From rberman at post.tau.ac.il Fri Oct 1 07:00:56 2010 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (rberman at post.tau.ac.il) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:00:56 +0200 Subject: researchers on Arabic diglossia Message-ID: Hello funknetters I agree entirely with what John Myhill has to say on the topic, and Mira Ariel is also right of course. Am sending a copy of this message to two colleagues, Elinor Saiegh Haddad, herself a native speaker of Palestinian Arabic,does firstrate empirical research on Arabic dig lossia and its implications for education, Lior Laks is a linguistics graduate student who has also studied the topic Ruth Berman, Tel Aviv University From eep at hum.ku.dk Fri Oct 1 12:05:09 2010 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg - Pedersen) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:05:09 +0200 Subject: SALC III, third call Message-ID: From eep at hum.ku.dk Fri Oct 1 12:08:09 2010 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg - Pedersen) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:08:09 +0200 Subject: SALC III, third call with text Message-ID: I am sorry about the empty first letter. Funknet apparently does not accept pdfs. [file://localhost/Users/eep/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image002.png] THIRD CALL FOR PAPERS and CALL FOR THEME SESSIONS for The Third Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition The Third Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition (SALC III) will take place at the University of Copenhagen, June 14-16th (3 days) 2011. Keynote speakers: * Lawrence Barsalou, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia * Per Durst-Andersen, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark * Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel * Marianne Gullberg, Lund University, Lund, Sweden * Hannes Rakoczy, University of Göttingen, Germany The conference includes, but is not limited to the following themes: * Cognitive impairment and language use * Language acquisition and cognition * Language and cognitive development and evolution * Language and consciousness * Language and gesture * Language change and cognition * Language structure and cognition * Language use and cognition * Linguistic relativity * Linguistic typology and cognition * Psycholinguistic approaches to language and cognition * Specific language impairment We now invite the submission of abstracts for paper or poster presentations. The deadline is December 1st 2010. Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for discussion. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be sent by email as a Word attachment to SALC3 at hum.ku.dk by December 1 2010 (subject: SALC III abstract). The document should contain presentation title, the abstract and preference for paper or poster presentation. Please DO NOT include information identifying the author(s) in the email attachment. Author(s) information including name, affiliation and email address(es) should be detailed in the body of the email. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by February 1st 2011. Proposals for theme sessions must be submitted no later than November 8 2010. Proposals should include a title, a short description of the theme (a maximum of 100 words), and the name and affiliation of the person(s) proposing the session. Conference website: http://salc3.ku.dk/ For details of SALC, see: http://www.salc-sssk.org/ From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 16:16:49 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:16:49 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. Thanks! --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 17:53:39 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:53:39 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: A conflation of typological features partially predicts which languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do the appropriate stats. At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that absorb "second-position clitics"). Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). Best, TG ================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for > why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I > am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary > was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, > marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. > There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in > English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its > rarity crosslinguistically. > > Thanks! > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 18:42:13 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:42:13 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA62023.7020704@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Tom, I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding has basically disappeared. Best, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: > > A conflation of typological features partially predicts which languages do or > don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on other > constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic pathway, but > the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the same. Colette > Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description of this in her Rama > work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands post-positions MASSIVELY on the > verb, but at a prefixal rather than suffixal point. The typological > difference is transparent: Rama is ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO > with post-verbal PPs (see Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both > ex-SOV), the strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a > non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". > > But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo zero-anaphora > of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) generic predictability > (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" > zero,). In Rama, Bonnie Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published > it), and the antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I > suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are so old > and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do the appropriate > stats. > > At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter Hook > showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in Bantu (SOV) at > the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the lexical (extended later > from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you will.) And I can show you massive > stranding of post-positions on Ute verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal > positions (different generations, different mechanisms, and different > word-types that absorb "second-position clitics"). > > Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the > interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded > prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures" > (Benjamins, 2002). > > Best, TG > > ================== > > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was talked >> to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally in >> French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number of >> functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder if >> anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > From hartmut at ruc.dk Fri Oct 1 18:50:43 2010 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:50:43 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just to add to Fritz' point about German: There is some preposition stranding in colloquial German, but the preposition ends up in a funny place. English: What does this have something to do *with*? Danish: Hvad har det noget at gøre *med*? Colloquial German (at least from where I am from): Was hat das was *mit* zu tun? Standard German: Wo*mit* hat das (et)was zu tun? and English: Who does this have something to do *with*? Danish: Hvem har det noget at gøre *med*? Colloquial German: Wem hat das was *mit* zu tun? Standard German: *Mit* wem hat das etwas zu tun? Your turn. Hartmut On 01-10-2010 20:42, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Tom, > > I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a > bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why > P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you > tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it > should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other > languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in > modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and > with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean > when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic > (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there > stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, > the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. > > Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg > with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As > English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments > (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of > P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. > But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though > German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding > has basically disappeared. > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: >> >> A conflation of typological features partially predicts which >> languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on >> other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic >> pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the >> same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description >> of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands >> post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than >> suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is >> ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see >> Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the >> strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a >> non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". >> >> But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo >> zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) >> generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric >> predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie >> Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the >> antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I >> suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are >> so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do >> the appropriate stats. >> >> At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter >> Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in >> Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the >> lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you >> will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute >> verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different >> generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that >> absorb "second-position clitics"). >> >> Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the >> interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded >> prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara >> Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================== >> >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for >>> why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? >>> (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', >>> 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in >>> Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >> > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 19:03:42 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:03:42 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, in-strtuct, de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page of those in my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly talking about the metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a lot of hay off this, claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get reified in some lexical Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us do, maybe) about the diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such 'stranding', & how it connect to the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later WO, zero-anaphora of both types, the availability of other clitic-trapping word-types, ets. All that is needed is widening our typological--and diachronic, really the same thing--horizons just a little bit and what seems to you so exceptional reveals itself to be rather massive. Best, TG ======================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Tom, > > I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a > bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why > P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you > tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it > should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other > languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in > modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and > with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean > when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic > (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there > stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, > the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. > > Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg > with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As > English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments > (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of > P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. > But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though > German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding > has basically disappeared. > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: >> >> A conflation of typological features partially predicts which >> languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on >> other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic >> pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the >> same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description >> of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands >> post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than >> suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is >> ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see >> Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the >> strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a >> non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". >> >> But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo >> zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) >> generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric >> predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie >> Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the >> antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I >> suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are >> so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do >> the appropriate stats. >> >> At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter >> Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in >> Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the >> lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you >> will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute >> verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different >> generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that >> absorb "second-position clitics"). >> >> Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the >> interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded >> prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara >> Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================== >> >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for >>> why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? >>> (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', >>> 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in >>> Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >> > From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 19:13:13 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:13:13 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA6308E.5010507@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it > there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a > sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, > su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; > re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, in-strtuct, > de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page of those in > my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly talking about the > metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a lot of hay off this, > claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get reified in some lexical > Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us do, maybe) about the > diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such 'stranding', & how it connect to > the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later WO, zero-anaphora of both types, > the availability of other clitic-trapping word-types, ets. All that is needed > is widening our typological--and diachronic, really the same thing--horizons > just a little bit and what seems to you so exceptional reveals itself to be > rather massive. Best, TG I see. Then we mean something very different by 'preposition stranding'. Let me rephrase my question: Does anybody have an explanation for why constructions of the following form are so rare crosslinguistically: question-word (did) subject V P? ...where 'question-word' is a free morpheme and understood as the object of P. Such constructions are extremely rare in I-E and crosslinguistically, as far as I know. --fritz From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Oct 1 21:04:16 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:04:16 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why > preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am > referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was > talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally > in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number > of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder > if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology text somewhere? I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? 1) Who are you going with? 2) Are you coming with? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From eitan.eg at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 21:11:05 2010 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 23:11:05 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, First to add another language, which does it very sporadically: Modern Hebrew, in phrases like 'lalexet im ve-lehargiS bli' (to_go with and-to_feel without'), taruc im targiS bli (run with feel without), the latter said about running shoes that allegedly make the user feel barefoot. However, it's pretty restricted, and you wouldn't normally say anything equivalent to "Who did you talk to?" A big problem, it seems to me, is that 'adposition' isn't a very well defined term. In fact, a lot of books gloss over the definition, saying things like 'a preposition is the head of a PP,' which is tautological (or wrong, depending on your point of view). If you look at descriptive grammars, you'll find the same element described as an adposition, a case marker, a 'class three clitic,' a 'rank 4 suffix' and so on. This terminological problem seems to be especially acute with respect to elements that are sometimes called postpositions. There's a good discussion of the problems in Pietro Bortone's "Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present" (Oxford, 2010) –– in fact, a very useful typological study. It is worth noting that there are a lot of descriptive categories one could set up between lexical item and case-affix, and elements somewhere between the two could often be called adpositions. Bortone notes colloquial Turkish comitative -le/-la, which is usually described as a postposition but seems to act more like a case ending. This terminological and conceptual vagueness leads to a situation in which phenomena similar to the one you describe would not be called preposition stranding, as the 'free morpheme' might be called a 'resumptive adverb' or something else. This is the case for Ancient Egyptian, in which one can find a. bw nty Hm=f im=f (place REL majesty=3sg.m in=3sg.m) 'the place in which His Majesty is' (lit. place that his Majesty in it) b. bw nty Hm=f im=ø (place REL majesty=3sg.m in) 'the place in which his majesty is' (lit. place that his Majesty is in) In the second example, im is considered to be a resumptive adverb by traditional grammars, although it would probably answer to the notion of a stranded preposition. So the point to be made here is that the phenomenon might be better attested than it seems but obscured by the diversity of descriptive grammatical terminology. Probably a language won't have been considered as having 'preposition stranding' unless it's been described in a generative framework. Another point is that for early Indo-European languages, it's not so obvious that Prof. Newmeyer's question is the right one to ask. For example, I would have a look at Silvia Luraghi's very interesting "On the meaning of prepositions and cases" (John Benjamins, 2003). She discusses Homeric Greek, in which the 'proper' prepositions can occur as 1. preposition, 2. free adverbs, and 3. preverbs (which is what Prof. Givón was alluding to, if I'm not mistaken). She considers the problem of categorial assignment ('are these elements adverbs or prepositions?') to be a pseudo-problem. Bortone adduces examples like en used adverbially meaning 'inside' -- but to a generative perspective, wouldn't this look like stranding, e.g., "in (it")? I haven't had a chance to read Claude Hagège's "Adpositions" (Oxford, 2010) properly yet, but it seems that he considers stranding to be the result of the non-tonicity of adpositions. In any event, since adpositions aren't well-defined as a concept for cross-linguistic comparison, i.e., not well distinguished from other kinds of elements, and the descriptive terminology used for relators in different languages – and often for the same language – tends to vary extensively, it is hard to know whether this observation about the rarity of adposition stranding is even right. Best wishes, Eitan On 1 October 2010 21:13, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it >> there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a >> sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, >> su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; >> re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, >> in-strtuct, de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page >> of those in my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly >> talking about the metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a >> lot of hay off this, claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get >> reified in some lexical Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us >> do, maybe) about the diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such >> 'stranding', & how it connect to the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later >> WO, zero-anaphora of both types, the availability of other clitic-trapping >> word-types, ets. All that is needed is widening our typological--and >> diachronic, really the same thing--horizons just a little bit and what seems >> to you so exceptional reveals itself to be rather massive. Best, TG >> > > I see. Then we mean something very different by 'preposition stranding'. > Let me rephrase my question: > > Does anybody have an explanation for why constructions of the following > form are so rare crosslinguistically: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > ...where 'question-word' is a free morpheme and understood as the object of > P. > > Such constructions are extremely rare in I-E and crosslinguistically, as > far as I know. > > --fritz > > -- Eitan Grossman Martin Buber Society of Fellows Hebrew University of Jerusalem From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 21:40:20 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:40:20 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Copy of note to Fritz: From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound verbs. In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG ====================== Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally >> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number >> of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder >> if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >> > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So > the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with > preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of > languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch > of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology > text somewhere? > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of > preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? > > 1) Who are you going with? > 2) Are you coming with? > > From dryer at buffalo.edu Fri Oct 1 21:59:28 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (dryer at buffalo.edu) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:59:28 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think Fritz is probably as interested in stranded postpositions as stranded prepositions. For a page with buttons that open up to lists of 1074 languages with adpositions, see Matthew --On Friday, October 1, 2010 5:04 PM -0400 "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" wrote: > > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, >> marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There >> are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in >> English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity >> crosslinguistically. > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So > the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with > preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of > languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch > of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology > text somewhere? > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of > preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? > > 1) Who are you going with? > 2) Are you coming with? > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > From dryer at buffalo.edu Fri Oct 1 23:42:55 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew S. Dryer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 19:42:55 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often better understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding of more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that sheds any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how any of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on this question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth Fritz looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. Matthew On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: > > Copy of note to Fritz: > > From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar > pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). > There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original > 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some > cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the > exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier > stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In > Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the > variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In > Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound > verbs. > In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can > still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin > they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology > is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the > verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or > 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go > down/under'. > > But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, > it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. > And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in > set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how > are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of > zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent > inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar > of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in > REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), > but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did > my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, > said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole > grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. > > You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. > Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations > of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG > > ====================== > > > Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J > Newmeyer wrote:> > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> Does anybody know of a functional > explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare in the > languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who did > you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it > exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo > languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of > P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the question of its > rarity crosslinguistically.>> > > > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need > prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how > rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough > sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. > Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a > comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? > > > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: > your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), > right?> > > 1) Who are you going with? > > 2) Are you coming with? > > > > > > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 2 00:16:44 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:16:44 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <8452.1285976575@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG ============== Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often better > understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding of > more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that sheds > any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how any > of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on this > question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth Fritz > looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. > > Matthew > > On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: > >> Copy of note to Fritz: >> >> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). >> There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier >> stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the >> variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In >> Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >> verbs. >> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can >> still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology >> is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the >> verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or >> 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go >> down/under'. >> >> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in >> set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent >> inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), >> but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, >> said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >> >> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations >> of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >> >> ====================== >> >> >> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>> >> Newmeyer wrote:> >> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>> >> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare in the >> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who did >> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the question of its >> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >> >>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>> >> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. >> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >> >>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>> >> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >> right?> >> >>> 1) Who are you going with? >>> 2) Are you coming with? >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 2 12:12:00 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:12:00 -0600 Subject: ps Message-ID: PS: Speaking of extreme typological cases, how about Southern Arawak (Machiguenga, Asheninka), where ALL SR's ('thematic relations') are coded on the verb even in MAIN clauses (except for one skinny, bleached locative preposition)? So you can ONLY say the equivalent 'I talked-to the-woman', 'I worked-with the-knife', 'I ran-from the-house', etc. Never on the noun, only on the verb. Does it fit the zero-anaphora pattern? Well, if you think for a minute, it does too. S.A. does have pronouns, but 'discourse' zero-anaphora is most prevalent. So when you say high-frequency things like 'I talked to her' or 'I worked with it', schematically you have, in context, ['I talked-to 0'] or ['I worked-with 0']. In other words, in these high-frequency anaphoric expressions there is no place to hang the adposition BUT on the verb. And the diachronic process of cliticization is driven by these frequencies (and adjacencies, and word-order). The upshot of this is that we can classify atomic facts and quit there. Or we can try to classify them within broader patterns( of facts!) that show wider, interesting commonalities, and then look for some explanatory principles. The second mode of classification is admittedly more ambitious, so if it doesn't turn you on, sorry. (There is an offensive expression in Hebrew I won't cite here, straight out of Ecclesiastes. Eitan Grossman would identify it, I'm sure). But maybe ambitious stuff is too much, maybe it's not your stuff. See, this second mode of 'classification' is highly theory-dependent, it is not as theory-neutral as some people might prefer. It strives, in science in general, not only to describe but --at the same time--explain, through the constant interplay between data & theory. Yes, we've had this discussion many times before. We seem to be hung up on an impoverished brand philosophy of science. Cheers, TG From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Oct 2 17:08:47 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:08:47 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA679EC.5080302@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: question-word (did) subject V P? Best, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of > argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In > the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case > of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it > 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' > again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position > is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we > do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information > about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of > predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). > > In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written > English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already > appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as > 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, > incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as > 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is > fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English > REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such > hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped > up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with > /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are > extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in > the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it > takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start > reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, > with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of > emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't > only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He > also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, > dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY > question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG > > ============== > > > Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >> better >> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >> of >> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >> sheds >> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >> any >> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >> this >> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >> Fritz >> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >> >> Matthew >> >> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >> >>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>> >>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>> verbs. >>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>> >>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>> >>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>> >>> ====================== >>> >>> >>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>> >>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>> >>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>> >>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>> in the >>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>> did >>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>> Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its >>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>> >>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>> Mr. >>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>> >>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>> >>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>> right?> >>> >>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Sat Oct 2 17:12:39 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:12:39 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Tom, > > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >> >> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>> better >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>> of >>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>> >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>> >>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>> verbs. >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>> >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>> >>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>> >>>> ====================== >>>> >>>> >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>> >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>> >>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>> >>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>> >>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>> >>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>> right?> >>>> >>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > From dan at daneverett.org Sat Oct 2 17:27:06 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:27:06 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <9F50A1AD-02AC-4FEB-9466-4812E87E12C6@daneverett.org> Message-ID: I might add a bit of clarification. I understand what motivates Fritz's question. There is a scientific appeal to it. For example, it's possible that some solutions are easier and some are harder, so - one might ask - why are they harder? Or maybe it's just that some spread and some didn't. Or it's just that the failure of this or that one to spread is an accident. If someone can come up with a convincing story, I will happily jump on the bandwagon. But I don't find the question all that interesting relative to other things we might ask. Here is a recent discussion I had on philosophy bites where I explain my evolving position. http://philosophybites.com/2010/09/daniel-everett-on-the-nature-of-language.html Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:12, Daniel Everett wrote: > One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. > > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. > > Dan > > > On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). >> >> Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: >> >> question-word (did) subject V P? >> >> Best, >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >>> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >>> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >>> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >>> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >>> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >>> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >>> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >>> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >>> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >>> >>> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >>> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >>> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >>> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >>> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >>> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >>> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >>> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >>> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >>> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >>> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >>> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >>> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >>> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >>> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >>> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >>> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >>> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >>> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >>> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >>> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >>> >>> ============== >>> >>> >>> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>>> better >>>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>>> of >>>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>>> sheds >>>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>>> any >>>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>>> this >>>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>>> Fritz >>>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>>> >>>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>>> >>>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>>> verbs. >>>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>>> >>>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>>> >>>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>>> >>>>> ====================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>>> >>>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>>> >>>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>>> in the >>>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>>> did >>>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>>> Niger-Congo >>>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>>> question of its >>>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>>> >>>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>>> Mr. >>>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>>> >>>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>>> >>>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>>> right?> >>>>> >>>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Oct 2 17:28:48 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:28:48 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). All you need to explain that is analogical extension. On 10/2/2010 1:12 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. I thought you knew to always double-check your data! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9450072 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Sun Oct 3 16:09:58 2010 From: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Lesley-Neuman, D.F.) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:09:58 +0200 Subject: A Poet slips, etc. Message-ID: Would all discussants on Funknet please take care in not attaching all of the previous messages to their posts? Use the title and the text of the intervention to refer what you are answering to. Those of us who are already very busy spend a great deal of time scrolling through repeated communications, which is both annoying and discouraging. I will do my part in carrying this out. Thank you, DLN From dryer at buffalo.edu Mon Oct 4 01:25:51 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew S. Dryer) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:25:51 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Dan, Fritz actually asked two questions and it's not clear which of them you are referring to. One was "Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?" The other was "If it's so rare, why is it so productive in English?" If your comment relates to the second of these questions, then you may be right. For example, another relatively unusual feature of English (though not quite so unusual) is having a glide r. While it makes sense to ask why it is uncommon, it's not so obvious that there is any interesting answer to the question why English has a glide r when it is uncommon crosslinguistically. On the other hand, sometimes, there are interesting answers to these questions. Some -though not many - languages have roughly equal amounts of prepositions and postpositions and there is often a clear answer to why this has happened: the language is VO with Genitive-Noun order and the prepositions arose from verbs while the postpositions arose from nouns in genitive-noun constructions. It's not clear to me whether or not there is any interesting answer to the question why English allows preposition stranding (although I shared some speculations separately with Fritz), whether it is like glide r in English, or the example discussed in the preceding paragraph. However, if your comment was about the first question ("Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?"), then I am more puzzled, since this question is no different in its logic from any question of the sort "Why do most languages have such-and-such a property?" Saying that adposition stranding is rare is equivalent to saying that most languages don't allow adposition stranding. Perhaps you aren't interested in explanations for universals (absolute or statistical), which is fine with me: I personally devote far more time to finding out what IS typical in language than in attempting to explain such generalizations. (I don't have access right now to a way to hearing things on the internet, so no way at the moment to listen to what you say at the link you provided.) Matthew On Sat 10/02/10 1:12 PM , Daniel Everett dan at daneverett.org sent: > One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why > wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish > and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that > the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it > isn't found more places. > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. > > Dan > > > On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > Even if you are right that it is correct to > class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing > that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern > ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after > all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its > typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has > steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the > centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to > wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked > to').> > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the > notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and > 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the > crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern:> > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > > > Best, > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of > Washington> Adjunct Professor, University of British > Columbia and Simon Fraser University> [for my postal address, please contact me by > e-mail]> > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very > general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either > by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to > see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the > case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO > (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the > noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' > (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? > It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it > (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less > predictable).>> > >> In the case of English WH-question, you go > back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to > the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) > with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', > 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded > referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', > 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the > 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier > use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is > extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke > German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken > Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily > available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 > & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So > just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of > complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some > clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface > patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I > think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit > for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is > decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking > it. TG>> > >> ============== > >> > >> > >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true > in principle that one can often >>> better > >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare > by getting a better understanding >>> of > >>> more common related phenomenon. But I > see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds > >>> any light on why the English-type of > adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any > >>> of the literature on the related > phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this > >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see > no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz > >>> looking at these related phenomena, to > help answer his question.>>> > >>> Matthew > >>> > >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uor > egon.edu sent:>>> > >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: > >>>> > >>>> From where I sit, it is all > connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically > (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that > act as context for the original>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various > next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in > Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE > exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' > process a bit more clearly. In>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already > too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely > already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of > lexicalization, a few compound>>>> verbs. > >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much > more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology > of the ad-positions. In Latin>>>> they LOOK like they should be > de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time > has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder > to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is > still a verb meaning 'go down/under'.>>>> > >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process > is much more advanced that in Rama,>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, > passives, and other derivatives from them.>>>> And there's a considerable amount of > lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as > 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how>>>> are you' & more. In all these > cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing > AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised > African dissertation, a grammar>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. > 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the > promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main > clauses. I flashed on this when I did>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). > Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it > already, I don't want to read a whole>>>> grammar". So eventually I > dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit.>>>> > >>>> You gotta open up your > classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz.>>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the > real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually > in plain site. TG>>>> > >>>> ====================== > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith > wrote:>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 > pm, Frederick J>>>>> > >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> > >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does anybody know of a > functional>>>>>> > >>>> explanation (published or not) for > why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the > >>>> languages of the world? (I > am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did > >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> > talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it>>>> exists only in Germanic, > marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo > >>>> languages. There are a > number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of>>>> P-stranding in English, but I > wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its > >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> > >>>>> In order to have preposition > stranding, you need>>>>> > >>>> prepositions, right? So> the > only way we can answer the question of how>>>> rare languages with> preposition > stranding are is by getting a rough>>>> sense of the proportion of> > languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. > >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of > languages with them, but is there a>>>> comprehensive list in some > typology> text somewhere?>>>> > >>>>> I also wanted a clarification > from Mr. Newmeyer:>>>>> > >>>> your category of> preposition > stranding includes (1) but not (2),>>>> right?> > >>>> > >>>>> 1) Who are you going > with?>>>>> 2) Are you coming > with?>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Oct 4 02:03:35 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. Here is my guess, and I'd love to hear what other people think: complexity of verb morphology. It's not that the prepositions have become separable root morphemes, it's that they've been reanalyzed as potential verbal suffixes, or maybe enclitics. (At least in the early stages; it's only later that you get things like "I want to know where you go and who with.") This is a general schema formed on the basis of a number of high-frequency collocations like "talk-to" and "go-with." In languages like Spanish, just in the present tense you have "hablo con" "hablas con," "hablamos con," (in historical data) "hablaís con," (in South America) "hablás con" and "hablan con." But in German you have only three: "sprache mit," "sprachst mit" and "sprachen mit." In English you just have "talk to" and "talks to," and in spoken colloquial French you also have two: /parlavɛk/ and /parleavɛk/. Each of these are more frequent than any of the 4-5 Spanish forms. Brazilian Portuguese may be a problem for this explanation, since it has only three forms ("falo com," "fala com" and "falam com") and it is not showing any signs of stranding. Is the "falo com" form enough to dilute the frequency enough so that none of them is stored as a unit? Are the "a gente" and "você" forms too recent to permit this formation, and will we see stranding in another generation? Would we see a different story if we looked at all possible tenses and moods? I also don't know anything about the other languages where stranding has been attested (in the Scandinavian and Niger-Congo groups); if they have multiple verb forms it would not fit this generalization. Again, this is just armchair speculation on my part. Is there a functional account of preposition stranding published anywhere? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From tthornes at uca.edu Mon Oct 4 02:32:49 2010 From: tthornes at uca.edu (Tim Thornes) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:32:49 -0500 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Can an explanation lie in the simple fact that it's not just verbs that license arguments, and that, if we were to consider the frequency by which non-verbs license arguments cross-linguistically, there may therein lie both a reason for the infrequency of stranding (argument-licenser discontinuity) and its various diachronic manifestations (like English-via-Latin 'contend' or Klamath /ksewa/ 'living object-be/move/be moved into water' or Northern Paiute /tsaka'a/ 'grasp-sever'). Diid I miss something about complex predicates in this discussion? Best, Tim Tim Thornes, PhD Assistant Professor of Linguistics Department of Writing University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Avenue Conway, Arkansas 72035 USA (501)450-5613 tthornes at uca.edu "All grammars leak." Edward Sapir >>> Angus Grieve-Smith 10/02/10 12:29 PM >>> On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). All you need to explain that is analogical extension. On 10/2/2010 1:12 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. I thought you knew to always double-check your data! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9450072 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon Oct 4 07:48:40 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:48:40 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <9F50A1AD-02AC-4FEB-9466-4812E87E12C6@daneverett.org> Message-ID: What seems missing in this debate is the lexicalisation of meaning that takes place in the English verbs (and nouns) rather than just the stranding of a preposition. Take the following examples: He handed over the documents. I was present at the handover. In this case there seems nothing even very prepositional about 'over', as there is in the following: I talked to him about it. I gave him a good talking-to about it. But notice in the above example that the noun 'talking-to' has a specific meaning that is not directly derived from the verb-preposition combo, as may possibly be the case in the following. ?She had her face made over. She had a facial make-over. In the following example the 'stranding' of the preposition does not seem to lead to a lexically distinct noun: He went over it thoroughly with a brush. He gave it a thorough going-over with a brush. In the above example the noun seems to derive its meaning directly from the meaning of the verb-prep combo. Then you also get the obviously 'phrasal verb' construction like to 'chop up' and 'chop down' etc. which do not lead to nouns of the same kind. You might conceivably say: I gave the wood a chopping up. But surely not I gave the wood a chop-up. And certainly not: I gave the tree a chopping down. etc. The point here is that phrasal verbs are lexical verbs in their own right (i.e. with a distinct meaning) and some of them lend themselves to nominalisation, sometimes with slightly different meanings. Thus what is happening is perhaps not only a stranding but a kind of migration of meaning from grammatical to lexical and then possibly from one word class to another? Regards Tahir >>> Daniel Everett 10/2/2010 5:12 pm >>> One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Tom, > > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >> >> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>> better >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>> of >>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>> >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>> >>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>> verbs. >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>> >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>> >>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>> >>>> ====================== >>>> >>>> >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>> >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>> >>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>> >>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>> >>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>> >>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>> right?> >>>> >>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Oct 4 07:57:53 2010 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:57:53 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA935F7.2040901@panix.com> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Again, this is just armchair speculation on my part. Is there a functional account of preposition stranding published anywhere? > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com There is a brief discussion of preposition stranding in my 2005 book, Exploring the syntax-semantics interface (§5.4.3), along with references to other functional accounts. Robert Van Valin From dan at daneverett.org Mon Oct 4 09:40:56 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 05:40:56 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <35773.1286155551@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Matthew, I was responding to both questions. It isn't that there couldn't be an interesting answer to these questions. But there are two reasons why I am not particularly keen to invest my own time in answering them. First, questions and answers about rarity can lead to circularity. Second, I'd rather look for phenomena relating language and culture, rather than simply structural questions. Rarity could be a coincidence. Out of all the languages that do, did, or will exist, is this construction really rare? Country music today is a very simple musical form (not disparaging the masters like Hank Williams, George Jones, and so on). 4/4 beat, with pretty constant melodies, and largely predictable lyrics. It is an outgrowth of a number of different forms fused by American cultural values. But it is so simple, why is it so rare, indeed unique among the world's musical forms? The answer it seems to me is the combination of culture and form. But maybe it will be borrowed and begin to be adapted in and to other musical traditions/grammars - because they have adapted it to their values - and then it will be less rare. I am not saying that all grammar has a cultural explanation, though such explanations might be found more commonly than we realize. Why do we say 'red, white, and blue' in America and not 'blue, red, and white', for example? Cultural reasons perhaps. I think that Tom Givon's larger account of adpositional, ad-affixal phenomena, plus just preference could account for the rarity of this structure. In fact, if we take Tom's suggestions, then English preposition stranding is a language-specific adaptation of a common process. It is a single off-shoot from a big tree. Language forms could perhaps spread or not spread for the same reason that jokes do or don't. But the real reason that rarity worries me as an explanans or explanandum is that in the history of linguistics many discussions of it go like this: 1. A is rare. 2. (Therefore) A is marked in some way. 3. A is marked because it is rare and rare because it is marked. I talked about these things in my keynote address to the Rara and Rarissima conference a few years ago in Leipzig and mention them again in Cognitive Fire. Differences, especially rare ones, are exciting to study, whether coincidental or not, especially rara and rarissima, because they are what make each language distinctive. And, just as importantly, because they might show that no theory can account for all of human language. Peter Ladefoged and I made a similar point in our Language paper in the 90s, the Problem of Phonetic Rarities. Dan On 3 Oct 2010, at 21:25, Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > > Dan, > > Fritz actually asked two questions and it's not clear which of them you are > referring to. > > One was "Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English > sort so rare?" > > The other was "If it's so rare, why is it so productive in English?" > > If your comment relates to the second of these questions, then you may be right. > For example, another relatively unusual feature of English (though not quite so > unusual) is having a glide r. While it makes sense to ask why it is uncommon, > it's not so obvious that there is any interesting answer to the question why > English has a glide r when it is uncommon crosslinguistically. > > On the other hand, sometimes, there are interesting answers to these questions. > Some -though not many - languages have roughly equal amounts of prepositions and > postpositions and there is often a clear answer to why this has happened: the > language is VO with Genitive-Noun order and the prepositions arose from verbs > while the postpositions arose from nouns in genitive-noun constructions. > > It's not clear to me whether or not there is any interesting answer to the > question why English allows preposition stranding (although I shared some > speculations separately with Fritz), whether it is like glide r in English, or > the example discussed in the preceding paragraph. > > However, if your comment was about the first question ("Why is preposition > stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?"), then I am > more puzzled, since this question is no different in its logic from any question > of the sort "Why do most languages have such-and-such a property?" Saying that > adposition stranding is rare is equivalent to saying that most languages don't > allow adposition stranding. Perhaps you aren't interested in explanations for > universals (absolute or statistical), which is fine with me: I personally devote > far more time to finding out what IS typical in language than in attempting to > explain such generalizations. > > (I don't have access right now to a way to hearing things on the internet, so no > way at the moment to listen to what you say at the link you provided.) > > Matthew > > On Sat 10/02/10 1:12 PM , Daniel Everett dan at daneverett.org sent: >> One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why >> wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish >> and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that >> the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it >> isn't found more places. >> But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. >> >> Dan >> >> >> On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> Even if you are right that it is correct to >> class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing >> that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern >> ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after >> all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its >> typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has >> steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the >> centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to >> wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked >> to').