonetics, phonology, morphosyntax, semantics and pragmatics - language variation within and across languages, both spoken and signed - language change from a cognitive and/or typological perspective - language acquisition - studies and advances in construction grammar - language and gesture in cross-linguistic perspective LANGUAGES OF THE CONFERENCE The languages of the conference are French and English. ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND POSTERS Proposals are invited for 30-minute slots (20-minute presentation plus question time) in the general sessions and for posters (A1 size). WORKSHOPS, INCLUDING THEMATIC SESSIONS Proposals are invited for half-day or full-day workshops/thematic sessions. Each workshop proposal should contain the following information: - the names and contact details of two workshop organizers - the title of the proposed workshop - an overview of the topic and aims of the workshop (up to 2 pages) - an indication of the desired schedule (number of slots: 4, 6 or 10; half day or full day; number and nature of presentations, discussions, round tables, etc. that the workshop will comprise). Note that, within a workshop, each presentation, discussion or round table will occupy one 30-minute slot in parallel with one general session slot. - an abstract (consistent with the indications below under 'Submission procedure') for each proposed 30-minute presentation Workshop proposals will be refereed in the same way as general session and poster proposals. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Proposals should be submitted online following the instructions to be found at the following address: http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ Author information (name, affiliation, email address) will be required on the submission website. An author may submit a maximum of two abstracts, of which at least one must be co-authored. In the case of co-authored abstracts, the first-named author will be the contact person. Abstracts will be anonymously reviewed and notification of acceptance will be sent out from 25th February 2011. The anonymous abstracts must be in 12 point Times or Times New Roman font, formatted for A4 or US Letter size paper with margins of 2.5 cm or 1 inch. The maximum length for the text of the abstract is one page; a second page may be used only for figures, glossed examples and bibliographical references. ========================= EXTENSION DE LA DATE LIMITE pour les sessions générales : 4 Janvier 2011 ========================= AFLiCo IV Quatrième Colloque International de l’Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive Lyon, France, 24-27 Mai 2011 DATES LIMITES POUR LES PROPOSITIONS DE COMMUNICATION : Date limite pour les sessions générales : 4 Janvier 2011 CONFÉRENCIERS INVITÉS * Danièle DUBOIS (Université Paris 6, France) * Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australie) * Harriet JISA (Université Lyon 2, France) * Maarten LEMMENS (Université Lille 3, France) * Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, États-Unis) * Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, Royaume-Uni) SITE WEB DU COLLOQUE http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ THÈME DU COLLOQUE AFLiCo IV ‘Linguistique cognitive et typologie : diversité des langues, variation et changement’. L’objectif de ce colloque est de réunir des linguistes travaillant dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive et/ou dans le domaine de la linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique sur la variation inter-linguistique et la description des langues. L’accent du colloque sera mis sur (1) la diversité des systèmes linguistiques aussi bien oraux que signés, (2) la variation qui s’opère sur les plans inter- et intra- linguistiques et (3) les changements des systèmes linguistiques. Dans cette perspective, le colloque rassemblera des chercheurs qui travaillent sur des terrains linguistiques variés, qui abordent leur objet d’étude dans une perspective synchronique et/ou diachronique et qui utilisent différentes méthodes et différents types de données telles que des données spontanées ou élicitées, y compris orales ou écrites, des données de terrain ou encore des données expérimentales. Nous attendons des propositions de sessions thématiques, des propositions de présentations orales de sessions générales et de posters sur des problématiques en lien avec le thème du colloque et dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive en général. Les propositions portant sur des langues moins bien décrites et des langues qui varient du point de vue typologique, génétique et aréal seront particulièrement appréciées. Les thématiques incluent, mais ne se limitent pas aux suivantes : - méthodes et données en linguistique cognitive, typologie et description des langues ; - convergence et divergence entre linguistique cognitive et linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique ; - études menées dans une perspective cognitive et/ou typologique dans les domaines de la phonétique, phonologie, morphosyntaxe, sémantique et pragmatique ; - variation inter- et intra-linguistique dans les langues parlées et les langues signées ; - changements linguistiques dans une perspective cognitive et/ou typologique ; - acquisition du langage ; - recherches et avancées dans le domaine de la grammaire des constructions ; - langue et geste dans une perspective inter-linguistique. LANGUES OFFICIELLES DU COLLOQUE Les deux langues du colloque sont le français et l’anglais. COMMUNICATIONS ET POSTERS Nous invitons des propositions de communication aux sessions générales de 30 minutes (20 minutes de présentation et 10 minutes de questions) et des propositions de posters (format A1). ATELIERS ET SESSIONS THÉMATIQUES Nous accueillons des propositions d’une demi-journée ou d’une journée entière pour des ateliers et/ou sessions thématiques. Ces ateliers/sessions thématiques doivent être proposés par deux organisateurs. Chaque proposition doit inclure les informations suivantes : - les noms et les coordonnées des deux organisateurs - le titre de la session - une présentation du thème et des objectifs de la session (2 pages maximum) - une précision concernant le temps souhaité (nombre de créneaux horaires : 4, 6 ou 10 ; une journée ou une journée entière ; nombre et nature des présentations, discussions, tables rondes, etc.). - un résumé d’une page pour chaque présentation (une deuxième page peut être utilisée pour des figures, exemples glosés et références bibliographiques) Les propositions d’ateliers et/ou de sessions thématiques seront soumises à la même procédure d’évaluation que les propositions pour les sessions générales et les posters. La notification d’acceptation sera envoyée aux deux organisateurs à partir du 25 février 2011. SOUMISSION DES PROPOSITIONS Les propositions seront soumises en ligne suivant les instructions indiquées à l’adresse suivante : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLICO_IV/ Un auteur ne peut soumettre que deux propositions de communication dont une au moins devrait être en co-auteur. Les informations concernant l’auteur (nom, affiliation, adresse email) seront requises lors de la soumission en ligne mais les propositions seront évaluées de façon anonyme. Dans le cas des propositions en co-auteur le premier auteur sera la personne référente/contact. Les propositions seront examinées de façon anonyme par 2 membres experts du comité scientifique. La notification d’acceptation sera envoyée aux auteurs à partir du 25 février 2011. Les propositions ne devront pas dépasser une page. Une deuxième page peut être utilisée pour des figures, exemples glosés et références bibliographiques. Format des propositions : papier A4, marges 2,5 cm, police Times ou Times New Roman. From mark at polymathix.com Thu Dec 23 16:24:01 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:24:01 -0600 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D12B811.7040005@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: I guess it comes with the territory when you're teaching in an idiocracy. But I guess it might be enough to push the boulder just a little ways uphill and have it stay there for a while. -- Mark Mark P. Line Tom Givon wrote: > > > Well, it sounds like a most useful book, practically admirable. But > would you still call your course "Intro to Linguistics for non-majors?" > If so, perhaps you may wish to ask yourself this simple-minded question: > After my students have finished reading this book (with my savvy helping > hand embellishing, explaining, contextualizing all the way), what do > they know now about Linguistics? Linguistics as the field dedicated to > the study of human communication? Linguistics as the field charged with > investigating language change or language acquisition? About its core > preoccupation and intellectual history? About its main > inter-disciplinary connections--philosophy, cognitive neuro-science, > developmental psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, computer > science? My answer, I am afraid,, would be disgustingly predictable. I > wonder what your answer would be, Johanna? > > Cheers, TG > > > ============ > > On 12/22/2010 1:06 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: >> Thanks to the many people who responded to my request!! >> >> I think I may have found my book! Or, at least, a book that can be >> used alongside more-structure-oriented books. It's called _Language in >> the USA_, edited by Ed Finegan and John Rickford. It's relatively new >> (2004, Cambridge U Press, ISBN 0 521 77747 X ppbk., nearly 500 pp.), >> and contains dynamite material for students new to the serious study >> of language. It's mostly sociolinguistics, and has articles on topics >> that are bound to be of interest to students in one way or another. >> Here is a sample from the Table of Contents: >> >> American English: its origins and history, Richard W. Bailey (wow!) >> Social varieties of American English, Walt Wolfram (wow again!) >> Multilingualism and non-English mother tongues [in the USA], Joshua >> Fishman (okay, I'll stop saying 'wow' now) >> Native American languages, Akira Y. Yamamoto and Ofelia Zepeda >> Language ideology and language prejudice, Rosina Lipp-Green >> Language planning, language policy, and the English-only movement, >> Terrence G. Wiley >> Adolescent language, Penelope Eckert >> Hip Hop Nation Language, H. Samy Alim >> Linguistic identity and community in American literature, James Peterson >> The language of cyberspace, Denise E. Murray >> >> I have scanned or read parts of several of the chapters, and they look >> great. My only worry is that the level of the writing may be too >> demanding for sophomores, but I figure that even freshman are reading >> demanding prose in their composition books. Also, one can always >> prepare students for difficult concepts or terminology ahead of time. >> >> The book is terrific also for engaging students in critical thinking >> about American culture and how language is treated here. >> >> Of course, one of the usual goals in intro ling is to expose students >> to a variety of the world's languages to see how they are alike and >> how they differ. This is not lost in this book, as there are sketches >> of Native American languages, a chapter on ASL, and one on AAE. Also, >> as I noted above, I would use this book alongside other texts with a >> wider orientation. >> >> In fact, I find this book a godsend (pardon my manic enthusiasm) in >> another way: I've been wanting for years to propose intro ling as a >> gen ed course under our diversity rubric. This rubric limits the >> content to marginalized groups in the USA, and this book covers 'em >> all -- Native Americans, immigrants, African Americans, native >> Spanish-speakers of the Southwest, the Deaf, and there's also a >> chapter on language and gender. Yiddish, PA German, and similar >> language situations are discussed. So, it's an all-around linguistic >> profile of the USA, from a sound linguistic perspective (I think >> students will be taken aback by Fishman's chapter, which unabashedly >> assumes that the loss of immigrant and indigenous languages in the US >> is a tragedy). >> >> If you're not already familiar with the book, and teach courses to >> which it sounds relevant, I strongly recommend that you look at it. I >> would love to have others' opinions on the book, too, especially, of >> course, if they have used it in teaching. >> >> Here is a list of other titles that were recommended by folks who >> responded to my question: >> >> Language myths, Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill, eds. 1999. Plural >> Publishing >> How languages work, Carol Genetti, prospective 2011, Cambridge U >> Psycholinguistics: Introduction and Applications, Lise Menn, PhD. >> Plural Publishing 2010 >> Linguistics: An introduction,William McGregor >> Introducing Language in Use, by Bloomer, Griffiths, and Merrison >> (British English examples) >> Aspects of Language and Language: The Loaded Weapon -- Dwight Bolinger >> Yule, George. The Study of Language. Cambridge University Press >> Relevant Linguistics, Paul W. Justice (I've looked at this and found >> it wanting) >> Mark Rosenfelder's "The Language Construction Kit" (Yonagu Books, >> 2010) -- according to Victor Golla, who submitted the suggestion, it's >> "disguised as a primer for nerds who want to construct their own >> Klingon or Elvish," but his students loved the idea of building their >> own language! >> The Ascent of Babel, Altman >> Anthropological Linguistics, Bill Foley >> Language: Its Structure and Use (Edward Finegan) (I use this for my >> grad class) >> >> Contributors: >> >> Engin Arik, Rosario Caballero, Richard Cameron, Mary Clinton, Seana >> Coulson, Carol Genetti, Spike Gildea, Tom Givón, Victor Golla, Angus >> Grieve-Smith, George Lakoff, José-Luis Mendívil, James J. Mischler, >> Mark P. Line, Lise Menn, Charles C. Rice, Wendy Smith, Phil Young >> >> Peace to all during these holidays and always! >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Department >> California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> Tel.: 805.756.2184 >> Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 >> Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 >> URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri Dec 24 01:17:36 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:17:36 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D12B811.7040005@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for your input, Tom. I would be perfectly happy to change the name of the course to "Introduction to Language." I will probably propose that, in fact. In any case, I did say that I would most likely use the book alongside a structure-oriented book. I'm teaching undergraduates at a state university; this is a sophomore-level course. It's a ten-week course; it's the only exposure to the scientific study of language that virtually all of these students will have. These students do not have a broad or deep cultural background; they don't know much, if anything, about philosophy, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, etc. And it's not my job to teach them all that. In addition, 99% of my students will not go on to become linguists. They also have had so little exposure to English grammar that they lack a way of thinking scientifically or in any orderly way about language; the linguistics approach is *alien* to them (and I mean that in the Martian sense). It would be nice if I could cultivate our way of viewing language in ten weeks, but it just ain't gonna happen for the vast majority of my students. A college education is supposed to prepare students to enter the world as informed and responsible citizens. They will be teaching children, hiring people, associating with colleagues and meeting new people, forming families and raising children, voting on language issues, traveling the world, hearing propaganda. Part of my job is to equip them with both information and the tools to make sound judgments about language in all these activities. Now, will discovering minimal pairs in Luiseño or Swahili help them with that? Will diagramming a tiny array of English sentence types help them with that? Will learning the phonetic alphabet help them with that? Do they need to know about island constraints to make sound judgments about language in their futures? Do they need to hear arguments about the poverty of the stimulus in 1st language acquisition? All of that is, of course, crucially interesting to us, and, of course to that tiny number of students who become fascinated by these things and want to look into them. Of the hundreds of students I've taught this year, one is applying to grad school for linguistics. Same last year. In my fifteen years here I have mentored about a dozen or so senior projects. My colleagues have done hundreds. I have ten weeks; I must do triage. I want to disabuse them of those popular myths. I also want to engage them. The remarks I get on my student evaluations are interesting. A number of them say things along the lines of 'she did a great job with the course, but what do you want, it's linguistics and I'm an English major.' I have often had my students do exit surveys. I ask them, among other things, for the single most important thing they have learned in the course. A good 85% percent of them routinely answer 'I will never again judge somebody based on the dialect they speak.' If anyone mentioned tree diagrams or phonology problems, the number was so vanishingly small that I don't remember any. There is a huge difference in response to my Language and Gender course: "it opened me up to the other side of the world"; "I will never look at language the same way again"; the course made them aware of the still-deep stereotypes and prejudices regarding gender and language. It also teaches them a great deal about how language functions in categorizing people, defining and naming, in passing on cultural assumptions about gender to subsequent generations, etc. It also impacts their own lives and their own usage. Many say that they'll be watching their language, and even calling out friends who use sexist language. One of my students this year, as a result of the course, became an Ally (a supporter of LGBTQ students on campus) and began going to our Pride Club's meetings (and he's not gay). He also began to see how the masculinity norms he has been held to all his life have troubled him; he has begun to revise his concept of his own masculinity so that it includes things like his love of cooking and of children. I am astounded at the effects my teaching has on these students, and it makes me love what I do. I don't love going to my intro class and trying to convince students that phrase structure is fascinating. It's dull for me, and for them. If I were teaching linguistics majors, I would love it, because they would. I can't imagine what objections you would have to chapters like Language ideology and language prejudice, Language planning, language policy, and the English-only movement, Native American languages, American English: its origins and history. Sure, some of the chapters are sexy, like The language of cyberspace and a chapter on slang. But people are curious about the language of cyberspace, language fussbudgets (including teachers) say it's ruining the language, etc. People broadly do not understand the valid and important role slang plays in social grouping. And, of course, I didn't give a full list of the chapters. I hope you can now see how I must adapt my teaching to my educational context. 99.9% of my students forget how to draw a tree diagram or how to render a word in phonetic symbols the day after they take their final exam. That's not a fulfilling prospect for me, and it certainly does not benefit them in any way at all. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Dec 24 01:58:14 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:58:14 -0700 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Johannah My reservations are not about what the book has, but what it DOESN'T--my entire field of inquiry. So if what I have been studying for the past 45 years (syntax, discourse, stylistics, communication, diachronic syntax, 1st & 2nd language acquisition, psycholinguistics, neuro-linguistics, evolutionary psychology, creoles/pidgins, evolutionary anthropology, philosophy of language, intellectual history...) is not relevant to "Language" or "Linguistics", then either I have been deluding myself all these years, or else the selected name, be it "Language" or "Linguistics", is somehow, extravagantly ,inappropriate. Cheers and/or Merry Christmas, TG ================= On 12/23/2010 6:17 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Thanks for your input, Tom. I would be perfectly happy to change the > name of the course to "Introduction to Language." I will probably > propose that, in fact. In any case, I did say that I would most likely > use the book alongside a structure-oriented book. > > I'm teaching undergraduates at a state university; this is a > sophomore-level course. It's a ten-week course; it's the only exposure > to the scientific study of language that virtually all of these > students will have. These students do not have a broad or deep > cultural background; they don't know much, if anything, about > philosophy, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, etc. And it's not > my job to teach them all that. In addition, 99% of my students will > not go on to become linguists. They also have had so little exposure > to English grammar that they lack a way of thinking scientifically or > in any orderly way about language; the linguistics approach is *alien* > to them (and I mean that in the Martian sense). It would be nice if I > could cultivate our way of viewing language in ten weeks, but it just > ain't gonna happen for the vast majority of my students. > > A college education is supposed to prepare students to enter the world > as informed and responsible citizens. They will be teaching children, > hiring people, associating with colleagues and meeting new people, > forming families and raising children, voting on language issues, > traveling the world, hearing propaganda. Part of my job is to equip > them with both information and the tools to make sound judgments about > language in all these activities. > > Now, will discovering minimal pairs in Luiseño or Swahili help them > with that? Will diagramming a tiny array of English sentence types > help them with that? Will learning the phonetic alphabet help them > with that? Do they need to know about island constraints to make sound > judgments about language in their futures? Do they need to hear > arguments about the poverty of the stimulus in 1st language > acquisition? All of that is, of course, crucially interesting to us, > and, of course to that tiny number of students who become fascinated > by these things and want to look into them. Of the hundreds of > students I've taught this year, one is applying to grad school for > linguistics. Same last year. In my fifteen years here I have mentored > about a dozen or so senior projects. My colleagues have done hundreds. > > I have ten weeks; I must do triage. I want to disabuse them of those > popular myths. I also want to engage them. The remarks I get on my > student evaluations are interesting. A number of them say things along > the lines of 'she did a great job with the course, but what do you > want, it's linguistics and I'm an English major.' I have often had my > students do exit surveys. I ask them, among other things, for the > single most important thing they have learned in the course. A good > 85% percent of them routinely answer 'I will never again judge > somebody based on the dialect they speak.' If anyone mentioned tree > diagrams or phonology problems, the number was so vanishingly small > that I don't remember any. There is a huge difference in response to > my Language and Gender course: "it opened me up to the other side of > the world"; "I will never look at language the same way again"; the > course made them aware of the still-deep stereotypes and prejudices > regarding gender and language. It also teaches them a great deal about > how language functions in categorizing people, defining and naming, in > passing on cultural assumptions about gender to subsequent > generations, etc. It also impacts their own lives and their own usage. > Many say that they'll be watching their language, and even calling out > friends who use sexist language. One of my students this year, as a > result of the course, became an Ally (a supporter of LGBTQ students on > campus) and began going to our Pride Club's meetings (and he's not > gay). He also began to see how the masculinity norms he has been held > to all his life have troubled him; he has begun to revise his concept > of his own masculinity so that it includes things like his love of > cooking and of children. I am astounded at the effects my teaching has > on these students, and it makes me love what I do. I don't love going > to my intro class and trying to convince students that phrase > structure is fascinating. It's dull for me, and for them. If I were > teaching linguistics majors, I would love it, because they would. > > I can't imagine what objections you would have to chapters like > Language ideology and language prejudice, Language planning, language > policy, and the English-only movement, Native American languages, > American English: its origins and history. Sure, some of the chapters > are sexy, like The language of cyberspace and a chapter on slang. But > people are curious about the language of cyberspace, language > fussbudgets (including teachers) say it's ruining the language, etc. > People broadly do not understand the valid and important role slang > plays in social grouping. And, of course, I didn't give a full list of > the chapters. > > I hope you can now see how I must adapt my teaching to my educational > context. 99.9% of my students forget how to draw a tree diagram or > how to render a word in phonetic symbols the day after they take their > final exam. That's not a fulfilling prospect for me, and it certainly > does not benefit them in any way at all. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Dec 24 06:01:44 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:01:44 +0200 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D13FE36.8080807@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Johanna, Given the situation you've described, it sounds to me like the Finegan and Rickford book is a great choice (but I would definitely take 'linguistics' out of the title). This goes back to our 'what is linguistics good for in the eyes of the general public?' discussion a little while ago. When a society doesn't take language teaching seriously (as in the US), it becomes much much tougher to argue for the importance of what we consider to be real linguistics (be it functional, formal, phonetics, whatever). The tolerance-oriented approach of sociolinguistics is well-suited to the American scene today. On a negative note, although I haven't read the book, I can say that Fishman really is completely over the top particularly with regard to his attitude towards immigrant languages. I personally would spare my students having to read him. But for sure something about Native American languages would be great. And if you can find something short and accessible about Louisiana French, that would be nice too. Best wishes, John Quoting Tom Givon : > > Dear Johannah > > My reservations are not about what the book has, but what it DOESN'T--my > entire field of inquiry. So if what I have been studying for the past 45 > years (syntax, discourse, stylistics, communication, diachronic syntax, > 1st & 2nd language acquisition, psycholinguistics, neuro-linguistics, > evolutionary psychology, creoles/pidgins, evolutionary anthropology, > philosophy of language, intellectual history...) is not relevant to > "Language" or "Linguistics", then either I have been deluding myself > all these years, or else the selected name, be it "Language" or > "Linguistics", is somehow, extravagantly ,inappropriate. Cheers and/or > Merry Christmas, TG > > ================= > > > On 12/23/2010 6:17 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > > Thanks for your input, Tom. I would be perfectly happy to change the > > name of the course to "Introduction to Language." I will probably > > propose that, in fact. In any case, I did say that I would most likely > > use the book alongside a structure-oriented book. > > > > I'm teaching undergraduates at a state university; this is a > > sophomore-level course. It's a ten-week course; it's the only exposure > > to the scientific study of language that virtually all of these > > students will have. These students do not have a broad or deep > > cultural background; they don't know much, if anything, about > > philosophy, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, etc. And it's not > > my job to teach them all that. In addition, 99% of my students will > > not go on to become linguists. They also have had so little exposure > > to English grammar that they lack a way of thinking scientifically or > > in any orderly way about language; the linguistics approach is *alien* > > to them (and I mean that in the Martian sense). It would be nice if I > > could cultivate our way of viewing language in ten weeks, but it just > > ain't gonna happen for the vast majority of my students. > > > > A college education is supposed to prepare students to enter the world > > as informed and responsible citizens. They will be teaching children, > > hiring people, associating with colleagues and meeting new people, > > forming families and raising children, voting on language issues, > > traveling the world, hearing propaganda. Part of my job is to equip > > them with both information and the tools to make sound judgments about > > language in all these activities. > > > > Now, will discovering minimal pairs in Luiseסo or Swahili help them > > with that? Will diagramming a tiny array of English sentence types > > help them with that? Will learning the phonetic alphabet help them > > with that? Do they need to know about island constraints to make sound > > judgments about language in their futures? Do they need to hear > > arguments about the poverty of the stimulus in 1st language > > acquisition? All of that is, of course, crucially interesting to us, > > and, of course to that tiny number of students who become fascinated > > by these things and want to look into them. Of the hundreds of > > students I've taught this year, one is applying to grad school for > > linguistics. Same last year. In my fifteen years here I have mentored > > about a dozen or so senior projects. My colleagues have done hundreds. > > > > I have ten weeks; I must do triage. I want to disabuse them of those > > popular myths. I also want to engage them. The remarks I get on my > > student evaluations are interesting. A number of them say things along > > the lines of 'she did a great job with the course, but what do you > > want, it's linguistics and I'm an English major.' I have often had my > > students do exit surveys. I ask them, among other things, for the > > single most important thing they have learned in the course. A good > > 85% percent of them routinely answer 'I will never again judge > > somebody based on the dialect they speak.' If anyone mentioned tree > > diagrams or phonology problems, the number was so vanishingly small > > that I don't remember any. There is a huge difference in response to > > my Language and Gender course: "it opened me up to the other side of > > the world"; "I will never look at language the same way again"; the > > course made them aware of the still-deep stereotypes and prejudices > > regarding gender and language. It also teaches them a great deal about > > how language functions in categorizing people, defining and naming, in > > passing on cultural assumptions about gender to subsequent > > generations, etc. It also impacts their own lives and their own usage. > > Many say that they'll be watching their language, and even calling out > > friends who use sexist language. One of my students this year, as a > > result of the course, became an Ally (a supporter of LGBTQ students on > > campus) and began going to our Pride Club's meetings (and he's not > > gay). He also began to see how the masculinity norms he has been held > > to all his life have troubled him; he has begun to revise his concept > > of his own masculinity so that it includes things like his love of > > cooking and of children. I am astounded at the effects my teaching has > > on these students, and it makes me love what I do. I don't love going > > to my intro class and trying to convince students that phrase > > structure is fascinating. It's dull for me, and for them. If I were > > teaching linguistics majors, I would love it, because they would. > > > > I can't imagine what objections you would have to chapters like > > Language ideology and language prejudice, Language planning, language > > policy, and the English-only movement, Native American languages, > > American English: its origins and history. Sure, some of the chapters > > are sexy, like The language of cyberspace and a chapter on slang. But > > people are curious about the language of cyberspace, language > > fussbudgets (including teachers) say it's ruining the language, etc. > > People broadly do not understand the valid and important role slang > > plays in social grouping. And, of course, I didn't give a full list of > > the chapters. > > > > I hope you can now see how I must adapt my teaching to my educational > > context. 99.9% of my students forget how to draw a tree diagram or > > how to render a word in phonetic symbols the day after they take their > > final exam. That's not a fulfilling prospect for me, and it certainly > > does not benefit them in any way at all. > > > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > > Professor, Linguistics > > Linguistics Minor Advisor > > English Dept. > > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Dec 24 15:13:09 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:13:09 -0500 Subject: Good intro to Articulatory Phonology? Message-ID: Johanna Rubba's query put me in mind of a task I'd like some help with. This past semester in my intro linguistics class, I started giving basic explanations for phonological phenomena in terms of articulatory phonology. I found that the students seemed to understand them and appreciate them, and while I still think it's a good idea for students to get some sense of phonemic analysis and generative rules, I'd like to incorporate articulatory phonology more formally. Can anyone recommend a good short introduction and exercises to supplement the phonology chapter in Yule (2010), appropriate for undergraduates with no previous coursework in linguistics? Thanks in advance. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri Dec 24 19:26:39 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:26:39 -0800 Subject: Good intro to Articulatory Phonology? In-Reply-To: <4D14B885.3010202@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, I'm not sure whether you mean phonetics or phonology (I'm not familiar with the phrase 'articulatory phonology'), but an excellent introduction to speech articulation and phonetics in general is Peter Ladefoged's *A Course in Phonetics.* It's designed for the novice, and very clear. There is also some material on the web that is related to it; you can hear the sounds of the IPA chart, for example. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From jrubba at calpoly.edu Fri Dec 24 19:34:46 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:34:46 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D13FE36.8080807@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Hey, Tom ... No disrespect, but -- write me up a ten-week syllabus in which I can teach all of that and I'll take you up on it. Be sure you keep the language accessible to, say, a ninth-grader. Happy New Year! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From wilcox at unm.edu Fri Dec 24 19:35:23 2010 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 12:35:23 -0700 Subject: Good intro to Articulatory Phonology? In-Reply-To: <4D14B885.3010202@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, I'm not sure how far you can get teaching articulatory phonology to undergrads -- it just requires so much background in phonetics, dynamic systems theory, and mathematics. For introducing graduate students to the concepts in general, I've found the early papers by Browman & Goldstein (especially a chapter in Linguistic Phonetics edited by Fromkin) to be useful. Also, you should try to show how dynamic systems theory in general works. For example, show students how it can model simple springs, etc. And link DST to areas other than phonetics. The works of Esther Thelen and Patricia Smith can be useful here (DST and the development of walking, cognition, etc.). Barbara King's "The Dynamic Dance" and the work of Alan Fogel can be used to show the general applicability of DST beyond phonetics as well. Good luck with this. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Angus B. Grieve-Smith > December 24, 2010 8:13 AM > > > Johanna Rubba's query put me in mind of a task I'd like some help > with. This past semester in my intro linguistics class, I started > giving basic explanations for phonological phenomena in terms of > articulatory phonology. I found that the students seemed to > understand them and appreciate them, and while I still think it's a > good idea for students to get some sense of phonemic analysis and > generative rules, I'd like to incorporate articulatory phonology more > formally. > > Can anyone recommend a good short introduction and exercises to > supplement the phonology chapter in Yule (2010), appropriate for > undergraduates with no previous coursework in linguistics? > > Thanks in advance. > From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Dec 24 22:12:21 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:12:21 -0500 Subject: Good intro to Articulatory Phonology? In-Reply-To: <4D14F5FB.8090705@unm.edu> Message-ID: On 12/24/2010 2:35 PM, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > I'm not sure how far you can get teaching articulatory phonology to > undergrads -- it just requires so much background in phonetics, > dynamic systems theory, and mathematics. Thanks, Sherman! I don't want to go very far into it - I don't know most of that stuff yet, and I'm still finding it useful! Let me explain a bit. For phonology, the Yule chapter just seems like it teaches them a little bit about everything, but it doesn't actually give the students a chance to practice any skills. For that reason, I supplement with sections from the Language Files. On pages 112-115 of the Language Files, there's a list of phonological processes, as in the attached page, and I usually go through them to clarify how all these processes serve to either make the form easier to say or easier to understand. This past semester, when I was going over voiceless stop insertion (the process that led to the Hampster Dantce), I quickly drew a series of Articulatory Phonology scores like the ones you see in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=9kgGcU09CzcC&lpg=PA185&ots=NHq6CxR6gd&dq=%22articulatory%20phonology%22%20stop%20insertion&pg=PA184#v=onepage&q&f=false I think it would be good to talk about dynamic systems and math in general, and Saint John's is hoping to offer a phonology course some time soon, but I don't think I need to go into that in the intro course! I've been looking online, and have found some good stuff at the Haskins page and at Goldstein's page: http://www.haskins.yale.edu/research/gestural.html http://sail.usc.edu/~lgoldste/ArtPhon/ I'll go through them and see if there's anything appropriate for undergrads, and if not, maybe throw something together. Thanks again! BTW, Sherman, I hope your're recovering well! -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From mark at polymathix.com Mon Dec 27 18:05:19 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:05:19 -0600 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johanna Rubba wrote: > Hey, Tom ... > > No disrespect, but -- write me up a ten-week syllabus in which I can > teach all of that and I'll take you up on it. Be sure you keep the > language accessible to, say, a ninth-grader. Needing to Flesch-test college materials to ninth grade, isn't that sort of a root cause of something here? I'm not sure what I'd do if I ever had to teach in the US. My inclination would be to refuse to use dumb-downed materials, but that may be only because I have the easy option of not teaching in the US. When I was teaching in Germany, all the students could read and write and everything. I could even speak tangentially of algebraic equations without losing my audience. A viewing of Mike Judge's film _Idiocracy_ might help put this kind of decision into perspective, i.e. what will be the end result if we always dumb everything down, all the time? -- Mark Mark P. Line > > Happy New Year! > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From jrubba at calpoly.edu Mon Dec 27 20:56:05 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:56:05 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <9fa981146c47ccd0e10b2b28fa66433b.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: Well, I was being a little hyperbolic when I said ninth grade. 12th grade might be more appropriate. The class is aimed at sophomores, who have only one year of college under their belts. And I have to emphasize again how the lack of instruction regarding language structure in the K-12 system leaves our students severely underprepared for examining language -- for stepping outside of it, so to speak. Also, most of my students are humanities majors, and (unfortunately) not experienced at reading scientific prose. When I teach a senior seminar, I give them texts that are much closer to what we would write for fellow academics or intellectuals; by then, they can cope. When I first began teaching the grad course in linguistics that our literature MA students have to take, I used O'Grady et al.'s _Contemporary Linguistics_. They hated it. They just found it too hard. I was shocked, but how was I to respond? "You just better learn how to read this stuff, period," and have them do lousy in the course time after time? No, I changed the text. This doesn't mean I dumb down my material. I do choose my words carefully when I write (or speak) about linguistics for undergraduates, but I don't cheat the actual subject matter -- I keep it to the correct level, in this case, introductory prose, and strive to explain complex phenomena in language they can read easily. I do, of course, introduce and define linguistic terms and take the theory discussion to the level appropriate for the class and its purpose. I wrote a short textbook on English grammar a number of years ago, and used it for a number of years in my Structure of English course. Students praised it highly, both for its accessibility and for the value of the information. In other words, the prose didn't get in the way of their learning what I wanted them to learn. You can see a sample of my approach at this website, which is extracted from the textbook: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html The first page is a bit simple in prose, but if you go further, you'll see that successive pages are written in plain prose, but nonetheless convey the basic information I want to get across. Unfortunately, upon reading through it today, I realize I have to do some major editing to bring the page up to a better description of syntax. Lastly, I just want to state my position one more time. I have one chance to educate a tiny portion of the general public out of the Stone Age concepts most people entertain with regard to language. I can't, in ten weeks, make up for the lousy education they have had up to the point when they walk into my classroom. What I can do, and have done very successfully in my senior seminar, is open their eyes to the way language really works, not just in structure, but in society. My students often report that they are starting to have arguments with their friends and family about the popular myths people believe about language; they are starting to educate those around them. What could be more satisfying, within the constraints of my job? Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From language at sprynet.com Mon Dec 27 21:31:45 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:31:45 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions Message-ID: > I'm not sure what I'd do if I ever had to teach in the US. My inclination > would be to refuse to use dumb-downed materials, but that may be only > because I have the easy option of not teaching in the US. When I was > teaching in Germany, all the students could read and write and everything. > I could even speak tangentially of algebraic equations without losing my >audience. > A viewing of Mike Judge's film _Idiocracy_ might help put this kind of > decision into perspective, i.e. what will be the end result if we always > dumb everything down, all the time? Since I've lived and worked in Germany (& in England & in a few other nations), my first reaction was a bit defensive, to point out that even today far fewer Germans or Britons make it to university than in the US, so that we're really not dealing with the same population segment. Or to decry German insularity, their "Deutschland ist kein Immigrationsland" mentality & explain that here in the States we deal with a far broader gamut of cultural backgrounds and needs. But then I recalled a passage from the German section of my Sixties book where I discussed possible linguistic differences between German & English that might account for differences in understanding. That passage follows, but WARNING !!! what you are about to read is somewhat Whorfian & totally violates mainstream & PC dogmas that all languages are equal & are not influenced in their structure by cultural factors. -------------------------------------------------------------- I suspect--if I may be permitted a brief digression--that the difference here may lie in the nature of the German language, and that the structure of the German sentence actually allows for the inclusion of more sentence elements before confusion sets in, that it encourages a longer attention span—and hence more thoroughness—than sentences uttered in either the British or American varieties of English. By this I do not mean merely the usual cliché observation about the German verb coming at the end and making you wait for it, but from the gut feeling I have gained from having spoken all three tongues, German poorly, British English sometimes passably, and American, well, the way we're supposed to speak it. The sensation I have when I'm trying out either English or American is that I'm a station-master sending out a sentence composed of railway cars. If I get the wrong car in the wrong place, I'm in a lot of trouble, because I have to haul the whole train back in and start over or, at best, launch another car out into the middle of the train and hope it lands in the right place. Otherwise, I have to send out a whole new train to sit beside the first one, possibly blocking it from view. In German, by contrast, there are no stations and no trains. Rather, I feel like I'm a housewife hanging out laundry on a line of almost infinitely expandable length. Provided I more or less follow a few simple placement rules, I can hang anything anywhere I want and keep adding elements, even changing or modifying them, up until the time I feel the laundry line has enough on it. Then I just stop and let other speakers admire my laundry until they set out a line of their own. Of course the line is extremely long, and there are a lot of things hanging from it. But because its construction has followed all the rules, you can see it all with a single glance. I can't do this in English. This means I probably have to use a lot more short sentences and fragments to say the same thing I can express in one long German sentence. I don't point this out to revive the old "German Is Best" prejudice propagated by some scholars several wars ago but merely to explain that there is a difference. English and American obviously also have their own distinct virtues, which German, for its part, cannot emulate. -------------------------- Not to mention Chinese, most of which I have now lost, though I did once enjoy what I call a Six-Year Window of Reading Fluency. As I recall, a sentence such as: The man punished the boy who beat the cat for chasing the birds. would get recast in Chinese as something like: The cat chased the birds, the boy beat the cat, the man punished the boy. Wonder how Flesch tests would apply to that...? Does this make the Chinese a nation of idiots? I rather doubt it... Anyway, AS WE ALL KNOW, culture plays no role WHATSOEVER in language structure. Happy holidays to everyone! alex ************************************************************** The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ************************************************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark P. Line" To: Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions > Johanna Rubba wrote: >> Hey, Tom ... >> >> No disrespect, but -- write me up a ten-week syllabus in which I can >> teach all of that and I'll take you up on it. Be sure you keep the >> language accessible to, say, a ninth-grader. > > Needing to Flesch-test college materials to ninth grade, isn't that sort > of a root cause of something here? > > I'm not sure what I'd do if I ever had to teach in the US. My inclination > would be to refuse to use dumb-downed materials, but that may be only > because I have the easy option of not teaching in the US. When I was > teaching in Germany, all the students could read and write and everything. > I could even speak tangentially of algebraic equations without losing my > audience. > > A viewing of Mike Judge's film _Idiocracy_ might help put this kind of > decision into perspective, i.e. what will be the end result if we always > dumb everything down, all the time? > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > > > > > >> >> Happy New Year! >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >> Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Dept. >> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > From hancock at albany.edu Mon Dec 27 23:03:24 2010 From: hancock at albany.edu (hancock at albany.edu) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 18:03:24 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions Message-ID: Readability is a somewhat complex topic. In US schools, "whole language" has been the progressive norm for some time, the prevailing view being that language is acquired in use. In English classes, that means largely narrative texts and largely expressive writing. Little attention is paid to how those texts work (beyond a fairly narrow view of "literary elements"), and, as Johanna points out, to how language itself works. This has certainly drawn heavily on generative theory, which emphasizes that language is acquired without direct instruction, that the 'competence' is there no matter how awkward the performance. There are a number of problems to this. Academic writing--especially in the technical disciplines--is not narrative. At the level of the sentence, it is far more lexically dense (fewer clauses and more meaning packed into the clauses) and far more heavily nominalized. This is an inevitable result of the construction of a technical discipline. But students--especially those whose reading has been largely literary and whose writing has been more expressive than analytic--will have trouble with the language and with the process of interacting (reading) those kinds of texts. They need to be more or less mentored into it, and our public school system is not doing that. We are now undertraining most of our students in the sciences. Some academic writing is artificially difficult. The language itself is much more difficult than the concepts require. Making something more readable doesn't necessarily mean that it is being watered down. We can talk in our disciplines in ways that leave the uninitiated out, and at times it makes all the sense in the world to do that. But students need to be mentored into the content of a discipline, and for that we need to reflect on the nature of what it means to be a linguist and bring students along that path in a thoughtful way. The other question might be what are the insights of the discipline that educated adults should be aware of. Respect for dialects is one, but it is a bit of an easy sell given the prevailing progressive celebration of diversity. Studies have shown that formal grammar instruction doesn't carry over to improved reading and writing (at least in the short term), but that is fairly predictable. If you treat language as a discreet formal system, it's hard to put that to work. I think most English teachers (education specialists) are unaware that there are alternatives. Craig >> I'm not sure what I'd do if I ever had to teach in the US. My >> inclination >> would be to refuse to use dumb-downed materials, but that may be only >> because I have the easy option of not teaching in the US. When I was >> teaching in Germany, all the students could read and write and >> everything. >> I could even speak tangentially of algebraic equations without losing my >>audience. > >> A viewing of Mike Judge's film _Idiocracy_ might help put this kind of >> decision into perspective, i.e. what will be the end result if we always >> dumb everything down, all the time? > > Since I've lived and worked in Germany (& in England & in a few other > nations), my first reaction was a bit defensive, to point out that even > today > far fewer Germans or Britons make it to university than in the US, so > that we're really not dealing with the same population segment. Or to > decry German insularity, their "Deutschland ist kein Immigrationsland" > mentality & explain that here in the States we deal with a far broader > gamut of cultural backgrounds and needs. > > But then I recalled a passage from the German section of my Sixties > book where I discussed possible linguistic differences between > German & English that might account for differences in understanding. > That passage follows, but > WARNING !!! > what you are about to read is somewhat Whorfian & totally violates > mainstream & PC dogmas that all languages are equal & are not > influenced in their structure by cultural factors. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > I suspect--if I may be permitted a brief digression--that the difference > here may lie in the nature of the German language, and that the structure > of the German sentence actually allows for the inclusion of more sentence > elements before confusion sets in, that it encourages a longer attention > span—and hence more thoroughness—than sentences uttered in either > the British or American varieties of English. > > By this I do not mean merely the usual cliché observation about the > German verb coming at the end and making you wait for it, but from > the gut feeling I have gained from having spoken all three tongues, > German poorly, British English sometimes passably, and American, > well, the way we're supposed to speak it. The sensation I have > when I'm trying out either English or American is that I'm a > station-master sending out a sentence composed of railway > cars. If I get the wrong car in the wrong place, I'm in a lot of > trouble, because I have to haul the whole train back in and start > over or, at best, launch another car out into the middle of the > train and hope it lands in the right place. Otherwise, I have to > send out a whole new train to sit beside the first one, possibly > blocking it from view. > > In German, by contrast, there are no stations and no trains. > Rather, I feel like I'm a housewife hanging out laundry on a > line of almost infinitely expandable length. Provided I more > or less follow a few simple placement rules, I can hang > anything anywhere I want and keep adding elements, even > changing or modifying them, up until the time I feel the > laundry line has enough on it. Then I just stop and let other > speakers admire my laundry until they set out a line of their > own. Of course the line is extremely long, and there are a > lot of things hanging from it. But because its construction > has followed all the rules, you can see it all with a single glance. > > I can't do this in English. This means I probably have to use a > lot more short sentences and fragments to say the same thing > I can express in one long German sentence. I don't point this > out to revive the old "German Is Best" prejudice propagated > by some scholars several wars ago but merely to explain that > there is a difference. English and American obviously also > have their own distinct virtues, which German, for its part, > cannot emulate. > -------------------------- > > Not to mention Chinese, most of which I have now lost, though > I did once enjoy what I call a Six-Year Window of Reading > Fluency. As I recall, a sentence such as: > > The man punished the boy who beat the cat for chasing the birds. > > would get recast in Chinese as something like: > > The cat chased the birds, > the boy beat the cat, > the man punished the boy. > > Wonder how Flesch tests would apply to that...? > Does this make the Chinese a nation of idiots? > I rather doubt it... > > Anyway, AS WE ALL KNOW, > culture plays no role > WHATSOEVER > in language structure. > > Happy holidays to everyone! > > alex > > ************************************************************** > The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade > ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do > not. > > ************************************************************** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark P. Line" > To: > Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 1:05 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions > > >> Johanna Rubba wrote: >>> Hey, Tom ... >>> >>> No disrespect, but -- write me up a ten-week syllabus in which I can >>> teach all of that and I'll take you up on it. Be sure you keep the >>> language accessible to, say, a ninth-grader. >> >> Needing to Flesch-test college materials to ninth grade, isn't that sort >> of a root cause of something here? >> >> I'm not sure what I'd do if I ever had to teach in the US. My >> inclination >> would be to refuse to use dumb-downed materials, but that may be only >> because I have the easy option of not teaching in the US. When I was >> teaching in Germany, all the students could read and write and >> everything. >> I could even speak tangentially of algebraic equations without losing my >> audience. >> >> A viewing of Mike Judge's film _Idiocracy_ might help put this kind of >> decision into perspective, i.e. what will be the end result if we always >> dumb everything down, all the time? >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> Happy New Year! >>> >>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>> Professor, Linguistics >>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>> English Dept. >>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> Bartlesville, OK >> >> > > From elc9j at virginia.edu Tue Dec 28 02:06:18 2010 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 21:06:18 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <67F4CEEA-FB7D-46B3-9075-40AD00FB12F0@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: I don't teach Intro to Linguistics but I throw some linguistics into my lower-level undergrad Language & Culture course. Even learning phonetics can have practical applications (such as knowing what you're trying to do when pronouncing a foreign language), and students are usually fascinated with things like clicks and tone-based drum communication. And it's not impossible to describe traditional linguistic concepts in an accessible way. Since Johanna mentioned that > the linguistics approach is *alien* to them (and I mean that in the > Martian sense) let me recommend one of my favorite explanations of the phonemic principle by the late, great Charles Hockett: "How to learn Martian". Originally published in /Astounding Science Fiction/, 1955, and reprinted in /The View From Language/.Athens, GA:University of Georgia Press 1977. Happy new year, Ellen On 12/27/2010 3:56 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Well, I was being a little hyperbolic when I said ninth grade. 12th > grade might be more appropriate. The class is aimed at sophomores, who > have only one year of college under their belts. And I have to > emphasize again how the lack of instruction regarding language > structure in the K-12 system leaves our students severely > underprepared for examining language -- for stepping outside of it, so > to speak. Also, most of my students are humanities majors, and > (unfortunately) not experienced at reading scientific prose. When I > teach a senior seminar, I give them texts that are much closer to what > we would write for fellow academics or intellectuals; by then, they > can cope. > > When I first began teaching the grad course in linguistics that our > literature MA students have to take, I used O'Grady et al.'s > _Contemporary Linguistics_. They hated it. They just found it too > hard. I was shocked, but how was I to respond? "You just better learn > how to read this stuff, period," and have them do lousy in the course > time after time? No, I changed the text. > > This doesn't mean I dumb down my material. I do choose my words > carefully when I write (or speak) about linguistics for > undergraduates, but I don't cheat the actual subject matter -- I keep > it to the correct level, in this case, introductory prose, and strive > to explain complex phenomena in language they can read easily. I do, > of course, introduce and define linguistic terms and take the theory > discussion to the level appropriate for the class and its purpose. > > I wrote a short textbook on English grammar a number of years ago, and > used it for a number of years in my Structure of English course. > Students praised it highly, both for its accessibility and for the > value of the information. In other words, the prose didn't get in the > way of their learning what I wanted them to learn. You can see a > sample of my approach at this website, which is extracted from the > textbook: > > http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html > > The first page is a bit simple in prose, but if you go further, > you'll see that successive pages are written in plain prose, but > nonetheless convey the basic information I want to get across. > Unfortunately, upon reading through it today, I realize I have to do > some major editing to bring the page up to a better description of > syntax. > > Lastly, I just want to state my position one more time. I have one > chance to educate a tiny portion of the general public out of the > Stone Age concepts most people entertain with regard to language. I > can't, in ten weeks, make up for the lousy education they have had up > to the point when they walk into my classroom. What I can do, and have > done very successfully in my senior seminar, is open their eyes to the > way language really works, not just in structure, but in society. My > students often report that they are starting to have arguments with > their friends and family about the popular myths people believe about > language; they are starting to educate those around them. What could > be more satisfying, within the constraints of my job? > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > On 12/27/2010 3:56 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > Well, I was being a little hyperbolic when I said ninth grade. 