> >>> Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the >> notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and >> 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the >> crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern:> >>> question-word (did) subject V P? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of >> Washington> Adjunct Professor, University of British >> Columbia and Simon Fraser University> [for my postal address, please contact me by >> e-mail]> >>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very >> general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either >> by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to >> see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the >> case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO >> (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the >> noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' >> (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale > adposition? >> It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it >> (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less >> predictable).>> >>>> In the case of English WH-question, you go >> back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to >> the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) >> with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', > 'wherefor', >> 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded >> referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', > 'thereto', >> 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the >> 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier >> use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is >> extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke >> German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken >> Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily >> available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 >> & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So >> just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of >> complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some >> clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface >> patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I >> think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit >> for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is >> decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking >> it. TG>> >>>> ============== >>>> >>>> >>>> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>>>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true >> in principle that one can often >>> better >>>>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare >> by getting a better understanding >>> of >>>>> more common related phenomenon. But I >> see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>>>> any light on why the English-type of >> adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>>>> of the literature on the related >> phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>>>> question. Unless you can do that, I see >> no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>>>> looking at these related phenomena, to >> help answer his question.>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uor >> egon.edu sent:>>> >>>>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>>>> >>>>>> From where I sit, it is all >> connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically >> (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical > constructions that >> act as context for the original>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various >> next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in >> Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE >> exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' >> process a bit more clearly. In>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already >> too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely >> already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of >> lexicalization, a few compound>>>> verbs. >>>>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much >> more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology >> of the ad-positions. In Latin>>>> they LOOK like they should be >> de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time >> has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder >> to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is >> still a verb meaning 'go down/under'.>>>> >>>>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process >> is much more advanced that in Rama,>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, >> passives, and other derivatives from them.>>>> And there's a considerable amount of >> lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as >> 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how>>>> are you' & more. In all these >> cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing >> AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised >> African dissertation, a grammar>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. >> 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the >> promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main >> clauses. I flashed on this when I did>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). >> Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it >> already, I don't want to read a whole>>>> grammar". So eventually I >> dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit.>>>> >>>>>> You gotta open up your >> classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz.>>>> Otherwise you'll keep > missing the >> real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually >> in plain site. TG>>>> >>>>>> ====================== >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> wrote:>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 >> pm, Frederick J>>>>> >>>>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody know of a >> functional>>>>>> >>>>>> explanation (published or not) for >> why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>>>> languages of the world? (I >> am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it>>>> exists only in Germanic, >> marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>>>> languages. There are a >> number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of>>>> P-stranding in English, but I >> wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>>>> In order to have preposition >> stranding, you need>>>>> >>>>>> prepositions, right? So> the >> only way we can answer the question of how>>>> rare languages with> preposition >> stranding are is by getting a rough>>>> sense of the proportion of> >> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of >> languages with them, but is there a>>>> comprehensive list in some >> typology> text somewhere?>>>> >>>>>>> I also wanted a clarification >> from Mr. Newmeyer:>>>>> >>>>>> your category of> preposition >> stranding includes (1) but not (2),>>>> right?> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Who are you going >> with?>>>>> 2) Are you coming >> with?>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > From khildeb at siue.edu Mon Oct 4 12:38:00 2010 From: khildeb at siue.edu (Kristine Hildebrandt) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:38:00 -0500 Subject: Call for Submissions & Extended Deadline Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS: Special Issue in Memory of Michael Noonan and David Watters Himalayan Linguistics 10.1 (June 2011) Guest Editors: Yogendra Yadava, Karen Grunow-Harsta, Kristine Hildebrandt, Stephen Watters Himalayan Linguistics, a free peer-reviewed web journal and archive devoted to the study of the languages of the Himalayas, is now accepting submissions to a special issue in memory of our late colleagues, HL Associate Editors Michael (Mickey) Noonan and David Watters. Articles on all languages of the Himalayan region are welcome, as are those that significantly draw on work by Noonan or Watters on Himalayan languages. *Extended Deadline for submissions: 15 November 2010* Address inquiries to Guest Editor Yogendra Yadava (ypyadava at gmail.com) or HL Editor Carol Genetti (cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu) http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/HimalayanLinguistics/ -- *Kristine A. Hildebrandt* *Assistant Professor, Department of English Language & Literature Southern Illinois University Edwardsville* *Box 1431 Edwardsville, IL 62026 U.S.A. 618-650-3380 (office)* *khildeb at siue.edu http://www.siue.edu/~khildeb* From bickel at uni-leipzig.de Tue Oct 5 10:07:34 2010 From: bickel at uni-leipzig.de (Balthasar Bickel) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:07:34 +0200 Subject: plain text version of CfP: new special section in Studies in Language Message-ID: Dear all I just realize that attachments may not go through the mailing list system, so I append the CfP in plain text below. best, Balthasar Bickel Studies in Language introduces a new special section that will appear at irregular intervals: News from the field: We invite short contributions that report on new discoveries in little-known and/or endangered languages, emphasizing description over theory. Contributions will typically derive from original fieldwork and are expected to provide concise and well-substantiated analyses of linguistic phenomena that have not been noticed much in general or in the relevant family or area, but for which the wider theoretical and comparative implications cannot be established yet. Submissions will be refereed like regular articles. ___________________________________________________________ Balthasar Bickel, Co-Editor Studies in Language http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=SL http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel From n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Oct 5 10:35:23 2010 From: n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Stukker, N.M.) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:35:23 +0200 Subject: 2nd call for papers: Stylistics Across Disciplines Message-ID: 2nd Call for papers 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 Oct 8 20:39:53 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 03:39:53 +0700 Subject: I am still constructing phono-typological distances Message-ID: Dear Funknet colleagues, I am still constructing phono-typological distances the total of the speech sound chains gives us the sound picture of dialects and languages. We measure the distances with the help of the chi-square values. However, in the Internet or journals I never found such distances. Does it mean that only I measure them? Of course the linguistic distances may be based on the data of lexico-statistics or other features. Why not phonetic pictures? Am I correct? Hope you can share your opinions by writing me to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From joaomdasilva at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 13:03:54 2010 From: joaomdasilva at hotmail.com (joao silva) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:03:54 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 6 Message-ID: funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu 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. I am still constructing phono-typological distances > (Yuri Tambovtsev) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 03:39:53 +0700 >From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" >Subject: [FUNKNET] I am still constructing phono-typological distances >To: >Message-ID: <54AFFE1CEA884B8B850EDC08777577BC at ngufa28a6c2639> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Dear Funknet colleagues, >I am still constructing phono-typological distances > > the total of the speech sound chains gives us the sound picture of dialects and languages. We measure the distances with the help of the chi-square values. However, in the Internet or journals I never found such distances. Does it mean that only I measure them? Of course the linguistic distances may be based on the data of lexico-statistics or other features. Why not phonetic pictures? Am I correct? Hope you can share your opinions by writing me to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > >End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 6 >************************************** > From degand at lige.ucl.ac.be Tue Oct 12 07:23:46 2010 From: degand at lige.ucl.ac.be (Elisabeth Degand) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:23:46 +0200 Subject: last-minute opportunity post-doc Message-ID: Last minute opportunity! Post-doc position: “Grammaticalization and Intersubjectification of discourse markers” Within the framework of the ongoing IUAP-project “Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification” (http://webh01.ua.ac.be/gramis/) funded by the Belgian federal government, the Institute for Language and Communication (IL&C) from the University of Louvain (UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) invites applications for one post-doc position. The position is available for one year as of November 1st 2010 and not later than January 1st 2011. Shorter periods are possible too. Description of the project: The project aims to contribute to current research efforts dealing with (the interaction between) the processes of grammaticalization (in the structural domain) and (inter)subjectification (in the semantic domain) in language change. It focuses on three major issues: 1) The precise nature of the semantic changes in subjectification and in intersubjectification, and their relationship with the structural developments in grammaticalization. 2) The teleology of the processes: are grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification unidirectional or not? 3) The ‘scope’ of these processes: how do grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification relate to other mechanisms of language change, notably, to analogy? In collaboration with research groups from the universities of Antwerp, Leuven, Ghent, and Hannover (Germany), and the Department of Cultural Anthropology at the Royal Museum of Central Africa, these foci are implemented in terms of work packages, dealing with different semantic and/or grammatical domains in which these issues can be raised and investigated from different angles. The task of the group in Louvain-la-Neuve is to work out the package on discourse markers (together with colleagues from Ghent and Hannover) (see work package description on http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/valibel/documents/workpackage4-web.pdf). The specific research area concerns the grammaticalization of (Dutch, French and English) discourse markers (where possible, in contrast to other languages). Essential requirements The position is reserved for international candidates or Belgian citizens who have not been employed in Belgium for more than two years during the 2008-2010 period. Applicants should have been awarded their doctorate within the last six years. Candidates must hold a PhD in the field of linguistics (pref. Dutch and/or French), with a primary specialization in discourse analysis. They should have experience of corpus linguistics, and ideally, have already published in the area of grammaticalization and/or typological language description. Expertise in the area of diachronic linguistics or willingness to gain such expertise is also required. Good knowledge of Dutch and French is an asset (with near-native command of one of the two languages). We especially welcome applications from candidates who share the research group’s interest in approaching language from a usage-based perspective with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. Starting date: A soon as possible from November 1st Duration of the project: 1 year, monthly allowance: +/- 2000 EUR (tax-free including social security) Application Applications including letter, curriculum vitae, brief research proposal (max. 3 pages), copies of any relevant publications, and two academic references can be sent to the address below or by e-mail to: liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be Address for Applications: Prof. Liesbeth Degand Insitute for Language and Communication Université catholique de Louvain Place B. Pascal 1 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium Application Deadline: 1 November 2010 (Open until filled) From sepkit at utu.fi Fri Oct 15 10:01:01 2010 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?iso-8859-1?B?IlNlcHBvIEtpdHRpbOQi?=) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:01:01 +0300 Subject: Second call for papers: Role complexes (Zurich, Switzerland, April 4-5, 2011) Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings) Second call for papers Role complexes: (new) approaches to defining semantic roles Since one of the important functions of many communicative acts is to make clear ‘who is doing what to whom’ when portraying a particular state of affairs, it is hardly surprising that semantic roles, thematic roles or thematic relations constitute the topic of countless studies in linguistics and are also always discussed, either explicitly or implicitly, in reference grammars. Numerous studies have dealt with agents and patients within and across languages since the 1970s, and there are several comparatively recent studies that address other roles as well (e.g., Stolz et al 2006 for comitatives, Næss 2007 for transitivity in general, Kittilä 2008 for recipients and goals, Zúñiga & Kittilä 2010 for benefactives among numerous others). Among the many interesting characteristics of accounts of semantic roles, it is noteworthy that semantic relationships between predicates and their arguments are treated in different ways. On the one hand, the explicit formal distinction made in natural languages between agents and patients is typically reflected in their analytical status: the volitionally acting instigator of an event (agent) and the inactive, thoroughly affected target of the event (patient) are invariably regarded as two separate roles. On the other hand, different kinds of beneficiaries (e.g., the first person in John tossed me a salad and John mowed the lawn instead of me) are usually considered instances of one and the same role despite their different meanings. Similarly, different subtypes of agents have tended to be treated as different roles while different kinds of experiencers have not. Against this background, the goal of this workshop is to explore approaches to the notion of semantic role in terms of ROLE COMPLEXES, i.e., of clusters of several related sub-roles that might be distinguished by some constructions in certain languages but are otherwise subsumed under a general umbrella notion. For example, different instances of goals differ according to the exact nature of motion (e.g., he threw the ball to the box / behind the box / on the box). The basic definition of the goal role remains unchanged: we are dealing with an endpoint of motion in all cases. Nevertheless, the potential differences between the roles are thus determined by features not typically considered in studies of semantic roles; features usually used for distinguishing between semantic roles, such as instigation, volitionality and affectedness (cf. e.g.. Næss 2007), can explain neither the semantic nor the formal differences between these three subtypes of goals, or the different codin g of goals and beneficiaries. We welcome all abstracts dealing with role complexes within and across languages. Possible topics for papers include (but, as always, are not restricted to) the following: - When should we speak of distinct roles, and when are two slightly different (potentially differently coded) roles rather manifestations of one basic role? Are, e.g., inanimate goals and animate goals manifestations of a single role or should they rather be treated separately? - What consequences does role synonymy have for our understanding of semantic roles? What are the features that any adequate theory of semantic roles should consider, what is the ‘correct’ number of semantic roles, etc.? - How should we treat partial formal mismatches between roles? - How do we deal with semantically/pragmatically determined differences in the coding of roles (e.g., marking conditioned by definiteness, referentiality, specificity, topicality, focality)? - Corpus-based studies of role synonymy: What determines the use of different (yet semantically similar) manifestations of a role in actual language use? - How do we best treat the diachronic development of multifunctional coding devices (syncretisms, polysemies, homonymies, etc.)? - Formal manifestation of semantic role synonymy: case marking, verbal marking, lexical differences, etc. - Role synonymy of core and peripheral roles: Are there any differences, is synonymy more common for one of these? Organizers of the workshop Fernando Zúñiga (Zurich) and Seppo Kittilä (Helsinki) Venue University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Dates April 4-5, 2011 Abstract submission Please send your (maximally) 500-word abstract (excluding data and references) to both fernando.zuniga at spw.uzh.ch and kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi no later than November 14, 2010. The letters of acceptance will be sent by December 12, 2010. Abstracts must be anonymous, but the body of the e-mail should include the following information: Name of the author(s) Title of the paper Affiliation(s) E-mail In case you have any questions about the workshop, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We are looking forward to welcoming you all to Zurich. Fernando and Seppo From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Oct 15 13:48:16 2010 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:48:16 +0800 Subject: ICLC 11, Xi'an theme session proposals deadline extended Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The deadline for theme session organizers to submit their proposals to the Organizing Committee has been extended to November 5, 2010. While the procedures for theme sessions are found on the conference website, www.iclc11.org, we remind prospective theme session organizers and theme session presenters that the abstracts for theme sessions will go through the same anonymous peer review process as abstracts for the general session. Dafu Yang Executive Co-Chair ICLC 11, Xi'an Organizing Committee www.iclc11.org From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 17:21:54 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:21:54 -0400 Subject: LSA 2011 Message-ID: Hi all, I just wanted to let everyone know that there will be a symposium at this years LSA during the Sunday sessions entitled *Functions, Functionalism, and Linguistics. *The relevant info is pasted below (the actual times will be changed and Tom Givon will be presenting last at 11). Unfortunately Martin won't be able to attend, but Suzanne Kemmer has been kind enough to step in and take his place. This panel actually came about as a result of a series of discussions on this listserv...so thanks to the host for making it possible. Hope we see some of you there. Cheers, Shannon Shannon 59 Symposium: Functions, Functionalism, and Linguistics Room: Grand Ballroom 3 Organizers: Shannon T. Bischoff (Indiana University Purdue University, Fort Wayne) Craig Hancock (University at Albany) Carmen Jany (California State University, San Bernardino) 9:00: Tom Givón (University of Oregon): The intellectual roots of functionalism in linguistics 9:30: Daniel Everett (Bentley University): Language as a cultural-cognitive tool 10:00: Martin Haspelmath (Max Planck Insitute for Evolutionary Anthropology): Moving beyond restrictivism: Why cross-linguistic patterns are best explained functionally 10:30: Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie Mellon University): Where do linguistic forms come from? 11:00: Craig Hancock (University at Albany), William Greaves (York University, Emeritus): Systemic functional linguistics: Basic principles and application to teaching 11:30: General discussion 12:00: Session ends From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 16 19:00:06 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 02:00:06 +0700 Subject: Etrusk texts Message-ID: Dear Funknet colleagues, I wonder if you know some Etrusk texts? The Etrusk people used to live in Italy before the Romans killed or assimilated them. Etrusk civilisation was more developed than Roman. This is why, I guess there should be some texts in Etrusk. I think a developed civilisation as that cannot just disappear without texts. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to yutamb at mail.ru yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Oct 16 20:10:07 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:10:07 +0200 Subject: Etrusk texts In-Reply-To: <15791D1F86414F0EB28C20BD7130AE6A@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language - it's so easy to retrieve information on Etruscan. By the way: The link mentioned by Wikipedia concerning text collections (ETP: Etruscan Texts Project A searchable database of Etruscan texts) seems not to be on-line for the moment. But there are many other possibilities to see some texts (just google "Etruscan texts" or so...) Best Wolfgang Am 16.10.2010 21:00, schrieb Yuri Tambovtsev: > Dear Funknet colleagues, I wonder if you know some Etrusk texts? The Etrusk people used to live in Italy before the Romans killed or assimilated them. Etrusk civilisation was more developed than Roman. This is why, I guess there should be some texts in Etrusk. I think a developed civilisation as that cannot just disappear without texts. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to yutamb at mail.ru yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Neue Anschrift // New address [!] 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: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / Katedra Germanistiký Fakulta humanitných vied Univerzita Mateja Béla / Banská Bystrica Tajovského 40 SK-97401 Banská Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 17 19:42:41 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:42:41 +0700 Subject: data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I wonder if any data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek have been published? Do you know any publications of that kind? Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at mail.ru Yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 17 19:45:49 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:45:49 +0700 Subject: frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek speech sounds Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I wonder if any data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek speech sounds have been published? Do you know any publications of that kind? Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at mail.ru Yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Mon Oct 18 09:42:36 2010 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:42:36 +0200 Subject: International Spring School - Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles - Italy, April 2011 Message-ID: ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** ------------------------- INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCHOOL 2011 "Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles" LETiSS - Center for Postgraduate Education and Research Pavia, 18-22 April 2011 ------------------------- Dear list members, the Center for Postgraduate Education and Research on “Languages of Europe: Typology, History and Sociolinguistics” (LETiSS) ANNOUNCES its 2nd International Spring School on "Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles", to be held in Pavia (Italy), 18-22 April 2011. The LETISS Center has been the first center in Italy (and in Europe) specifically dedicated to the linguistic situation of Europe, approached from a variety of perspectives. More information on the aims, the research topics and the activities of the Center can be found at the following URL: www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS The aim of the spring school is to enhance dialogue among young linguists interested in the topics announced in the title, under the guide of leading specialists. This is why the number of participants has been limited (see below), in order to facilitate interactions among them. WHEN AND WHERE: The Spring School will last one week, from Monday 18 until Friday 22 April 2011, at the IUSS Institute in Pavia (viale Lungo Ticino Sforza 56, 27100 Pavia, Italy – www.iusspavia.it). WHO AND WHAT: TEACHERS AND COURSES The everyday schedule, from Monday to Friday, will be as follows: 9-10.45: 1st course 11.15-13.00: 2nd course 15-16.45: 3rd course 17.15-19.00: 4th course Friday evening there will be a farewell dinner at 20.00 1st course – Margot van den Berg (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen): Creoles at birth? The role of nativization ------- 2nd course – Barbara Turchetta (Università della Tuscia): The contribution of Pidgin and Creole studies to the general theory of language change ------- 3rd course – Susanne Michaelis (University of Gießen/Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig): Grammatical structures in creole language. First results from APiCS ------- 4th course – Bettina Migge (University College Dublin): The Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics of Creole languages THE STUDENTS: 20 advanced students in linguistics and related fields will be selected by the Scientific Committee of the School. The main criterion will be the degree of relatedness/pertinence of their research interests with the topics of the School. In particular: • applicants must have achieved at least the B.A. + M.A. level (= a five years cycle); therefore the students may be Ph.D. students, Post- docs, and young researchers; • in the CV applicants should indicate any research activities and publications that may be relevant for the admission; • applicants should also attach a short description of their past, ongoing and future research projects (up to three pages). APPLICATION GUIDELINES: Please send an e-mail to emanuele.miola at unipv.it with the following information: • Name • Contact info • Position and affiliation • CV (as a separate attachment) • Brief description of past, ongoing and future research projects (as a separate attachment). NO TUITION FEE IS REQUIRED!! LETiSS will even cover attendants’ accommodation expenses. IMPORTANT DATES 15th November: application deadline. 15th December: applicants who have been accepted will receive a communication with all relevant information. ORGANIZERS: Caterina Mauri, Emanuele Miola, Paolo Ramat, Andrea Sansò. Please send your application and any questions to: emanuele.miola at unipv.it LETiSS website: www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS LETiSS Spring School 2011 website: http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS.springschool Caterina Mauri, Emanuele Miola, Andrea Sansò, Paolo Ramat From kemmer at rice.edu Mon Oct 18 13:44:58 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:44:58 -0500 Subject: Fellowships: Exploring the Mind through Music workshop Message-ID: [Application deadline is Nov. 1, 2010. There are many musician applicants; but more in cognitive sciences are desired to round out the group of fellows. --S.K. ] FELLOWSHIPS: Exploring the Mind through Music The Shepherd School of Music is proud to announce "Exploring the Mind through Music 2011." Twenty fellows-ten musicians and ten scientists-will be invited to Rice University campus in Houston for innovative cross-disciplinary seminars and public lectures by distinguished visiting and resident faculty. Musicians and scientists at any stage in their professional career are encouraged to apply. The goal of the Conference is to promote collaboration between musicians and scientists and spur research. In the mornings, in-depth seminars will introduce the scientific fellows to musical structure and history and the musician fellows to brain morphology, music perception and experimental design. In the afternoons and evenings, the fellows will join together for lectures related to current research. The Conference concludes with a joint session with all participants. The morning seminars are open to the Rice and Baylor College of Medicine community. The afternoon and evening lectures are free and open to the public. The Visiting Faculty includes: David Huron, Ohio State University Fred Lerdahl, Columbia University Aniruddh Patel, The Neurosciences Institute Bob Slevc, University of Maryland, College Park Robert Zatorre, McGill University The Resident Faculty includes: Gregory Barnett, Musicology Anthony Brandt, Music Composition and Theory David Eagleman, Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine Norman Fischer, Cello Suzanne Kemmer, Cognitive Sciences and Linguistics Christine Neugebauer, Music Therapy, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital Casey O'Callaghan, Philosophy C. Richard Stasney, Otalyngology, The Methodist Hospital Fellowships cover all Conference expenses, including lodging and meals. Fellows are only required to pay their travel to Houston. For more information, including application instructions and event schedule, please visit the Conference website: www.rice.edu/mindandmusic . The Conference Director, Anthony Brandt, may be reached by email at abrandt at rice.edu or by phone at (713) 348-2192. The assistant to Dr. Brandt, Molly Gebrian, can be reached atmgebrian at yahoo.com. "Exploring the Mind through Music 2011" is generously underwritten by Rice University's Shepherd School of Music and Humanities Research Center and the Methodist Hospital's Center for Performing Arts Medicine. From fg-fgw at uva.nl Mon Oct 18 14:13:26 2010 From: fg-fgw at uva.nl (fg-fgw) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:13:26 +0200 Subject: First call FDG Workshop Barcelona 2011 Message-ID: Workshop on Functional Discourse Grammar The Interaction between the Grammatical Component and the Contextual Component Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain September 8-9, 2011 For detailed information please see www.FunctionalDiscourseGrammar.info go to --> Events, go to --> Workshop 2011 or mail to fg-fgw at uva.nl and you will receive the first call as a word.doc +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Functional Grammar Foundation International Secretary Universiteit van Amsterdam Department of Theoretical Linguistics Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam The Netherlands e-mail: fg-fgw at uva.nl P Before printing, think about the environment +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Tue Oct 19 16:22:25 2010 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:22:25 +0200 Subject: Call for papers - Pavia, May 2011 - Workshop on "GRADUALNESS IN CHANGE AND ITS RELATION TO SYNCHRONIC VARIATION AND USE" Message-ID: ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** ------------------------ International workshop on: "GRADUALNESS IN CHANGE AND ITS RELATION TO SYNCHRONIC VARIATION AND USE" Pavia (Italy), 30-31 May 2011 Workshop URL: https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/ ------------------------ DESCRIPTION: The workshop aims to contribute to the discussion on the factors at play in diachronic change and to investigate the relationship between diachronic gradualness and synchronic variation, integrating the current views on linguistic variation and language use. Special attention will be devoted to theoretical and methodological issues concerning i) how the study of language change can benefit from the most recent achievements in linguistic theories and ii) how the explanations of synchronic variation may be found in diachronic processes, discussing whether diachronic gradualness and synchronic variation may be analyzed through the same lenses and by means of the same theoretical instruments. Furthermore, the workshop also wants to address the question of the impact of contact on linguistic change. Language contact may indeed be seen as a special type of synchronic phenomenon that may last in time and may gradually lead to diachronic change, triggering or influencing the development of particular constructions in neighbouring languages. INVITED SPEAKERS: Olga Fischer (University of Amsterdam): ---- Topic: On the role of analogy in processes of language change Béatrice Lamiroy (University of Leuven): ---- Topic: The pace of grammaticalization in Romance languages Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh): ---- Topic: Diachronic construction grammar and gradualness in language change Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp): ----- Topic: On diachronic semantic maps The workshop will also accommodate four contributions from the project members (t.b.a) on the effects of contact and interference within the macro-geographic-area of the Mediterranean. CALL FOR PAPERS: Authors are invited to submit a one-page abstract, keeping in mind that the slot for their communication will last 40 min. including discussion. Abstracts should be anonymous and should be sent as attachments in PDF format to: gradualness.workshop at gmail.com. Author(s) name(s) and affiliation should be indicated in the corpus of the e-mail. The abstracts will be anonimously reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee. Besides theoretical issues, the exam of specific examples and the description of general patterns will also be welcome. Topics of interest include: • what kind of factors trigger the grammaticalization processes • the relation of grammaticalization to other mechanisms of language change such as reanalysis and analogy • the relationship between synchronic variation and grammatical change • the interaction between frequency, entrenchment and use • the possibility of multiple source constructions in language change • the role of language contact in grammatical change • how particular diachronic phenomena may be analyzed in the light of the most recent linguistic theories (e.g. construction grammar) • diachronic explanations for synchronic patterns of variation • ….. IMPORTANT DATES: Deadline for submission: 10 February 2010 Notification of acceptance 10 March 2010 ORGANIZERS AND CONTACT: Anna Giacalone Ramat - annaram (at) unipv.it Caterina Mauri - caterina.mauri (at) unipv.it Piera Molinelli - piera.molinelli (at) unibg.it For any questions and for submissions, please write to gradualness.workshop at gmail.com SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: Pierluigi Cuzzolin (University of Bergamo), Chiara Fedriani (University of Pavia), Chiara Ghezzi (University of Pavia), Anna Giacalone Ramat (University of Pavia), Gianguido Manzelli (University of Pavia), Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia), Piera Molinelli (University of Bergamo), Paolo Ramat (IUSS Institute), Andrea Sansò (Insubria University - Como), Federica Venier (University of Bergamo) From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Wed Oct 20 10:59:00 2010 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:59:00 +0200 Subject: JOB: 2 positions in English Linguistics, Lille, France Message-ID: Two tenure track positions in English Linguistics, Université Lille3, France http://www.univ-lille3.fr !!! URGENT JOB NOTICE !!! Answer needed before Oct. 28, 2010 (see below)!!! The University of Lille 3, France, will have two tenure track positions available track position in English Linguistics, with the following profile: 1) Corpus linguistics, syntax 2) didactics (ESL) and/or language acquisition REQUIREMENTS The candidate must hold a PhD, or be sure to have a PhD in hand by December 1, 2010 at the latest, in the field of English Linguistics (or comparable, with good command of English) and have demonstrated expertise in this domain, through quality publication and solid teaching experience. The ideal candidate will engage in the further expansion of the corpus linguistics group (position 1) or the ESL teaching and research group (position 2) with the STL research center at the Université Lille 3 (http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/). Normal teaching load is about 7 hours per week (2 terms of 13 weeks) and concerns English linguistics classes, or possibly also English for non-specialists (ESP) (mostly undergraduate level). Hiring will be done at the level of "Maître de Conférences" (MCF) with a monthly salary scale ranging from 2,058 to 3,722 (before taxes and withholdings), depending on the number of years of experience at MCF level (i.e. most positions for which a PhD is required). Initially, there is no requirement that candidates speak French fluently, but it is preferred that they at least have a sufficient working knowledge to understand the procedures. The successful candidate must be authorized to work legally in France by Sept. 1, 2011, the start date of the position. PROCEDURE Candidates who are interested in this position should contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; please send along your CV too. Moreover, the first official step for candidates is to register on-line for the QUALIFICATION by *October 28, 2011, 16:00* (Parisian time) on the official site of the Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche; https://www.galaxie.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/ensup/candidats.html (on the right, you'll also see a link to the "calendrier" with important dates for the qualification MCF) The idea is that you need to get the qualification MCF before you can apply for a job as an MCF. People who hold a position of rank similar to MCF could apply without the qualification, but it is safer to follow the usual official procedure, which is open to all nationalities anyway. Do not hesitate to contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) should you have any questions on this position or on the official procedure. -- Den bästa taktiken är inte alltid att hålla sig upprätt, utan att lära sig falla mjukt" (Kajsa Ingemarsson, "Små citroner gula", p. 292) -- Maarten (=Martin) Lemmens Professeur en linguistique et didactique des langues (Spécialités: linguistique anglaise & linguistique cognitive) Université Lille 3, B.P. 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France Bureau B4.138; tél.: +33 (0)3.20.41.67.18 Membre de l'UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage http://perso.univ-lille3.fr/~mlemmens Editor-in-Chief "CogniTextes" (revue de l'AFLiCo) http://cognitextes.revues.org/ Membre du bureau de l'Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive http://www.aflico.fr/ Board member of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.cogling.org/ -- From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Oct 20 17:12:44 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:12:44 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: Hello, For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. Thanks. I'll summarize. Best wishes, --fritz fjn at u.washington.edu Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From olga at humnet.ucla.edu Wed Oct 20 17:43:28 2010 From: olga at humnet.ucla.edu (Yokoyama, Olga) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:43:28 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. Olga Olga T. Yokoyama Professor and Chair Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL University of California, Los Angeles Tel. (310) 825-4631 Fax (310) 206-4118 http://www.appling.ucla.edu -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM To: Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Hello, For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. Thanks. I'll summarize. Best wishes, --fritz fjn at u.washington.edu Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From harald at bombo.se Wed Oct 20 17:48:56 2010 From: harald at bombo.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Hammarstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:48:56 +0800 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD2402F9@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: I don't think the Jelinek quote was ever in a publication. In the keynote speech for his ACL lifetime achievement award in Singapore 2006, Fred described the situation (I think it was in the early 1970s) as "that is when I supposedly said what I supposedly said ..." referring to the infamous quote. Perhaps there's a video recording of the speech of maybe someone else knows the story better and can verify that the quote was actually in a publication?! all the best, H 2010/10/21 Yokoyama, Olga > Fritz, > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the > lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines > of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > are. > > Olga > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor and Chair > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Hello, > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a > linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > --fritz > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > From cdcox at ualberta.ca Wed Oct 20 18:09:28 2010 From: cdcox at ualberta.ca (Christopher Cox) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:09:28 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For his part, Jelinek (2004) appears to cite his 1988 paper, "Applying Information Theoretic Methods: Evaluation of Grammar Quality", as the source of this quote. Whether or not that source paper was ever published is another question, but it would seem that he acknowledges the quote, albeit with some qualifications given in his 2004 LREC presentation. Slides from that presentation are available online: http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2004/doc/jelinek.pdf Hope this helps, -- Christopher Cox christopher.cox at ualberta.ca From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Oct 20 19:25:28 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:25:28 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is a current lead article in the ON THE HUMAN forum (you may google it), also co-published by the NY Times. The topic is the evolution of morality and religion, and the author is the celebrated primatologist and evolutionary thinker Frans de Waal. Somewhere in there, he expresses his profound disappointment at the Cartesian Exceptionalism pursued by 'some linguists'. De Waal is too gentle to name names, but for those of us who know the evolutionary discussion (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002), the reference is rather transparent. And it expresses the recurrent mystification of scientists I know (biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuro-scientists) about linguistics. A fairly recent conference convened four discussion groups (evolutionary biologists, neuro-scientists, computer modelers, linguists) to talk about the biology and evolution of grammar. Members of the non-linguist groups dropped in periodically to sit on the linguists' discussion. Their uniform private reaction to me was bafflement--at the supreme irrelevance of the linguists' discussion to the topic at hand. I told them 'welcome to the club'. Cheers, TG ========================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 20 21:19:23 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:19:23 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBF4228.4060707@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Here is a recent talk that author Tom Wolfe gave on the subject of The Human Beast at Bentley University (Friday October 15, 2010). He argues that humans should be referred to as Homo loquax. It is an interesting take, partially based on my work. A similar lecture was given as the Jefferson lecture, sponsored by the NEH/US Government. Dan http://academics.bentley.edu/tom-wolfe On 20 Oct 2010, at 15:25, Tom Givon wrote: > > > There is a current lead article in the ON THE HUMAN forum (you may google it), also co-published by the NY Times. The topic is the evolution of morality and religion, and the author is the celebrated primatologist and evolutionary thinker Frans de Waal. Somewhere in there, he expresses his profound disappointment at the Cartesian Exceptionalism pursued by 'some linguists'. De Waal is too gentle to name names, but for those of us who know the evolutionary discussion (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002), the reference is rather transparent. And it expresses the recurrent mystification of scientists I know (biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuro-scientists) about linguistics. > > A fairly recent conference convened four discussion groups (evolutionary biologists, neuro-scientists, computer modelers, linguists) to talk about the biology and evolution of grammar. Members of the non-linguist groups dropped in periodically to sit on the linguists' discussion. Their uniform private reaction to me was bafflement--at the supreme irrelevance of the linguists' discussion to the topic at hand. I told them 'welcome to the club'. > > Cheers, > > TG > > ========================== > > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Hello, >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> --fritz >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > From matti.miestamo at helsinki.fi Thu Oct 21 08:26:19 2010 From: matti.miestamo at helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:26:19 +0300 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, what about Greenberg & al. (1978: v) quoting a comment by psychologist Charles Osgood: "... while linguistics had an admirable and well worked out method, it was being applied merely to the description of individual languages. Could the linguists present tell him anything about **all** languages? That would be of the highest interest to psychologists.” Reference: Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik. 1978. Preface. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 1, Method and Theory, v–xi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Best wishes, Matti -- Matti Miestamo http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/ On Oct 20, 2010, at 20:12 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Thu Oct 21 08:34:31 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:34:31 +0100 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD2402F9@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Dear Fritz, I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) Dick (Hudson) Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > Fritz, > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. > > Olga > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor and Chair > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Hello, > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > --fritz > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Oct 21 08:47:35 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:47:35 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBFFB17.2050208@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in general. English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes will produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > practitioners in one room > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > are. > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > To: Funknet > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From timo.honkela at tkk.fi Thu Oct 21 09:31:18 2010 From: timo.honkela at tkk.fi (Timo Honkela) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:31:18 +0300 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, Matti and all, This is a very interesting question and as a person standing on both sides (outside and inside linguistics), I would like to comment on some matters. In computational linguistics and especially in natural language processing research as an application orinted area of artificial intelligence, it has been commonplace to think that linguists ("proper") often focus on too specific phenomena that do not help in increasing the overall performance of a system. This may been seen as the background for Jelinek's comment. In addition to this lack of coverage issue, the representation of linguistic knowledge and its use in building natural language processing computational systems is a complex issue. The relationship between implicit linguistic skills and explicit representations are not at all as straightforward as some rule-based representation oriented scholars such as Noam Chomsky have tried to suggest (for discussion on the methodology of implicit and explicit representation, please see "Modeling communities of experts: Conceptual grounding of expertise", www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/TKK-ICS-R24.pdf - suggestions for journals that would be interested in this multidisciplinary topic are also welcome). Charles Osgood's comment reflects a distinction that can also be seen between (autonomous) general linguistics and cognitive linguistics. We who try to create models of (real or artificial) systems that learn and use language need to think basically of all languages: What are the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to the ability to learn and use language? One needs to be able to model systems that learn language from the input. A central research question then is what needs to be there in a cognitive system for the learning to be possible. Proponents of the poverty of stimulus argument etc. have suggested that not so much can be learned but there is also a lot of opposing evident. In our field, an interesting recent example is the development of Morfessor system that models certain aspects of morphology of basically any language through unsupervised learning and information theoretical principles (see http://www.cis.hut.fi/projects/morpho/ for details). Another, older result is the experiment in which we were able to exhibit emergence of linguistically motivated categories through the use of the self-organizing map method (the most popular computational model of cortical organization). (http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/honkela_pulkki_kohonen_icann95_grimm.pdf) Some potentially interesting issues related to computational modeling of human and social sciences are covered in a keynote paper presented last June (http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/honkela_mashs10_final.pdf). One quote from the paper that might be interesting from the point of view of Fritz' original question: "Computational linguistics is an area in which computers have been used for a relatively long time as a research tool. Linguistics can be considered to particularly interesting from the point of view of scientific practice and scientific representation because language is a central means for representing and communicating scientific results." Summa summarum, research on language is extremely important in its all flavors. Research on chemisty and biology is important for the health. Research on language (in its widest sense including functional linguistic, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, etc.) is of crucial imporance on how we are able deal with any aspect or problem in the world. We all are so immersed in language that especially those who are not inside this field do not necessarily appreciate the importance of this field of inquiry. Best regards, Timo On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Matti Miestamo wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > what about Greenberg & al. (1978: v) quoting a comment by psychologist Charles Osgood: > > "... while linguistics had an admirable and well worked out method, > it was being applied merely to the description of individual > languages. Could the linguists present tell him anything about > **all** languages? That would be of the highest interest to > psychologists.” > > Reference: > Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik. 1978. Preface. > In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 1, > Method and Theory, v–xi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. > > Best wishes, > Matti > > -- > Matti Miestamo > http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/ > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 20:12 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> --fritz >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > -- Timo Honkela, Chief Research Scientist, PhD, Docent Adaptive Informatics Research Center Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O.Box 5400, FI-02015 TKK, Finland timo.honkela at tkk.fi, http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/ From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Thu Oct 21 09:47:17 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:47:17 +0100 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBFFB17.2050208@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > language at university, so academic research on language isn't > relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, > where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum > and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm > sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by > its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical > source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written > quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> >> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how >> many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast >> and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it >> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented English in a public conference, which combined international >> scholars and practitioners in one room >> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at >> large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for >> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >> ignorance about what language studies are. >> >> Olga >> >> >> >> Olga T. Yokoyama >> >> Professor and Chair >> >> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >> >> University of California, Los Angeles >> >> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >> >> Fax (310) 206-4118 >> >> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like >> to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >> 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Oct 21 09:55:46 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:55:46 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC00C25.8070900@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: It would be very interesting to know how useful the Hallidayan paradigm is to these teachers, whether they are expected to conform entirely to its use of terminology (some of which is rather counter-intuitive) and whether there is any resulting confusion, for example for those steeped in traditional grammar. If any of the latter still exist of course! Tahir >>> Richard Hudson 10/21/2010 9:47 am >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > language at university, so academic research on language isn't > relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, > where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum > and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm > sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by > its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical > source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written > quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> >> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how >> many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast >> and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it >> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented English in a public conference, which combined international >> scholars and practitioners in one room >> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at >> large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for >> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >> ignorance about what language studies are. >> >> Olga >> >> >> >> Olga T. Yokoyama >> >> Professor and Chair >> >> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >> >> University of California, Los Angeles >> >> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >> >> Fax (310) 206-4118 >> >> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like >> to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >> 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From dcyr at yorku.ca Thu Oct 21 14:46:09 2010 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:46:09 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287650855.4cbffe272fc23@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very important both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that chunk of knowledge: INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language re-education; - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class discussions. In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and happiness :) Danielle P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? "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." Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in > general. > English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking > countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes will > produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're > supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is > taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. > When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock > answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > John > > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > Dear Fritz, > > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > > value of linguistics for education (see > > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > > such as Spain - see > > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > > > Dick (Hudson) > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > > Fritz, > > > > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > important > > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially > in > > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. > We > > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're > a > > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there > > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did > it > > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented > > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > > practitioners in one room > > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > > sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and > > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > > are. > > > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > > To: Funknet > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published > > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > fire > > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > "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 john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Oct 21 15:03:08 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:08 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287672369.4cc05231ac736@mymail.yorku.ca> Message-ID: Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. John Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > important > both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my > French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > intention > to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to > linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At > the > introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that > chunk of knowledge: > > INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear > implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching > materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > re-education; > - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, > intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social > understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, > intercultural studies, etc. > - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of > international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. > - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better > understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the > making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of > nationhoods, etc. > > They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, > for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in > their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in > all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge > in > their other class discussions. > > In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes > them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that > their > studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, > diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, > merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > > Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > linguist, I > count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no > problem > explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and > also > a source of pleasure and happiness :) > > Danielle > > P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I > liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the > author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without > acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > > "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." > Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > > > It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in > > general. > > English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking > > countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes > will > > produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're > > supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is > > taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. > > When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock > > answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > > > Dear Fritz, > > > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > > > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > > > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > > > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > > > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > > > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > > > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > > > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > > > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > > > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > > > value of linguistics for education (see > > > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > > > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > > > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > > > such as Spain - see > > > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > > > > > Dick (Hudson) > > > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > > > Fritz, > > > > > > > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > > > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > > important > > > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially > > in > > > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. > > We > > > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > you're > > a > > > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > there > > > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did > > it > > > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > accented > > > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > > > practitioners in one room > > > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > > > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > > > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and > make > > > sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and > > > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > > > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies > > > are. > > > > > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > Newmeyer > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > > > To: Funknet > > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > > > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > > > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > > published > > > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > > > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > > > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > > > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > > > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > > fire > > > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > "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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 21 15:32:21 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:32:21 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287673388.4cc0562c6ccb1@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. --Aya