12th > grade might be more appropriate. The class is aimed at sophomores, who > have only one year of college under their belts. And I have to > emphasize again how the lack of instruction regarding language > structure in the K-12 system leaves our students severely > underprepared for examining language -- for stepping outside of it, so > to speak. Also, most of my students are humanities majors, and > (unfortunately) not experienced at reading scientific prose. When I > teach a senior seminar, I give them texts that are much closer to what > we would write for fellow academics or intellectuals; by then, they > can cope. > > When I first began teaching the grad course in linguistics that our > literature MA students have to take, I used O'Grady et al.'s > _Contemporary Linguistics_. They hated it. They just found it too > hard. I was shocked, but how was I to respond? "You just better learn > how to read this stuff, period," and have them do lousy in the course > time after time? No, I changed the text. > > This doesn't mean I dumb down my material. I do choose my words > carefully when I write (or speak) about linguistics for > undergraduates, but I don't cheat the actual subject matter -- I keep > it to the correct level, in this case, introductory prose, and strive > to explain complex phenomena in language they can read easily. I do, > of course, introduce and define linguistic terms and take the theory > discussion to the level appropriate for the class and its purpose. > > I wrote a short textbook on English grammar a number of years ago, and > used it for a number of years in my Structure of English course. > Students praised it highly, both for its accessibility and for the > value of the information. In other words, the prose didn't get in the > way of their learning what I wanted them to learn. You can see a > sample of my approach at this website, which is extracted from the > textbook: > > http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html > > The first page is a bit simple in prose, but if you go further, > you'll see that successive pages are written in plain prose, but > nonetheless convey the basic information I want to get across. > Unfortunately, upon reading through it today, I realize I have to do > some major editing to bring the page up to a better description of > syntax. > > Lastly, I just want to state my position one more time. I have one > chance to educate a tiny portion of the general public out of the > Stone Age concepts most people entertain with regard to language. I > can't, in ten weeks, make up for the lousy education they have had up > to the point when they walk into my classroom. What I can do, and have > done very successfully in my senior seminar, is open their eyes to the > way language really works, not just in structure, but in society. My > students often report that they are starting to have arguments with > their friends and family about the popular myths people believe about > language; they are starting to educate those around them. What could > be more satisfying, within the constraints of my job? > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Tue Dec 28 03:08:37 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:08:37 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D19461A.4040507@virginia.edu> Message-ID: On 12/27/2010 9:06 PM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > let me recommend one of my favorite explanations of the phonemic > principle by the late, great Charles Hockett: "How to learn > Martian". Originally published in /Astounding Science Fiction/, 1955, > and reprinted in /The View From Language/.Athens, GA:University of > Georgia Press 1977. Thanks! As is less and less surprising, it's available online: http://gotomars.free.fr/How_to_Learn_Martian_1955.pdf I'll have to try that on some of my students next semester and see if they can relate to it any better than the account in /Language Files/. Of course, maybe it needs to be updated for the /Stargate: Universe/ generation. I'm not convinced that "machines" can't do at least some of the phonemic analysis that Hockett describes. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From munro at ucla.edu Tue Dec 28 04:55:13 2010 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:55:13 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D1954B5.7050303@panix.com> Message-ID: Thanks so much for this! My father worked with Hockett (author, of course, of my first linguistics text) during WWII. I had heard of this but never seen it. I wish I could share it with my father... Pam Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 12/27/2010 9:06 PM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> let me recommend one of my favorite explanations of the phonemic >> principle by the late, great Charles Hockett: "How to learn >> Martian". Originally published in /Astounding Science Fiction/, >> 1955, and reprinted in /The View From Language/.Athens, GA:University >> of Georgia Press 1977. > > Thanks! As is less and less surprising, it's available online: > > http://gotomars.free.fr/How_to_Learn_Martian_1955.pdf > > I'll have to try that on some of my students next semester and see > if they can relate to it any better than the account in /Language > Files/. Of course, maybe it needs to be updated for the /Stargate: > Universe/ generation. I'm not convinced that "machines" can't do at > least some of the phonemic analysis that Hockett describes. > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From bischoff.st at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 13:31:53 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:31:53 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition Message-ID: Hi all, I have been asked to comment on a research proposal in Sociology that proposes to determine if "voice-cued cognitive schemata (organized knowledge frameworks) leads to accurate identification of physical appearance and biographical background of a speaker." The research is couched within larger questions of racism. My task is to determine if the project as outlined is feasible (logistically) not necessarily to comment on the design or research question. In short, participants will be asked to match the voices they hear, reading the same script, with photos. However, I was struck by the fact that there were no references to linguistics or socio-linguistics in the proposal. This is not an area I am familiar with, but thought that there must be a body of literature on this topic within linguistics. Because I am short of time, I just wanted to ask if there has been "significant" research in linguistics in this area, and if so is there is one or two key papers that are "required reading"? Thanks, Shannon From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Dec 28 13:51:52 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:51:52 +0100 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, just a brief comment: A student of mine has written under my guidance her PhD thesis on '*Voice and Identity*' (2009). The dissertation is stored as an eDOC under http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=1000286630 . The corresponding PDf file is http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11028/1/Paya_Herrero_Begona.pdf . You may find some helpful suggestions there. Best wishes, Wolfgang -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Dec 28 14:13:50 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:13:50 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm pretty familiar with sociolinguistic research on Black English (I was a student of Bill Labov's) and to my knowledge there have been no socio/linguistic studies of this issue relating to Black Americans at least. It is kind of surprising, I know. One thing that is particularly striking is that there are many Black Americans (e.g. Barack Obama) whose speech has no grammatical or phonological characteristics of Black English, who apparently do not even have a natural register of their speech with such features, who are nevertheless immediately identifiable as Black to essentially all Americans on the basis of something in their voice quality. This is not to say that there is something `racial'/physiological involved, because there are clearly Black Americans who speak indistinguishably from Whites (I just saw Vanessa Williams on Desperate Housewives, for example), voice quality and all--but at the same time there is also something identifiably distinctively Black which is not just grammar and phonology. Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to the extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis of their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal of time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean not a single person. John Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > Hi all, > > I have been asked to comment on a research proposal in Sociology that > proposes to determine if "voice-cued cognitive schemata (organized > knowledge frameworks) leads to accurate identification of physical > appearance and biographical background of a speaker." The research is > couched within larger questions of racism. My task is to determine if > the project as outlined is feasible (logistically) not necessarily to > comment on the design or research question. In short, participants > will be asked to match the voices they hear, reading the same script, > with photos. However, I was struck by the fact that there were no > references to linguistics or socio-linguistics in the proposal. This > is not an area I am familiar with, but thought that there must be a > body of literature on this topic within linguistics. Because I am > short of time, I just wanted to ask if there has been "significant" > research in linguistics in this area, and if so is there is one or two > key papers that are "required reading"? > > Thanks, > Shannon > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From anggarrgoon at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 14:36:50 2010 From: anggarrgoon at gmail.com (Claire Bowern) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:36:50 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293545630.4d19f09e94c4f@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: There has been considerable research on this topic, though perhaps more through psychology than linguistics (though I heard about it first at a CLS meeting in about 2003). Here are two classic papers: doi:10.1016/0147-1767(90)90019-S http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7R-469PK1T-V&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1590836370&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c108c40e776cd51821ce07c0f515a021&searchtype=a International Journal of Intercultural Relations Volume 14, Issue 3, 1990, Pages 337-353 Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on undergraduates' perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants Donald L. Rubin and Kim A. Smith Department of Speech Communication The University of Georgia, USA Gill, M. M. (1994). Accents and Stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 348-361. ( http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a911525513~frm=titlelink ) (Putting a search for the title into google scholar and seeing what papers site these ones also finds a fair amount more.) Claire Bowern On 28 December 2010 09:13, wrote: > I'm pretty familiar with sociolinguistic research on Black English (I was a > student of Bill Labov's) and to my knowledge there have been no > socio/linguistic studies of this issue relating to Black Americans at > least. It > is kind of surprising, I know. One thing that is particularly striking is > that > there > are many Black Americans (e.g. Barack Obama) whose speech has no > grammatical or > phonological characteristics of Black English, who apparently do not even > have > a natural register of their speech with such features, who are nevertheless > immediately identifiable as Black to essentially all Americans on the basis > of > something in their voice quality. This is not to say that there is > something > `racial'/physiological involved, because there are clearly Black Americans > who > speak indistinguishably from Whites (I just saw Vanessa Williams on > Desperate > Housewives, for example), voice quality and all--but at the same time there > is > also something identifiably distinctively Black which is not just grammar > and > phonology. Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White > Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to > the > extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis > of > their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal > of > time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean > not > a single person. > John > > > > > Quoting "s.t. bischoff" : > > > Hi all, > > > > I have been asked to comment on a research proposal in Sociology that > > proposes to determine if "voice-cued cognitive schemata (organized > > knowledge frameworks) leads to accurate identification of physical > > appearance and biographical background of a speaker." The research is > > couched within larger questions of racism. My task is to determine if > > the project as outlined is feasible (logistically) not necessarily to > > comment on the design or research question. In short, participants > > will be asked to match the voices they hear, reading the same script, > > with photos. However, I was struck by the fact that there were no > > references to linguistics or socio-linguistics in the proposal. This > > is not an area I am familiar with, but thought that there must be a > > body of literature on this topic within linguistics. Because I am > > short of time, I just wanted to ask if there has been "significant" > > research in linguistics in this area, and if so is there is one or two > > key papers that are "required reading"? > > > > Thanks, > > Shannon > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Dec 28 16:13:44 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:13:44 -0800 Subject: Book suggestions In-Reply-To: <4D1954B5.7050303@panix.com> Message-ID: Thank you both very much for the suggestion. I have downloaded the book and look forward to checking it out. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Dec 28 16:32:06 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 08:32:06 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I suggest you look into language attitudes research. A good start is Ellen Bouchard Ryan and Howard Giles' classic book _Attitudes towards language variation_, 1982, Edward Arnold publ., ISBN 0713161957. There has been a great deal of research on impressions made on people by hearing a voice. I conducted my own little experiment once in my classes. I took clips from a radio story on welfare in which various people were interviewed -- a black man, a Hispanic woman, a white man, a white older woman (all unemployed), and a white college professor commenting on the situation. I did my best to use clips that did not give away the person's socioeconomic situation. My students were able to identify the ethnicity of the speakers (the white man spoke nonstandard English) and even speculated (correctly) on their education level. You may even find a similar study regarding matching voice to photos. One of the most revealing tests is the "matched guise" test, in which a fully bidialectal reader reads a text in each dialect. That reader's readings are mixed in with a number of distractors so that the listeners don't recognize the voice when they hear it the second time. Sure enough, the listeners rate that speaker differently depending on the dialect of the reading. Tests have been given asking people to rate speakers on intelligence, reliability, attractiveness (I think), friendliness, etc. The attractiveness element might affect the choice of photo in a test like the on you're looking at. Voice isn't the only cue people use. I read about a study in which stories told by schoolchildren of various ethnicities were read by an adult reader onto a recording, which was then played for a number of teachers. Their task was to estimate the child's chances for success in school based on the structure of the story. One of the children was an African-American girl who told a story in a style different from the mainstream style (which, by the way, is taught and enforced in school). The black teachers rated the girl very highly; some said hers was the best story. The white teachers rated her story very low, and predicted that she would do poorly in school and maybe even have emotional problems!! The story is featured in Lisa Delpit's _Other People's Children_, a book on the impact of cultural differences on both school instruction and teacher education. Good luck with it! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Dec 28 17:06:01 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 09:06:01 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As to identifying African Americans by their speech, I heard once that the structure of most AA men's larynx is different from that of whites, and this was responsible, first of all, for a deeper voice in many cases, and second of all, for that elusive quality that John refers to. I immediately pegged this as incredibly racist, but apparently, according to someone I respected, it was legitimate science. This was a long time ago. and I don't remember the details. This could account for a difference between black men and women. I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking about. He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does Canadian raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that usually flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of words that end in /t/). You've probably heard of John Baugh's personal experiment of calling about apartments for rent, sometimes using AA English, and sometimes standard English. He gets far more callbacks when using his "white" voice. I'm a regular NPR listener and I often speculate on both the ethnicity and the personal appearance of their speakers. There are photos of all of the speakers (and some of the people you don't hear, like Kee Malesky and Doug Berman) on the NPR website, and I have checked several of the speakers that I suspected were AA. I was right about Korva Coleman, Cheryl Corely, Audie Cornish, Alison Keyes, and Juan Williams, but wrong about Ann Taylor, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, and Paul Brown. In general, most of the people I've checked don't look at all like I would have expected. Terri Gross and the Magliozzi brothers look pretty much like what I would have expected, but others do not look at all like I expected. Interestingly, I had pegged Steve Innskeep as being attractive, and got pretty close to his facial type. A cool little experiment. Try it sometime! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From grvsmth at panix.com Tue Dec 28 17:43:54 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:43:54 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <88E3B348-F990-45AD-94B1-841F3E164B16@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: On 12/28/2010 12:06 PM, Johanna Rubba wrote: > I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by > his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any > number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on > YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking about. > He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does Canadian > raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that usually > flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of words that > end in /t/). Obama is also a fluent speaker of Hawaiian Pidgin: http://www.thegolfchannel.com/shag-bag/wie-obama-connect-pidgin-34550/ My impression is that Obama has incorporated just enough features of Black English into his speech to say "I'm black!" but not enough to justify criticism for speaking "bad English." I'm sure that his Kansas background played a big role in his election wins in Plains states, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a linguistic element to that. It would be interesting to see a systematic study of this. I'm also intrigued by the idea that there may be anatomical differences. Obviously, they wouldn't be common to everyone with African ancestry, given the tremendous anatomic variation within the African continent, but they may be prevalent among the African-American population. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Dec 28 17:45:49 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:45:49 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <88E3B348-F990-45AD-94B1-841F3E164B16@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: If there's a physiological basis for the different voice quality of American Blacks, I can easily believe that it's particularly associated with men, because when I said that there are Blacks who sound exactly like Whites, I was thinking about particular Black women, not men. On the other hand, Andre Cooper, who's a phonetician and Black and a big opera fan, once told me that no matter how much Black woman are trained as opera singers, there's always something distinctive about their voice quality (although obviously we're dealing with a pretty small sample here). (incidentally, when I say that Obama is obviously Black, I am NOT referring to phonetic features like his pronunciation of ay (which is no different than Southern Whites)--I was referring to voice quality. And there are definitely Black men who can sound completely convincingly White if they try. John Baugh is very good at this, I don't think that I would be able to identity him as Black if he put it on, it's much less obvious than e.g. Obama. And Eddie Murphy can put on a very convincing White voice. I have a strong feeling that regardless of possible physiological differences, there is a significant sociopsychological aspect to this. I say this because it's clear to me at least that Blacks are much better at sounding 100% White than Whites are at sounding 100% Black. John Quoting Johanna Rubba : > As to identifying African Americans by their speech, I heard once > that the structure of most AA men's larynx is different from that of > whites, and this was responsible, first of all, for a deeper voice in > many cases, and second of all, for that elusive quality that John > refers to. I immediately pegged this as incredibly racist, but > apparently, according to someone I respected, it was legitimate > science. This was a long time ago. and I don't remember the details. > This could account for a difference between black men and women. > > I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by > his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any > number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on > YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking > about. He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does > Canadian raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that > usually flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of > words that end in /t/). > > You've probably heard of John Baugh's personal experiment of calling > about apartments for rent, sometimes using AA English, and sometimes > standard English. He gets far more callbacks when using his "white" > voice. > > I'm a regular NPR listener and I often speculate on both the > ethnicity and the personal appearance of their speakers. There are > photos of all of the speakers (and some of the people you don't hear, > like Kee Malesky and Doug Berman) on the NPR website, and I have > checked several of the speakers that I suspected were AA. I was right > about Korva Coleman, Cheryl Corely, Audie Cornish, Alison Keyes, and > Juan Williams, but wrong about Ann Taylor, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, > and Paul Brown. In general, most of the people I've checked don't > look at all like I would have expected. Terri Gross and the Magliozzi > brothers look pretty much like what I would have expected, but others > do not look at all like I expected. Interestingly, I had pegged Steve > Innskeep as being attractive, and got pretty close to his facial type. > > A cool little experiment. Try it sometime! > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Dec 28 17:54:15 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:54:15 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <88E3B348-F990-45AD-94B1-841F3E164B16@calpoly.edu> Message-ID: Forgot to mention--Obama's 'Canadian raising' is presumably from Hawaiian English (ultimately Hawaiian substratum), best-known from the way that natives say the name of the state. John Quoting Johanna Rubba : > As to identifying African Americans by their speech, I heard once > that the structure of most AA men's larynx is different from that of > whites, and this was responsible, first of all, for a deeper voice in > many cases, and second of all, for that elusive quality that John > refers to. I immediately pegged this as incredibly racist, but > apparently, according to someone I respected, it was legitimate > science. This was a long time ago. and I don't remember the details. > This could account for a difference between black men and women. > > I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by > his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any > number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on > YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking > about. He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does > Canadian raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that > usually flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of > words that end in /t/). > > You've probably heard of John Baugh's personal experiment of calling > about apartments for rent, sometimes using AA English, and sometimes > standard English. He gets far more callbacks when using his "white" > voice. > > I'm a regular NPR listener and I often speculate on both the > ethnicity and the personal appearance of their speakers. There are > photos of all of the speakers (and some of the people you don't hear, > like Kee Malesky and Doug Berman) on the NPR website, and I have > checked several of the speakers that I suspected were AA. I was right > about Korva Coleman, Cheryl Corely, Audie Cornish, Alison Keyes, and > Juan Williams, but wrong about Ann Taylor, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, > and Paul Brown. In general, most of the people I've checked don't > look at all like I would have expected. Terri Gross and the Magliozzi > brothers look pretty much like what I would have expected, but others > do not look at all like I expected. Interestingly, I had pegged Steve > Innskeep as being attractive, and got pretty close to his facial type. > > A cool little experiment. Try it sometime! > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From bischoff.st at gmail.com Tue Dec 28 19:33:26 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:33:26 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293558855.4d1a2447ea382@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for the stimulating responses, as Claire Bowern notes there has been a good deal of research in this area going back at least to the 1970s. However, the overwhelming majority seems to be coming from social-psychology. I suppose my linguistic bias lead me to think that most such work would be coming out of linguistics (socio or anthropological). Thanks again, Shannon PS The NPR test is clever...I've often tried to imagine the presenters and guests background and likeness...curiously I've never gone online to check. 2010/12/28 > Forgot to mention--Obama's 'Canadian raising' is presumably from Hawaiian > English (ultimately Hawaiian substratum), best-known from the way that > natives say the name of the state. > John > > > > > Quoting Johanna Rubba : > > > As to identifying African Americans by their speech, I heard once > > that the structure of most AA men's larynx is different from that of > > whites, and this was responsible, first of all, for a deeper voice in > > many cases, and second of all, for that elusive quality that John > > refers to. I immediately pegged this as incredibly racist, but > > apparently, according to someone I respected, it was legitimate > > science. This was a long time ago. and I don't remember the details. > > This could account for a difference between black men and women. > > > > I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by > > his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any > > number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on > > YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking > > about. He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does > > Canadian raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that > > usually flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of > > words that end in /t/). > > > > You've probably heard of John Baugh's personal experiment of calling > > about apartments for rent, sometimes using AA English, and sometimes > > standard English. He gets far more callbacks when using his "white" > > voice. > > > > I'm a regular NPR listener and I often speculate on both the > > ethnicity and the personal appearance of their speakers. There are > > photos of all of the speakers (and some of the people you don't hear, > > like Kee Malesky and Doug Berman) on the NPR website, and I have > > checked several of the speakers that I suspected were AA. I was right > > about Korva Coleman, Cheryl Corely, Audie Cornish, Alison Keyes, and > > Juan Williams, but wrong about Ann Taylor, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, > > and Paul Brown. In general, most of the people I've checked don't > > look at all like I would have expected. Terri Gross and the Magliozzi > > brothers look pretty much like what I would have expected, but others > > do not look at all like I expected. Interestingly, I had pegged Steve > > Innskeep as being attractive, and got pretty close to his facial type. > > > > A cool little experiment. Try it sometime! > > > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > > Professor, Linguistics > > Linguistics Minor Advisor > > English Dept. > > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From grvsmth at panix.com Wed Dec 29 01:28:15 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 20:28:15 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293545630.4d19f09e94c4f@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: On 12/28/2010 9:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White > Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to the > extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis of > their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal of > time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean not > a single person. I can't really think of one either. There are some people who, hearing Howie Hawkins on the radio, thought he was Black, but I'm not sure if any of them were Black themselves: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/2706/1712860/WAMC.News/Third-party.candidates.discuss.NYS.race -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Dec 29 07:01:11 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:01:11 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <4D1A8EAF.30304@panix.com> Message-ID: He's got (here and there) a number of features which Northern Whites associate with Blacks--monophthongization of /ay/ (actually it isn't a monophthong, the y is changed to a schwa), saying short i for short e before nasals and in 'get'. Northern Whites (or alternatively isolated Blacks who live in an otherwise entirely White environment) often get confused by these general Southern features into thinking that the person is Black, but southerners (Blacks and Whites) and northern Blacks can easily tell the difference. He also very occasionally has a stop for the voiced dental fricative, which is used by many NYC Whites but I think many Whites may not realize this, and this really makes a strong 'Black' impression (although he doesn't do it often, which a Black person would be more sensitive too). I wonder though where he got these features from--I don't see anything obvious in his biography which would suggest this. John Quoting "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" : > On 12/28/2010 9:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White > > Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to > the > > extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis > of > > their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal > of > > time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean > not > > a single person. > I can't really think of one either. There are some people who, > hearing Howie Hawkins on the radio, thought he was Black, but I'm not > sure if any of them were Black themselves: > > http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/2706/1712860/WAMC.News/Third-party.candidates.discuss.NYS.race > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Dec 29 09:40:33 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:40:33 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <4D1A8EAF.30304@panix.com> Message-ID: Also, when HH contrasted EMployment and UNemployment, I thought 'Wow, not too many Whites would have thought of that.' I think that alone would have convinced a lot of Whites that he's Black. John Quoting "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" : > On 12/28/2010 9:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White > > Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to > the > > extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis > of > > their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal > of > > time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean > not > > a single person. > I can't really think of one either. There are some people who, > hearing Howie Hawkins on the radio, thought he was Black, but I'm not > sure if any of them were Black themselves: > > http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/2706/1712860/WAMC.News/Third-party.candidates.discuss.NYS.race > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Wed Dec 29 13:00:45 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 05:00:45 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293615633.4d1b021168d2f@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I'm surprised that so much of this discussion is anecdotal. Surely someone must have done some studies about interracial adoptions and dialect and voice quality in the United States. "Black" children brought up in "white" families and "white" children brought up in "black" families ought to be a nice testing ground and a good contrast for those who stayed in their birth family. --Aya On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Also, when HH contrasted EMployment and UNemployment, I thought 'Wow, not > too many Whites would have thought of that.' I think that alone would have > convinced a lot of Whites that he's Black. > John > > > > Quoting "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" : > >> On 12/28/2010 9:13 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> Related to this, it seems to be practically impossible for White >>> Americans to convincingly mimic the speech of Black Americans, at least to >> the >>> extent that Black Americans think that they are actually Black on the basis >> of >>> their voice--a project I was working on during the 1980s spent a good deal >> of >>> time trying to find such White Americans with absolutely no success, I mean >> not >>> a single person. >> I can't really think of one either. There are some people who, >> hearing Howie Hawkins on the radio, thought he was Black, but I'm not >> sure if any of them were Black themselves: >> >> > http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/2706/1712860/WAMC.News/Third-party.candidates.discuss.NYS.race >> >> -- >> -Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> grvsmth at panix.com >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Dec 29 13:49:16 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:49:16 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, Here is a list of all, I think, of the references that were sent in response to my quirry. It does seem that this is an issue mostly addressed in social-psychology. I also received this great link to a website that some might find useful in the classroom...thanks to Andrew Koontz-Garboden for the link. Thanks again. http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~jbaugh/Site/Linguistic_Profiling.html English with an Accent : Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States PAP Lippi-Green, Rosina Routledge Apple, W., Streeter, L.A., & Krauss, R.M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, (5): 715-727. *John* *Baugh*, *Linguistic* *Profiling*, in Black *Linguistics*: Language, Society, and Politics in Africa and the Americas 155-63, 2003 *John Baugh* *Racial Identification by Speech* American Speech - Volume 75, Number 4, Winter 2000, pp. 362-364 Baugh, John. 1996 "Perceptions within a variable paradigm: Black and white detection and identification based on speech." In E. Schneider (ed.),Varieties of English Around the World: Focus on the USA. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169-182. Berry, D.S. (1992). Vocal types and stereotypes: Joint effects of vocal attractiveness and vocal maturity on person perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16 (1), 41-54. Ellen Bouchard Ryan and Howard Giles' classic book _Attitudes towards language variation_, 1982, Edward Arnold publ., ISBN 0713161957. Cargile, Aaron Castelan, and Giles, Howard. (1998). Language attitudes toward varieties of English: An American-Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 26 (3, August), 338-356. Dipboye, R.L., Arvey, R.D., & Terpstra, D.E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (3), 288-294. Etaugh, C., & Sanders, S. (1974). Evaluation of performance as a function of status and sex variables. The Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 237-241. Futoran, G. C. & Wyer, R.S. (1986). The effects of traits and gender stereotypes on occupational suitability judgments and the recall of judgment-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 475-503. Hopper, Robert. (1977). Language attitudes in the employment interview. Communication Monographs. 44 (4, November), 346-351. Kang, Okim, and Rubin, Donald L. (2009). Reverse linguistic stereotyping: Measuring the effect of listener expectations on speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 28 (4), 441-456 Lawrence, S. G., Stucky, N. P., and Hopper, R. (1990) The effects of sex dialects and sex stereotypes on speech evaluations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 9 (3), 209-22 McConnell-Ginet, S. (1978). Intonation in a man's world. Signs: Women in Culture and Society, 3 (3), 541-559. Michael, M. (1989). Attribution and ordinary explanation: Cognitivist predilections and pragmatist alternatives. New Ideas in Psychology. 7(3): 231-243. Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R.J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624. Thomas Purnell, William Idsardi and John Baugh. 1999. "Perceptual and Phonetic Experiments on American English Dialect Identification. *Journal of Social Psychology* Smith, B.L., Brown, B.L., Strong, W.J. & Rencher, A.C. (1975). Effects of speech rate on personality perception. Language and Speech, 18, 145-152 Street, Richard L., Jr., Mulac, Anthony, and Wiemann, John M. (1989). Speech evaluation differences as a function of perspective (participant versus observer) and presentational medium. Human Communication Research. 14 (3, Spring), 333-363 Street, Richard L., Jr. (1985). Participant-observer differences in speech evaluation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 4 (2), 125-130. Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S., & Hunter, B.A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (2), 199-214. Taylor, S.E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognition Processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 88-114). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. Zahn, Christopher J. (1989). Some data on the predictive validity of the Speech Evaluation Instrument. Communication Research Reports. 6 (1, June), 53-58. Zahn, Christopher J., and Hopper, Robert. (1985) Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 4 (2), 113-123. Zuckerman, M. & Miyake, K. (1993). The attractive voice: What makes it so? Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 17, (2): 119-135. Zuckerman, M. & Driver, R.E. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 13 (2): 67-82. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7R-469PK1T-V&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1590836370&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c108c40e776cd51821ce07c0f515a021&searchtype=a International Journal of Intercultural Relations Volume 14, Issue 3, 1990, Pages 337-353 Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on undergraduates' perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants Donald L. Rubin and Kim A. Smith Department of Speech Communication The University of Georgia, USA Gill, M. M. (1994). Accents and Stereotypes: Their effect on perceptions of teachers and lecture comprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 348-361. ( http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a911525513~frm=titlelink ) PhD thesis on '*Voice and Identity*' (2009). The dissertation is stored as an eDOC under http://deposit.d-nb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=1000286630 . The corresponding PDf file is http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11028/1/Paya_Herrero_Begona.pdf On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the stimulating responses, as Claire Bowern notes there has been > a good deal of research in this area going back at least to the 1970s. > However, the overwhelming majority seems to be coming from > social-psychology. I suppose my linguistic bias lead me to think that most > such work would be coming out of linguistics (socio or anthropological). > > Thanks again, > Shannon > PS The NPR test is clever...I've often tried to imagine the presenters and > guests background and likeness...curiously I've never gone online to check. > > 2010/12/28 > > Forgot to mention--Obama's 'Canadian raising' is presumably from Hawaiian >> English (ultimately Hawaiian substratum), best-known from the way that >> natives say the name of the state. >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Johanna Rubba : >> >> > As to identifying African Americans by their speech, I heard once >> > that the structure of most AA men's larynx is different from that of >> > whites, and this was responsible, first of all, for a deeper voice in >> > many cases, and second of all, for that elusive quality that John >> > refers to. I immediately pegged this as incredibly racist, but >> > apparently, according to someone I respected, it was legitimate >> > science. This was a long time ago. and I don't remember the details. >> > This could account for a difference between black men and women. >> > >> > I'm not sure I'd recognize that Barack Obama was (half) AA merely by >> > his voice. I certainly have mistaken black speakers for white any >> > number of times. I just listened to some clips of his speeches on >> > YouTube and I do hear the voice quality I think John is talking >> > about. He monophthongizes his /ai/'s sometimes, but also does >> > Canadian raising on them. I don't detect any of the other cues that >> > usually flag an AA voice for me (e.g., glottal stop at the end of >> > words that end in /t/). >> > >> > You've probably heard of John Baugh's personal experiment of calling >> > about apartments for rent, sometimes using AA English, and sometimes >> > standard English. He gets far more callbacks when using his "white" >> > voice. >> > >> > I'm a regular NPR listener and I often speculate on both the >> > ethnicity and the personal appearance of their speakers. There are >> > photos of all of the speakers (and some of the people you don't hear, >> > like Kee Malesky and Doug Berman) on the NPR website, and I have >> > checked several of the speakers that I suspected were AA. I was right >> > about Korva Coleman, Cheryl Corely, Audie Cornish, Alison Keyes, and >> > Juan Williams, but wrong about Ann Taylor, Barbara Bradley Hagerty, >> > and Paul Brown. In general, most of the people I've checked don't >> > look at all like I would have expected. Terri Gross and the Magliozzi >> > brothers look pretty much like what I would have expected, but others >> > do not look at all like I expected. Interestingly, I had pegged Steve >> > Innskeep as being attractive, and got pretty close to his facial type. >> > >> > A cool little experiment. Try it sometime! >> > >> > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >> > Professor, Linguistics >> > Linguistics Minor Advisor >> > English Dept. >> > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >> > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >> > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >> > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >> > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >> > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Thu Dec 30 05:01:00 2010 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:01:00 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293558855.4d1a2447ea382@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: So far as I know (and Geoff Nathan can correct me if I'm wrong), short /a/ in Hawai'ian is, in general, pronounced as schwa. This would cause what appears to be Canadian raising in the state's name, but that's only because the /i/ follows. The first /a/ in the word is also a schwa. In any case, I don't know anything about the presence or absence of Can. raising in the various regional manifestations of AAE. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Dec 30 05:32:05 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 07:32:05 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm also not an expert (I did live in Hawaii for a year but a long time ago) but I think that the first a is a schwa because it's an unstressed syllable. I've never heard of raised /ay/ as being a distinctive feature of any AAE dialect. It isn't just 'Canadian'--aside from Hawaii also Scotland, Martha's Vineyard, and Philadelphia (and I'm sure other places). The Blacks in Philadelphia don't raise it at all, only the Whites. I would assume that the Blacks on Martha's Vineyard raise much less than the Whites (judging from where they live on the island), but in any case they're an old (at least the 18th century) non-AAE-speaking community. John Quoting Johanna Rubba : > So far as I know (and Geoff Nathan can correct me if I'm wrong), > short /a/ in Hawai'ian is, in general, pronounced as schwa. This > would cause what appears to be Canadian raising in the state's name, > but that's only because the /i/ follows. The first /a/ in the word > is also a schwa. > > In any case, I don't know anything about the presence or absence of > Can. raising in the various regional manifestations of AAE. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Thu Dec 30 11:31:07 2010 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoff Nathan) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:31:07 -0500 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No correction necessary. Jo is absolutely right that the perception of Canadian Raising in HE is due to the way the name of the state is pronounced in HE. To the best of my knowledge Canadian Raising of /ay/ does not occur in any dialect of AAE (it probably does in the speech of African-Canadians, but I don't know that literature). The reflex of /ay/ in AAE is generally a monophthongal [a:] unless it's some form of [ay]. The local pronunciation of 'Hawaii' is indeed [h^'v^?i] (^ = caret, ? = glottal stop, ' = stress), and unstressed /a/ in other common Hawaiian words in Hawaiian Engilish is often reduced to schwa (for example pau hana 'time to quit work' [paw han@] (@ = schwa), mauka 'towards the mountains' [mawk@] ) Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johanna Rubba" To: john at research.haifa.ac.il Cc: "s.t. bischoff" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:01:00 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] voice and race recognition So far as I know (and Geoff Nathan can correct me if I'm wrong), short /a/ in Hawai'ian is, in general, pronounced as schwa. This would cause what appears to be Canadian raising in the state's name, but that's only because the /i/ follows. The first /a/ in the word is also a schwa. In any case, I don't know anything about the presence or absence of Can. raising in the various regional manifestations of AAE. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Dec 30 14:37:51 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:37:51 +0200 Subject: Classification of Frisian In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Funknetters (just in case any of you know the answer to this question or can refer me to someone who knows), I am confused about the categorization of Frisian within West Germanic. I understood that Anglo-Frisian has been categorized as a separate branch of West Germanic (as against Low German (including Dutch and Afrikaans), etc.). I also understood that there is basically a dialect continuum for the rest of Continental West Germanic, that is, people can always understand neighboring dialects (as opposed to North Germanic=Scandinavian, which even though it is Germanic and borders on West Germanic on the Jutland Peninsula, has no mutually intelligibility with it). I assumed that this meant that there is NOT a dialect continuum between Frisian (in its various forms) and neighboring Low German dialects--that is, there is a discrete change generally similar to (although less drastic in scope than) the change between Danish and Low German and that none of the Frisian dialects are mutually intelligible with neighboring Low German dialects. But on investigating the situation more (on Wikipedia...), it looks like the differences between Anglo-Frisian and neighboring Low German dialects are relatively minor, and some of them seem even to have occurred in historical times (like the first millenium CE). But if this is the case, then why is Frisian popularly considered to be a different language from both Dutch and German while e.g. traditional Low German dialects of what is today northern Germany are not? This can't be just because Frisian was written until 1500 or so, because this was already true of Low German. Dutch is popularly considered a separate language from German because the United Provinces used Dutch rather than German as its written language, but Frisian wasn't used anywhere at the time as an official written language. So why is it popularly considered to be a separate language today? Is it really discretely different from Low German dialects (including Dutch) in a lot of significant ways which aren't being described in Wikipedia? Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks and best wishes, John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From moorej at ucsd.edu Thu Dec 30 17:58:27 2010 From: moorej at ucsd.edu (Moore, John) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:58:27 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <1293558349.4d1a224d6db57@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I was an external member on a music qualifying exam many years ago, where the proposal was to investigate exactly this. The student described it as a distinctive 'timber'. However, in the exam it because clear that neither she, nor anyone else on the committee were able to understand that phonological features of different speech varieties and timber might be different things (it surprised me as 'timber' has a clear technical meaning in music). Try as I might, I couldn't get the idea across that, for example, AAVE vowel quality, was different from 'timber', in the musical sense (although in the phonetic sense it does all come down to formants, but that was far beyond that discussion). After the qualifying exam I was replaced with someone with more background in race theory. John ________________________________________ On the other hand, Andre Cooper, who's a phonetician and Black and a big opera fan, once told me that no matter how much Black woman are trained as opera singers, there's always something distinctive about their voice quality (although obviously we're dealing with a pretty small sample here). From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Dec 30 18:43:39 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:43:39 +0200 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <2DDBB3E58272D646A9066A2A59BC5782212F11F1D6@MBX5.AD.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: I don't know of anything about vowels which is specifically Black in an American context--to my knowledge there's no difference between AAVE vowels and a particular southern White dialect (non-rhotic and without /ay/ 'monophthongization' before voiced sounds, generally associated with more coastal dialects and more affluent Whites). Distinctiveness in BEV is much more associated with morphology and consonants. John Quoting "Moore, John" : > I was an external member on a music qualifying exam many years ago, where the > proposal was to investigate exactly this. The student described it as a > distinctive 'timber'. However, in the exam it because clear that neither > she, nor anyone else on the committee were able to understand that > phonological features of different speech varieties and timber might be > different things (it surprised me as 'timber' has a clear technical meaning > in music). Try as I might, I couldn't get the idea across that, for example, > AAVE vowel quality, was different from 'timber', in the musical sense > (although in the phonetic sense it does all come down to formants, but that > was far beyond that discussion). After the qualifying exam I was replaced > with someone with more background in race theory. > > John > ________________________________________ > > On the other hand, Andre Cooper, who's a phonetician and Black and a big > opera > fan, once told me that no matter how much Black woman are trained as opera > singers, there's always something distinctive about their voice quality > (although obviously we're dealing with a pretty small sample here). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Thu Dec 30 20:52:11 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:52:11 -0800 Subject: voice and race recognition In-Reply-To: <2DDBB3E58272D646A9066A2A59BC5782212F11F1D6@MBX5.AD.UCSD.EDU> Message-ID: Wow! Is there really such an academic discipline as "race theory"? Did you follow how that research was carried out? --Aya On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Moore, John wrote: > I was an external member on a music qualifying exam many years ago, where the proposal was to investigate exactly this. The student described it as a distinctive 'timber'. However, in the exam it because clear that neither she, nor anyone else on the committee were able to understand that phonological features of different speech varieties and timber might be different things (it surprised me as 'timber' has a clear technical meaning in music). Try as I might, I couldn't get the idea across that, for example, AAVE vowel quality, was different from 'timber', in the musical sense (although in the phonetic sense it does all come down to formants, but that was far beyond that discussion). After the qualifying exam I was replaced with someone with more background in race theory. > > John > ________________________________________ > > On the other hand, Andre Cooper, who's a phonetician and Black and a big opera > fan, once told me that no matter how much Black woman are trained as opera > singers, there's always something distinctive about their voice quality > (although obviously we're dealing with a pretty small sample here). > > > From michikok at humnet.ucla.edu Thu Dec 30 22:11:50 2010 From: michikok at humnet.ucla.edu (Kaneyasu, Michiko) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 14:11:50 -0800 Subject: Call for abstracts: **Deadline Extended** Workshop on East Asian Languages, UCLA Message-ID: **Extended Deadline: January 14th, 2011** The Asian Linguistics Graduate Student Association at the University of California, Los Angeles announces its 17th Workshop on East Asian Languages (WEAL). WEAL 2011 will take place March 18th-19th (Friday-Saturday) at the Royce Hall Conference Room, 314 Royce Hall, UCLA. Keynote speakers for the workshop will be: · Patricia M. Clancy (University of California, Santa Barbara) · Hyo Sang Lee (Indiana University) · Yoshiko Matsumoto (Stanford University) · Ruey-Jiuan Regina Wu (San Diego State University) Abstracts are invited for talks on any topic in East Asian linguistics. WEAL is intended to be a data-based and informal workshop for presenting and discussing issues on East Asian languages, including Japanese, Chinese and Korean. Therefore, we would especially welcome presentations on initial results and other issues arising from ongoing projects as well as finished papers. Talks will be 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for discussion. Anonymous abstracts should be 350 words or less (excluding examples and/or references), and must be submitted electronically. Please indicate your source(s) and type(s) of data in the abstract (e.g. audio/visual recordings, texts, conversational, elicited, narrative, etc.). For co-authored papers, please indicate who plans to present the paper as well as who will be in attendance. Please limit your abstracts to the following formats: PDF or Microsoft Word document; and use the author’s name as the filename. Send electronic submissions to: 2011weal at gmail.com, with the subject line “WEAL 2011: Last name, First name.” In the body of the email to which the abstract is attached, please provide the following information: (1) Category (formal or functional) and subfield (e.g., discourse, pragmatics, language acquisition, sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, phonology, syntax, semantics, etc.) (2) Full title of your paper (3) Names of authors (4) Affiliations (5) E-mail address for each author (6) Designation of e-mail address for official communication in the case of joint authorship (7) Phone number for each author EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF ABSTRACTS: January 14, 2011 (5:00 PM, PST) Late submissions will not be accepted. Notification of acceptance will be sent via email by February 4, 2011. Further details regarding the workshop and registration are available at http://ucla.orgsync.com/org/algsaucla If you have any questions regarding the workshop, please contact the workshop organizers via e-mail at 2011weal at gmail.com. From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Dec 31 00:14:45 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:14:45 -0700 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com Message-ID: With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's always the old tried-and-true: Second language & multilingualism. Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten & elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen Neville & colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high school & college level. Those would make sense--only if we start the kids earlier. Happy New Year, TG http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion From amnfn at well.com Fri Dec 31 01:17:52 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:17:52 -0800 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D2075.6040603@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, What you say about the critical period is absolutely true if what we are aiming for is spoken fluency and near native or native speaker ability. But what about second language acquisition for the purpose of reading texts? It used to be understood that knowing a few "reading languages" for purposes of a wider understanding of the world was an important part of education. --Aya On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's always the old > tried-and-true: Second language & multilingualism. Nick Kristoff (see URL) > may preach about it, but we (hopefully) know about it. And one of the thing > we know, and can tell whoever would care to listen, is that starting > instruction at high school or college is a colossal waste of time, money and > hope. All you get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be > fluent, grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten & elementary > school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen Neville & colleagues > from the mid-1980s about the neurology of critical period. This is such a > well-known secret, yet most US investment in second-language instruction is > blown at the high school & college level. Those would make sense--only if we > start the kids earlier. > > Happy New Year, TG > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Dec 31 02:47:07 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:47:07 -0700 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <26108E5A-91D5-4057-9F6A-10CA8EA9051B@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional demands. I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to disrupt my grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including emotional ones) that would be much easier to handle for a native speaker. Cheers, TG =================== On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Tom, > > What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this as showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying to learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for say 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up vocabulary and aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster than children, as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where young children excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a native-like accent in phonological output. It does seem that motor programs have something like a critical period effect, producing cases such as noticeable accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, in my book, both of those late learners did a fine job of learning English. > Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is accompanied by solid and continual support from both within and outside school. In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but not always willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not learning Russian. Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial studies that we need to evaluate its relative effectiveness, particularly in the Far East where it is so popular, have not really been done. It is not totally clear how well the work that was done in Montréal can extend to all cases of early L2 school-based learning. > Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of L2 and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" In my mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating interest on the part of students and further research. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's always the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start the kids earlier. >> >> Happy New Year, TG >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion >> > From sweetser at berkeley.edu Fri Dec 31 03:58:47 2010 From: sweetser at berkeley.edu (Eve Sweetser) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:58:47 -0800 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D442B.3050706@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: There is of course the added practical fact that American college instruction (including language teaching) is overall pretty good, while our K-12 system (despite a lot of good and dedicated individual teachers in there) does not overall hold up well to international comparison. I've known many college students who had had multiple years of Spanish or Chinese in K-12 and had almost no control of the language. And I've also known many students who quite effectively (though OK, not "semi-natively") acquired their first second language in college - including Chinese, Japanese, Arabic or other languages typologically more distant from Western European grammars. It'd be great if those students had gotten more languages earlier (which is also Kristof's point, I'm sure) - but till they do, the Berkeley campus is still busy teaching languages, and sending students on years abroad too. On 12/30/10 6:47 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Brian > > I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson > (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first > edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a > comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) > fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) > fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain > activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG > (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, > compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the > attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) > may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional demands. > I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to disrupt my > grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including emotional ones) > that would be much easier to handle for a native speaker. Cheers, TG > > =================== > > > On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> Tom, >> >> What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have >> different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult >> second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this as >> showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying to >> learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for say >> 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up vocabulary and >> aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster than children, >> as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where young children >> excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a native-like accent in >> phonological output. It does seem that motor programs have something >> like a critical period effect, producing cases such as noticeable >> accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, in my >> book, both of those late learners did a fine job of learning English. >> Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often >> wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is >> probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because >> of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and >> sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in >> the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is accompanied >> by solid and continual support from both within and outside school. >> In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but not always >> willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not learning Russian. >> Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial studies that we need >> to evaluate its relative effectiveness, particularly in the Far East >> where it is so popular, have not really been done. It is not totally >> clear how well the work that was done in Montréal can extend to all >> cases of early L2 school-based learning. >> Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of L2 >> and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" In my >> mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating interest >> on the part of students and further research. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney >> >> On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's always >>> the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. Nick >>> Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) know >>> about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever would >>> care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school or >>> college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you get, in >>> 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, >>> grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& >>> elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen >>> Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of >>> critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US >>> investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high >>> school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start the >>> kids earlier. >>> >>> Happy New Year, TG >>> >>> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion >>> >> > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Dec 31 04:17:30 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:17:30 -0700 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D54F7.1010302@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Sometime in the early 1990s, when Linda Cruz Givon was teaching 2nd year Spanish at U. Oregon, we did an experiment. We gave her class a test under two conditions: (1) do the task (written translation of a text) in class, under realistic (for native speakers) time-pressure. The results were collected & score. Then we gave it back to them & told them "Now you can take it home and correct it at your leisure, and your grade will depend only on the corrected version". Then we score only the students who were getting a cumulative A in their last (6th) quarter of Spanish (2 year college req.). Their in-class performance was uniformly a mess, pidgin grammar. Their home-corrected versions were perfect. They got their As. Our conclusion was that the A students do well with time-pressure, when there are no strong attentional demands, so that they can process consciously, NOT automatically. Under realistic production-rate demands, they can only do pidgin. Not enough time for attended processing. Since grammar is a highly-automated production system (like phonology), it is fairly clear that there is a significance critical period. Tho a small percent of the population manages to circumvent it (the famous/infamous Herman Pevner, perennial undergrad in linguistics at Berkeley in the 1960's, took 9 years to get his BA, was one case I know. Ken Hale was another. My friend Fransesc Queixalos is another). Cheers, TG ============ On 12/30/2010 8:58 PM, Eve Sweetser wrote: > There is of course the added practical fact that American college > instruction (including language teaching) is overall pretty good, > while our K-12 system (despite a lot of good and dedicated individual > teachers in there) does not overall hold up well to international > comparison. I've known many college students who had had multiple > years of Spanish or Chinese in K-12 and had almost no control of the > language. And I've also known many students who quite effectively > (though OK, not "semi-natively") acquired their first second language > in college - including Chinese, Japanese, Arabic or other languages > typologically more distant from Western European grammars. It'd be > great if those students had gotten more languages earlier (which is > also Kristof's point, I'm sure) - but till they do, the Berkeley > campus is still busy teaching languages, and sending students on years > abroad too. > > > On 12/30/10 6:47 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >> Brian >> >> I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson >> (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first >> edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a >> comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) >> fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) >> fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain >> activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG >> (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, >> compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the >> attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) >> may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional demands. >> I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to disrupt >> my grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including emotional >> ones) that would be much easier to handle for a native speaker. >> Cheers, TG >> >> =================== >> >> >> On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>> Tom, >>> >>> What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have >>> different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult >>> second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this >>> as showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying >>> to learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for >>> say 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up vocabulary >>> and aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster than >>> children, as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where young >>> children excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a native-like >>> accent in phonological output. It does seem that motor programs >>> have something like a critical period effect, producing cases such >>> as noticeable accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. >>> But, in my book, both of those late learners did a fine job of >>> learning English. >>> Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often >>> wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is >>> probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because >>> of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and >>> sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in >>> the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is >>> accompanied by solid and continual support from both within and >>> outside school. In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but >>> not always willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not >>> learning Russian. Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial >>> studies that we need to evaluate its relative effectiveness, >>> particularly in the Far East where it is so popular, have not really >>> been done. It is not totally clear how well the work that was done >>> in Montréal can extend to all cases of early L2 school-based learning. >>> Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of L2 >>> and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" In >>> my mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating >>> interest on the part of students and further research. >>> >>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>> >>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's >>>> always the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. >>>> Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) >>>> know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever >>>> would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school >>>> or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you >>>> get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, >>>> grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& >>>> elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen >>>> Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of >>>> critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US >>>> investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high >>>> school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start >>>> the kids earlier. >>>> >>>> Happy New Year, TG >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion >>>> >>> >> >> >> > From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Fri Dec 31 08:39:54 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:39:54 +0000 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D595A.9020208@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: The UK has recently started language instruction in primary schools, but it's hit up against a structural problem that is bound to face any anglophone country: which language? The problem is the transition problem: each primary school feeds many secondary schools, and vice versa. The problem doesn't arise if every school teaches the same language (which, in the UK, would certainly be French), but most language teachers don't like that idea. But if you offer different languages, almost inevitably everyone goes back to the beginning when they move to secondary school. In principle, you could solve the problem by teaching a range of languages at primary, with the aim of teaching language awareness - i.e. general principles of how language works - and that is in fact official UK policy, but it doesn't work because primary teachers don't know enough linguistics. Dick (Hudson) Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 31/12/2010 04:17, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Sometime in the early 1990s, when Linda Cruz Givon was teaching 2nd > year Spanish at U. Oregon, we did an experiment. We gave her class a > test under two conditions: (1) do the task (written translation of a > text) in class, under realistic (for native speakers) time-pressure. > The results were collected & score. Then we gave it back to them & > told them "Now you can take it home and correct it at your leisure, > and your grade will depend only on the corrected version". Then we > score only the students who were getting a cumulative A in their last > (6th) quarter of Spanish (2 year college req.). Their in-class > performance was uniformly a mess, pidgin grammar. Their home-corrected > versions were perfect. They got their As. Our conclusion was that the > A students do well with time-pressure, when there are no strong > attentional demands, so that they can process consciously, NOT > automatically. Under realistic production-rate demands, they can only > do pidgin. Not enough time for attended processing. Since grammar is a > highly-automated production system (like phonology), it is fairly > clear that there is a significance critical period. Tho a small > percent of the population manages to circumvent it (the > famous/infamous Herman Pevner, perennial undergrad in linguistics at > Berkeley in the 1960's, took 9 years to get his BA, was one case I > know. Ken Hale was another. My friend Fransesc Queixalos is another). > Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 12/30/2010 8:58 PM, Eve Sweetser wrote: >> There is of course the added practical fact that American college >> instruction (including language teaching) is overall pretty good, >> while our K-12 system (despite a lot of good and dedicated individual >> teachers in there) does not overall hold up well to international >> comparison. I've known many college students who had had multiple >> years of Spanish or Chinese in K-12 and had almost no control of the >> language. And I've also known many students who quite effectively >> (though OK, not "semi-natively") acquired their first second language >> in college - including Chinese, Japanese, Arabic or other languages >> typologically more distant from Western European grammars. It'd be >> great if those students had gotten more languages earlier (which is >> also Kristof's point, I'm sure) - but till they do, the Berkeley >> campus is still busy teaching languages, and sending students on >> years abroad too. >> >> >> On 12/30/10 6:47 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson >>> (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first >>> edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a >>> comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) >>> fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) >>> fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain >>> activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG >>> (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, >>> compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the >>> attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) >>> may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional >>> demands. I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to >>> disrupt my grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including >>> emotional ones) that would be much easier to handle for a native >>> speaker. Cheers, TG >>> >>> =================== >>> >>> >>> On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have >>>> different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult >>>> second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this >>>> as showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying >>>> to learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for >>>> say 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up >>>> vocabulary and aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster >>>> than children, as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where >>>> young children excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a >>>> native-like accent in phonological output. It does seem that motor >>>> programs have something like a critical period effect, producing >>>> cases such as noticeable accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold >>>> Schwarzenegger. But, in my book, both of those late learners did a >>>> fine job of learning English. >>>> Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often >>>> wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is >>>> probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because >>>> of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and >>>> sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in >>>> the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is >>>> accompanied by solid and continual support from both within and >>>> outside school. In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but >>>> not always willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not >>>> learning Russian. Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial >>>> studies that we need to evaluate its relative effectiveness, >>>> particularly in the Far East where it is so popular, have not >>>> really been done. It is not totally clear how well the work that >>>> was done in Montréal can extend to all cases of early L2 >>>> school-based learning. >>>> Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of >>>> L2 and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" >>>> In my mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating >>>> interest on the part of students and further research. >>>> >>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>> >>>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's >>>>> always the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. >>>>> Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) >>>>> know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever >>>>> would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school >>>>> or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you >>>>> get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be >>>>> fluent, grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& >>>>> elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen >>>>> Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of >>>>> critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US >>>>> investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high >>>>> school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start >>>>> the kids earlier. >>>>> >>>>> Happy New Year, TG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > From dcyr at yorku.ca Fri Dec 31 13:35:37 2010 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:35:37 -0500 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D595A.9020208@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: We have early, middle and late French immersion programs in all provinces in Canada. The results are not perfect, and even controversial in some analysts' views. You can find a brief look at it on wikipedia under "French immersion" Also a good FAQ at http://www.cpfmb.com/Immersion%20(1).pdf And a lot under "Canadian Parents for French" My grad student, Fiona Patterson who is herself a "product" of Early French Immersion, wrote a short critical essay (9 pages single space)on the results of FI, in terms of fluency, adequacy to other objectives of the program, and also in terms of cultural/political understanding of Canadian French people. If you would like to have her essay in PDF, just let me know and I will send it (with Fiona's permission of course). with my best wishes for 2011 to All, Danielle Quoting Tom Givon : > > > Sometime in the early 1990s, when Linda Cruz Givon was teaching 2nd year > Spanish at U. Oregon, we did an experiment. We gave her class a test > under two conditions: (1) do the task (written translation of a text) in > class, under realistic (for native speakers) time-pressure. The results > were collected & score. Then we gave it back to them & told them "Now > you can take it home and correct it at your leisure, and your grade will > depend only on the corrected version". Then we score only the students > who were getting a cumulative A in their last (6th) quarter of Spanish > (2 year college req.). Their in-class performance was uniformly a mess, > pidgin grammar. Their home-corrected versions were perfect. They got > their As. Our conclusion was that the A students do well with > time-pressure, when there are no strong attentional demands, so that > they can process consciously, NOT automatically. Under realistic > production-rate demands, they can only do pidgin. Not enough time for > attended processing. Since grammar is a highly-automated production > system (like phonology), it is fairly clear that there is a significance > critical period. Tho a small percent of the population manages to > circumvent it (the famous/infamous Herman Pevner, perennial undergrad in > linguistics at Berkeley in the 1960's, took 9 years to get his BA, was > one case I know. Ken Hale was another. My friend Fransesc Queixalos is > another). Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 12/30/2010 8:58 PM, Eve Sweetser wrote: > > There is of course the added practical fact that American college > > instruction (including language teaching) is overall pretty good, > > while our K-12 system (despite a lot of good and dedicated individual > > teachers in there) does not overall hold up well to international > > comparison. I've known many college students who had had multiple > > years of Spanish or Chinese in K-12 and had almost no control of the > > language. And I've also known many students who quite effectively > > (though OK, not "semi-natively") acquired their first second language > > in college - including Chinese, Japanese, Arabic or other languages > > typologically more distant from Western European grammars. It'd be > > great if those students had gotten more languages earlier (which is > > also Kristof's point, I'm sure) - but till they do, the Berkeley > > campus is still busy teaching languages, and sending students on years > > abroad too. > > > > > > On 12/30/10 6:47 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> > >> Brian > >> > >> I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson > >> (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first > >> edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a > >> comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) > >> fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) > >> fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain > >> activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG > >> (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, > >> compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the > >> attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) > >> may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional demands. > >> I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to disrupt > >> my grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including emotional > >> ones) that would be much easier to handle for a native speaker. > >> Cheers, TG > >> > >> =================== > >> > >> > >> On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >>> Tom, > >>> > >>> What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have > >>> different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult > >>> second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this > >>> as showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying > >>> to learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for > >>> say 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up vocabulary > >>> and aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster than > >>> children, as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where young > >>> children excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a native-like > >>> accent in phonological output. It does seem that motor programs > >>> have something like a critical period effect, producing cases such > >>> as noticeable accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. > >>> But, in my book, both of those late learners did a fine job of > >>> learning English. > >>> Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often > >>> wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is > >>> probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because > >>> of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and > >>> sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in > >>> the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is > >>> accompanied by solid and continual support from both within and > >>> outside school. In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but > >>> not always willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not > >>> learning Russian. Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial > >>> studies that we need to evaluate its relative effectiveness, > >>> particularly in the Far East where it is so popular, have not really > >>> been done. It is not totally clear how well the work that was done > >>> in Montréal can extend to all cases of early L2 school-based learning. > >>> Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of L2 > >>> and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" In > >>> my mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating > >>> interest on the part of students and further research. > >>> > >>> -- Brian MacWhinney > >>> > >>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's > >>>> always the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. > >>>> Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) > >>>> know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever > >>>> would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school > >>>> or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you > >>>> get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, > >>>> grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& > >>>> elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen > >>>> Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of > >>>> critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US > >>>> investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high > >>>> school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start > >>>> the kids earlier. > >>>> > >>>> Happy New Year, TG > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > "The only hope we have as human beings is to learn each other's languages. Only then can we truly hope to understand one another." Professor Danielle E. Cyr Department of French Studies York University Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3 Tel. 1.416.736.2100 #310180 FAX. 1.416.736.5924 dcyr at yorku.ca From abergs at uos.de Fri Dec 31 13:50:25 2010 From: abergs at uos.de (Alexander Bergs) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:50:25 +0100 Subject: ICLCE 4 - Deadline Extension and Final CfP Message-ID: DEADLINE EXTENSION AND FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS The deadline for the submission of abstracts has been extended to 15 January, 2011. Notification of acceptance will be sent out by February 1, 2011. The attention devoted to the linguistics of the English language has resulted in a broad body of work in diverse research traditions. The aim of the ICLCE conference is to encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas between different frameworks and research traditions, all of which may address any aspect of the linguistics of English. Previous ICLCE conferences were held in Edinburgh (2005), Toulouse (2007) and London (2009) along the same lines. We aim for the Osnabrueck conference to build on the success of those events. Confirmed plenary speakers Scott F. Kiesling (University of Pittsburgh) Daniel Schreier (University of Zurich) Peter Stockwell (University of Nottingham) Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh) Jessica de Villiers (University of British Columbia) Rachel Walker (University of Southern California) Gert Webelhuth (Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main) Workshops: SPICE-Ireland (John Kirk and Jeffery Kallen) Language Contact and Grammaticalization (Eitan Grossmann, Thomas Hoffmann) Standards, Ethics, and Politics of Academia (Richard Watts) We invite papers on any topic concerning the linguistics of contemporary English. Workshop proposals are also welcome. We are using the EasyABS system delivered by LinguistList. Please see our website www.blogs.uos.de/iclce4 for details. If there are any problems or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at iclce4 at uos.de. Abstracts should be no longer than 350 words, preferably format A4 with 2.5 cm margins, single-spaced, Times New Roman 12 pt, and with normal character spacing. All examples and references in the abstract should be included, but it is enough, when referring to previous work, to cite 'Author (Date)' in the body of the abstract - you do not need to include the full reference. Please only use common phonetic fonts such as SIL. +++++++++++++ Univ.-Prof. Dr. Alexander Bergs, M.A. Chair of English Language and Linguistics Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (IfAA) Fachbereich 7 -Universitaet Osnabrueck Neuer Graben 40 D-49069 Osnabrueck Germany Tel: +49 541 969 4255 Tel: +49 541 969 6042 (secy) Fax: +49 541 969 4738 http:/www.ifaa.uni-osnabrueck.de/bergs From danielrr2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 31 14:09:19 2010 From: danielrr2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Ria=F1o?=) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 15:09:19 +0100 Subject: Ability to talk only in dreams? Message-ID: I am puzzled by this case. Two years ago, the son of an acquaintance of mine, who was a perfectly normal and healthy 16 years old kid, suffered an ictus, and he has been at the hospital all this time, under professional care, unable to perform the most basic daily activities. He can't speak a word, although he can hear (sometimes he can move the eyes to look for the origin of a new voice speaking) and he seems to understand at least a part of what he's been told by his family. However, in the last weeks he has started to speak during his sleep time (and only during his sleep time). In his talking he seems to be speaking with family or acquaintances. His family thinks he is speaking about recent-past daytime events, but I think it could be remembering events before the stroke happened. I have absolutely no professional knowledge about his medical situation, neither I am related with his medical care, but, out of curiosity I have been asked about this circumstance. I had to admit I had no idea of what can be the reason for this sleep-time only talking, and less I know about what can it mean about his recovery. However, I am really curious about this. Could some list member more familiar with such cases recommend some bibliography (specially from the linguistic and cognitive point of view) about this phenomenon? Many thanks in advance, Daniel Riaño, CSIC, Madrid From macw at cmu.edu Fri Dec 31 17:48:50 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 12:48:50 -0500 Subject: Primero Hay Que Aprender Espa=?iso-8859-1?Q?=F1ol._?= Ranhou Zai Xue Zhongwen. - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <4D1D595A.9020208@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, Right. This is second year Spanish. Two years sounds like a lot of time, but if you look at how much time these students have had actually using and listening to comprehensible and useful Spanish, it is probably not more than 60 hours. A native-speaking baby gets as much in two weeks. Of course, babies don't comprehend everything either, but parents take great pains to tailor the input to their learning level. And they provide complete emotional support and clap with pride when the baby gets a word right. And there is often just one student in the classroom. If there are more, then the others are also advanced learners (brothers and sisters) who provide good input. Second language learners, on the other hand, receive correction, chuckles, or else perfunctory "muy bien" and "hen hao". Moreover, adults have an attitude problem. They think that, because they are adults, they shouldn't act like children. Big mistake. When the tempo of the conversation picks up, the three-year-old also starts to have problems, unless they can use well practiced phrases in well understood situations. Perhaps some of us remember how useless it was trying to follow adult conversations even at age 5. It is not surprising to find that the top students in second year Spanish have only achieved controlled (as opposed to automatic) control of L2. What is surprising is how well they do given this minimal input. If you give them the additional 8,000+ hours that a three-year-old has had with full emotional and motivational support and situated language use, they will soon move to more automatic processing. But, Tom is right that adults will never capture the full automaticity of the L1-learning child. Although language becomes proceduralized, there was too much of a battle during that process with the entrenched L1 to allow for a fully smooth resolution. Even proceduralization can't solve this problem. But now back to the theme of why L2 and multilingualism are important issues to include in texts about linguistics. It seems to me that understanding the shape of L2 learning is itself a great exercise in linguistics. For those aspects of L2 learning that are common across learners from different L1s, we can think in terms of Universal Grammars, Bioprograms, and things like that. For those aspects that differ depending on your L1, we can think about transfer, cue strength, and contrastive analysis. Without reference to both linguistic and psycholinguistic theory, all of these patterns are just mysteries. - Brian MacW On Dec 30, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Sometime in the early 1990s, when Linda Cruz Givon was teaching 2nd year Spanish at U. Oregon, we did an experiment. We gave her class a test under two conditions: (1) do the task (written translation of a text) in class, under realistic (for native speakers) time-pressure. The results were collected & score. Then we gave it back to them & told them "Now you can take it home and correct it at your leisure, and your grade will depend only on the corrected version". Then we score only the students who were getting a cumulative A in their last (6th) quarter of Spanish (2 year college req.). Their in-class performance was uniformly a mess, pidgin grammar. Their home-corrected versions were perfect. They got their As. Our conclusion was that the A students do well with time-pressure, when there are no strong attentional demands, so that they can process consciously, NOT automatically. Under realistic production-rate demands, they can only do pidgin. Not enough time for attended processing. Since grammar is a highly-automated production system (like phonology), it is fairly clear that there is a significance critical period. Tho a small percent of the population manages to circumvent it (the famous/infamous Herman Pevner, perennial undergrad in linguistics at Berkeley in the 1960's, took 9 years to get his BA, was one case I know. Ken Hale was another. My friend Fransesc Queixalos is another). Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 12/30/2010 8:58 PM, Eve Sweetser wrote: >> There is of course the added practical fact that American college instruction (including language teaching) is overall pretty good, while our K-12 system (despite a lot of good and dedicated individual teachers in there) does not overall hold up well to international comparison. I've known many college students who had had multiple years of Spanish or Chinese in K-12 and had almost no control of the language. And I've also known many students who quite effectively (though OK, not "semi-natively") acquired their first second language in college - including Chinese, Japanese, Arabic or other languages typologically more distant from Western European grammars. It'd be great if those students had gotten more languages earlier (which is also Kristof's point, I'm sure) - but till they do, the Berkeley campus is still busy teaching languages, and sending students on years abroad too. >> >> >> On 12/30/10 6:47 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> I goofed on the dates. The first paper is Neville, Mills & Lawson (1992), the second Neville (1995) in the Gazzaniga volume (first edition of The New Cognitive Neuroscience). What they dis was a comparison between 3 populations: (i) English native speakers, (ii) fluent non-natives who learned English before puberty, and (iii) fluent non-natives who learned English after puberty. The brain activity of the first two groups were identical, with stong IFG (Broca) activity. The third group shows much reduced IFG activity, compensated by a much higher R-cortex parietal activity--the attentional system. So, while Kissinger, Schwartzeneger (and myself) may be fluent, we do it at the cost of much more attentional demands. I know this from personal experience-- it is much easier to disrupt my grammar fluency by attentional distractors (including emotional ones) that would be much easier to handle for a native speaker. Cheers, TG >>> >>> =================== >>> >>> >>> On 12/30/2010 6:28 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >>>> Tom, >>>> >>>> What Weber-Fox and Neville showed was that two-year-olds have different brain responses to the learning of new words from adult second language learners. I don't think we need to interpret this as showing critical period effects as much as the effects of trying to learn a second language after the first has been entrenched for say 16 years. In fact, adults and older children pick up vocabulary and aspects of pragmatics and syntax considerably faster than children, as Swain, Ervin-Tripp, and others have shown. Where young children excel is in their ability to acquire and hold a native-like accent in phonological output. It does seem that motor programs have something like a critical period effect, producing cases such as noticeable accents for Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, in my book, both of those late learners did a fine job of learning English. >>>> Still, I can't disagree with your conclusion that we are often wasting our time in instruction at the college level, but this is probably not because of critical period effects, but rather because of poor pedagogy, inadequate contact with native speakers, and sometimes weak motivation. Does this mean that teaching English in the preschool is universally effective? Not unless it is accompanied by solid and continual support from both within and outside school. In Hong Kong, all the children learn English, but not always willingly. Hungarian children did a great job not learning Russian. Starting early is a good thing, but the crucial studies that we need to evaluate its relative effectiveness, particularly in the Far East where it is so popular, have not really been done. It is not totally clear how well the work that was done in Montréal can extend to all cases of early L2 school-based learning. >>>> Does the complexity of this debate undercut the importance of L2 and multilingualism as a part of the "message of linguistics?" In my mind, not at all. Rather it should be a way of motivating interest on the part of students and further research. >>>> >>>> -- Brian MacWhinney >>>> >>>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With all the fuss about what linguistics is good for, there's always the old tried-and-true: Second language& multilingualism. Nick Kristoff (see URL) may preach about it, but we (hopefully) know about it. And one of the thing we know, and can tell whoever would care to listen, is that starting instruction at high school or college is a colossal waste of time, money and hope. All you get, in 95% of the cases, is pidginization. Want them to be fluent, grammatical bi/multi-lingual? Catch them at kindergarten& elementary school. There are some nice neuro-ling papers by Helen Neville& colleagues from the mid-1980s about the neurology of critical period. This is such a well-known secret, yet most US investment in second-language instruction is blown at the high school& college level. Those would make sense--only if we start the kids earlier. >>>>> >>>>> Happy New Year, TG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/opinion/30kristof.html?ref=opinion >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > From macw at cmu.edu Fri Dec 31 19:12:18 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:12:18 -0500 Subject: Ability to talk only in dreams? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Daniel, I am totally unqualified to give you any real information about this. After all, only a doctor can really speak to an issue like this. However, it is reasonable to expect that one might find something on the issue in the research literature. I have read a little bit of some relevant literature, but it mostly focuses on the status of language after operations performed to remove the foci that cause epileptic seizures. The fact that this boy cannot perform basic activities suggests that his seizure was quite severe. It is likely that he was then given medication to reduce the possibility of repeated seizures, which could be life-threatening. Perhaps those also kept his language use reduced. Perhaps the drugs particularly impeded conscious language control. Perhaps, language returns during sleep because it then arises without conscious control. (Sounds a bit like Freud's "Psychopathology of Everyday Life"). These are all "perhaps". Of course it would be nice to know exactly what level of language he is producing in his sleep. THere is a literature in aphasiology about the production of automatic language in cases where controlled production is not possible. Just some ideas to think about. Having more data on the various missing facts would help too. -- Brian MacWhinney On Dec 31, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Daniel Riaño wrote: > I am puzzled by this case. Two years ago, the son of an acquaintance of > mine, who was a perfectly normal and healthy 16 years old kid, suffered an > ictus, and he has been at the hospital all this time, under professional > care, unable to perform the most basic daily activities. He can't speak a > word, although he can hear (sometimes he can move the eyes to look for the > origin of a new voice speaking) and he seems to understand at least a part > of what he's been told by his family. However, in the last weeks he has > started to speak during his sleep time (and only during his sleep time). In > his talking he seems to be speaking with family or acquaintances. His family > thinks he is speaking about recent-past daytime events, but I think it could > be remembering events before the stroke happened. I have absolutely no > professional knowledge about his medical situation, neither I am related > with his medical care, but, out of curiosity I have been asked about this > circumstance. I had to admit I had no idea of what can be the reason for > this sleep-time only talking, and less I know about what can it mean about > his recovery. However, I am really curious about this. Could some list > member more familiar with such cases recommend some bibliography (specially > from the linguistic and cognitive point of view) about this phenomenon? > > Many thanks in advance, > > Daniel Riaño, CSIC, Madrid >