On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for > linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > John > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >> important >> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my >> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >> intention >> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to >> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At >> the >> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that >> chunk of knowledge: >> >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear >> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching >> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >> re-education; >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, >> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social >> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, >> intercultural studies, etc. >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of >> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better >> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the >> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of >> nationhoods, etc. >> >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, >> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in >> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in >> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge >> in >> their other class discussions. >> >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes >> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that >> their >> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, >> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, >> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >> >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >> linguist, I >> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no >> problem >> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and >> also >> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >> >> Danielle >> >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I >> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the >> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without >> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >> >> "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." >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >> >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in >>> general. >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking >>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes >> will >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're >>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is >>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock >>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias >>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language >>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar >>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country >>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to >>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have >>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries >>>> such as Spain - see >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>> important >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially >>> in >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. >>> We >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >> you're >>> a >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >> there >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did >>> it >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and >>>> practitioners in one room >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's >>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and >> make >>>> sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and >>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget >>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >> studies >>>> are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or >>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>> published >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on >>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular >>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by >>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I >>> fire >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>> University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >> >> >> "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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Oct 21 15:44:15 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:44:15 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current linguistic theory (of whatever variety). --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign > language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the > seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not > have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared > this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for >> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : >> >>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >>> important >>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my >>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >>> intention >>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course >>> to >>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. >>> At >>> the >>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal >>> and >>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to >>> that >>> chunk of knowledge: >>> >>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >>> cochlear >>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching >>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >>> re-education; >>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >>> history, >>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >>> social >>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, >>> intercultural studies, etc. >>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of >>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better >>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of >>> the >>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building >>> of >>> nationhoods, etc. >>> >>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French >>> and, >>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them >>> in >>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them >>> in >>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic >>> knowledge >>> in >>> their other class discussions. >>> >>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics >>> makes >>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that >>> their >>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, >>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, >>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >>> >>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >>> linguist, I >>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no >>> problem >>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and >>> also >>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >>> >>> Danielle >>> >>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >>> somewhere. I >>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who >>> the >>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without >>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >>> >>> "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." >>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >>> >>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in >>>> general. >>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking >>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes >>> will >>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>>> they're >>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching >>>> is >>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to >>>> linguistics. >>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>>> stock >>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>>> >>>>> Dear Fritz, >>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias >>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language >>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar >>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country >>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to >>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have >>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries >>>>> such as Spain - see >>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>>> >>>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>>> >>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes >>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>>> important >>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>>> especially >>>> in >>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay >>>>> society. >>>> We >>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >>> you're >>>> a >>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >>> there >>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department >>>>> did >>>> it >>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >>> accented >>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international scholars >>>>> and >>>>> practitioners in one room >>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>>> Oregon's >>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and >>> make >>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics >>>>> and >>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget >>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >>> studies >>>>> are. >>>>>> >>>>>> Olga >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>>> >>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>>> >>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>>> >>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>> Newmeyer >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>>> To: Funknet >>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, >>>>> or >>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>>> published >>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. >>>>> on >>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their >>>>> particular >>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by >>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The >>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I >>>> ???re >>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --fritz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>> >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> >>> >>> >>> "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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > From hancock at albany.edu Thu Oct 21 17:08:28 2010 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC00C25.8070900@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. Craig On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > has influenced schools in England" > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > official curriculum. > > Dick > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >> Dear Fritz, >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >> >> Dick (Hudson) >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>> Fritz, >>> >>> >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >>> ignorance about what language studies are. >>> >>> Olga >>> >>> >>> >>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>> >>> Professor and Chair >>> >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>> >>> University of California, Los Angeles >>> >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>> >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>> >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>> Newmeyer >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>> To: Funknet >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >>> 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> >>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From yutamb at mail.ru Thu Oct 21 18:51:19 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 Subject: The view of mathematicians is quite negative Message-ID: Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric family. They put Hungarian into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in linguistics to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, Russia. From macw at cmu.edu Thu Oct 21 20:01:28 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC0738C.3020900@albany.edu> Message-ID: Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite article in English or French nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it depends on how linguistics is packaged. OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not preclude the use of others. -- Brian MacWhinney On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. >> >> Dick >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >>> Dear Fritz, >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>> >>> Dick (Hudson) >>> >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>> Fritz, >>>> >>>> >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. >>>> >>>> Olga >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>> >>>> Professor and Chair >>>> >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>> >>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>> >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>> >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>> >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>> To: Funknet >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --fritz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>>> >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From mark at polymathix.com Fri Oct 22 00:24:22 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about academics." from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Roger Schank comes to mind Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > >> John, >> >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars >> in >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a >> foreign >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend >> the >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did >> not >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently >> spared >> this.) It was a complete farce. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need >>> for >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : >>> >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >>>> important >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. >>>> In my >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >>>> intention >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory >>>> course >>>> to >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in >>>> linguistics. >>>> At >>>> the >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of >>>> internal >>>> and >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to >>>> that >>>> chunk of knowledge: >>>> >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >>>> cochlear >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language >>>> teaching >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >>>> re-education; >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >>>> history, >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >>>> social >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, >>>> ethics, >>>> intercultural studies, etc. >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the >>>> history of >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, >>>> etc. >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a >>>> better >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, >>>> of >>>> the >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the >>>> building >>>> of >>>> nationhoods, etc. >>>> >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of >>>> French >>>> and, >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps >>>> them >>>> in >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps >>>> them >>>> in >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic >>>> knowledge >>>> in >>>> their other class discussions. >>>> >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics >>>> makes >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware >>>> that >>>> their >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, >>>> jurists, >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, >>>> translators, >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >>>> >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >>>> linguist, I >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have >>>> no >>>> problem >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful >>>> and >>>> also >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >>>> >>>> Danielle >>>> >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >>>> somewhere. I >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know >>>> who >>>> the >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom >>>> without >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >>>> >>>> "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." >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >>>> >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching >>>>> in >>>>> general. >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in >>>>> English-speaking >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language >>>>> classes >>>> will >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>>>> they're >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language >>>>> teaching >>>>> is >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to >>>>> linguistics. >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>>>> stock >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Fritz, >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >>>>>> bias >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about >>>>>> language >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where >>>>>> grammar >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a >>>>>> country >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its >>>>>> contribution to >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do >>>>>> have >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in >>>>>> countries >>>>>> such as Spain - see >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>>>>>> attitudes >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>>>> important >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>>>> especially >>>>> in >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay >>>>>> society. >>>>> We >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >>>> you're >>>>> a >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >>>> there >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my >>>>>> department >>>>>> did >>>>> it >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >>>> accented >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international >>>>>> scholars >>>>>> and >>>>>> practitioners in one room >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>>>> Oregon's >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large >>>>>> and >>>> make >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing >>>>>> linguistics >>>>>> and >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on >>>>>> budget >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >>>> studies >>>>>> are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olga >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>>> Newmeyer >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>>>> To: Funknet >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>>>>>> from >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>>>>> value, >>>>>> or >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>>>> published >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> on >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their >>>>>> particular >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out >>>>>> by >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >>>>>>> The >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever >>>>>> I >>>>> ???re >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>> University >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >> > > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From tpayne at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 22 00:52:38 2010 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory tower" idealists. I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. Tom -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 To: john at research.haifa.ac.il Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics John, I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. --Aya On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > John > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached >> to that chunk of knowledge: >> >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among >> others; >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >> re-education; >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. >> >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class >> discussions. >> >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, >> etc. etc. etc. >> >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and >> happiness :) >> >> Danielle >> >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >> >> "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." >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >> >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching >>> in general. >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that >>> foreign language classes >> will >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics >>>> for education (see >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in >>>> countries such as Spain - see >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>>>> attitudes >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>> important >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>> especially >>> in >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. >>> We >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of >>>> "Oh, >> you're >>> a >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings >>>> out >> there >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my >>>> department did >>> it >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public >>>> at large and >> make >>>> sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >>>> ignorance about what language >> studies >>>> are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>>>> from >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would >>>> like to cite >>> published >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking >>>>> for. The >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >>>> 'Whenever I >>> fire >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>> University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >> >> >> "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 >> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > From hancock at albany.edu Fri Oct 22 12:34:38 2010 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian, You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use it, and that is not a finite goal. What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on both sides. Craig On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite article in English or French nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. >> >> Craig >> >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. >>> >>> Dick >>> >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don’t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 17:31:48 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:31:48 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In his book *Guns, Germs, and Steel* Jerad Dimond makes a reference to glottal chronology to account for human population movement, sorry I don't recall the page. A few years ago there was an article in the New York Times comparing string theory in physics to generative grammar in linguistics and raising the question what role a *charismatic* leader has in a field of study. Linguistics is also invoked by scholars outside linguistics when discussing human migration patterns. PBS did a special on birds "Bird Brains" which shows interviews with a number of biologist, some working with linguists. You should be able to find the link at PBS.org and searching for "bird brains". There are also a number of mathematicians that take Chomskian Generative Grammar to task for flouting mathematical axioms, especially Chomsky 1995. The "Stanford Challenge" was computer scientist and some computational linguists challenging the validity of Chomskian Generative Grammar as computational (see the linguist list). Finally, in 2004(?) Linguistic Review had a special volume on Generative Grammar as Cognitive Science, with Cognitive Scientists weighing in (they said it isn't). cheers, Shannon PS it would be great you could put a list together of what you find and send it to funknet On Fri, Oct 22, 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. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Brian MacWhinney) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC0738C.3020900 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I > co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar > instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in > literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native > language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as > little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's > language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in > literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single > course in language, which may include theories about why teaching > directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the > sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely > independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer > to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little > background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > > has influenced schools in England" > > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > > official curriculum. > > > > Dick > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz, > >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't > >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of > >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school > >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at > >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be > >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see > >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for > >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't > >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from > >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more > >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see > >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >> > >> Dick (Hudson) > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> > >>> > >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but > >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary > >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes > >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the > >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So > >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are > >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department > >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers > >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined > >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room > >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for > >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY > >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>> ignorance about what language studies are. > >>> > >>> Olga > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>> > >>> Professor and Chair > >>> > >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>> > >>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>> > >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>> > >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>> > >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>> Newmeyer > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>> To: Funknet > >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, > >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance > >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance > >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 > From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" > Subject: [FUNKNET] The view of mathematicians is quite negative > To: > Message-ID: <8D347151772C4604A66263301B32B2DD at ngufa28a6c2639> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and > linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics > is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is > that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That > means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I > began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic > journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. > Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other > linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or > that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist > knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, > one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is > applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric > family. They put Hungarian > into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and > Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. > Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. > May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it > into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many > linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should > say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to > this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite > interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. > What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 > languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has > the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is > that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in > linguistics to yutam > b at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, > Russia. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fren > ch nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > > > > Craig > > > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that > linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >> > >> Dick > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> Dear Fritz, > >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon.u > cl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>> > >>> Dick (Hudson) > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>> Fritz, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing lin > guistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>> > >>>> Olga > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>> > >>>> Professor and Chair > >>>> > >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>> > >>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>> > >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>> > >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>> > >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>> To: Funknet > >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --fritz > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>> > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Funknet" > Message-ID: > <529225deab90693320421ae01a944fb7.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your > purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: > > "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about > academics." > > from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > > Roger Schank comes to mind > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> John, > >> > >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars > >> in > >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > >> foreign > >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend > >> the > >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did > >> not > >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently > >> spared > >> this.) It was a complete farce. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > >>> for > >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >>> > >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >>>> important > >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. > >>>> In my > >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > >>>> intention > >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory > >>>> course > >>>> to > >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in > >>>> linguistics. > >>>> At > >>>> the > >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of > >>>> internal > >>>> and > >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to > >>>> that > >>>> chunk of knowledge: > >>>> > >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >>>> cochlear > >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >>>> teaching > >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >>>> re-education; > >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >>>> history, > >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >>>> social > >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, > >>>> ethics, > >>>> intercultural studies, etc. > >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >>>> history of > >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, > >>>> etc. > >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >>>> better > >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, > >>>> of > >>>> the > >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the > >>>> building > >>>> of > >>>> nationhoods, etc. > >>>> > >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >>>> French > >>>> and, > >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic > >>>> knowledge > >>>> in > >>>> their other class discussions. > >>>> > >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics > >>>> makes > >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware > >>>> that > >>>> their > >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, > >>>> jurists, > >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, > >>>> translators, > >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > >>>> > >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >>>> linguist, I > >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have > >>>> no > >>>> problem > >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful > >>>> and > >>>> also > >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) > >>>> > >>>> Danielle > >>>> > >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >>>> somewhere. I > >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know > >>>> who > >>>> the > >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom > >>>> without > >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > >>>> > >>>> "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." > >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >>>> > >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>>>> in > >>>>> general. > >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>>>> English-speaking > >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language > >>>>> classes > >>>> will > >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>>>> they're > >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language > >>>>> teaching > >>>>> is > >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to > >>>>> linguistics. > >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>>>> stock > >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>>>> bias > >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >>>>>> language > >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where > >>>>>> grammar > >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a > >>>>>> country > >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its > >>>>>> contribution to > >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see > >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > do > >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>>>> countries > >>>>>> such as Spain - see > >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>>>> attitudes > >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>>>> important > >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>>>> especially > >>>>> in > >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > >>>>>> society. > >>>>> We > >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > >>>> you're > >>>>> a > >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > >>>> there > >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>>>> department > >>>>>> did > >>>>> it > >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >>>> accented > >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>>>> scholars > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> practitioners in one room > >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>>>> Oregon's > >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large > >>>>>> and > >>>> make > >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>>>> linguistics > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on > >>>>>> budget > >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > >>>> studies > >>>>>> are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>>> Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>>>> value, > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > >>>>> published > >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > >>>>>> particular > >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>>>>>> The > >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever > >>>>>> I > >>>>> ???re > >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 > From: "Thomas E. Payne" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: > Message-ID: <1621CEF7903E473FA6F34D2EC4A664CF at TEPAYNEPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they > are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory > tower" idealists. > > I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry > Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are > bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the > USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School > Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The > people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to > attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught > who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were > apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > > > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general > >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students > >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them > >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more > >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory > >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached > >> to that chunk of knowledge: > >> > >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among > >> others; > >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >> re-education; > >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, > >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, > >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. > >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of > ideas, etc. > >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's > >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of > >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. > >> > >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, > >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon > >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and > >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class > >> discussions. > >> > >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying > >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. > >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them > >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, > >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, > >> etc. etc. etc. > >> > >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such > >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that > >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and > >> happiness :) > >> > >> Danielle > >> > >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, > >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am > >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you > recognize its source? > >> > >> "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." > >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >> > >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>> in general. > >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that > >>> foreign language classes > >> will > >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign > >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the > connection to linguistics. > >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>> > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything > >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language > >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts > >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the > >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding > >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would > >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know > >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love > >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics > >>>> for education (see > >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I > >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>> countries such as Spain - see > >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>> attitudes > >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>> important > >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>> especially > >>> in > >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > society. > >>> We > >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of > >>>> "Oh, > >> you're > >>> a > >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings > >>>> out > >> there > >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>> department did > >>> it > >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >> accented > >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room > >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>>> at large and > >> make > >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany > >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>>> ignorance about what language > >> studies > >>>> are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >> Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>> from > >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>>> like to cite > >>> published > >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for > >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking > >>>>> for. The > >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>>> 'Whenever I > >>> ???re > >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > >> > >> "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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC184DE.7060000 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Brian, > You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified > and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in > that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though > that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think > of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately > address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did > not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed > away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for > composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers > their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that > many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never > achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the > generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win > Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a > resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use > it, and that is not a finite goal. > What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on > both sides. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fr > ench nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >>> > >>> Dick > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon. > ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing li > nguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 > *************************************** > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 19:57:54 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:57:54 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I forgot to add a few Edge articles where folks mention linguistics Here are few off I'm aware of...they make reference to linguistics in different ways...but it may be of interest. Mary Catherine Bateson Cultural Anthropologist http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bateson_crossing/bateson_index.html Murray Gell-Mann Physicist *http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gell-mann03/gell-mann_print.html Colin Renfrew Archeologist http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge24.html * Gloria Origgi Philospher http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/origgi06/origgi06_index.html I suspect there are a good number more. In fact some of the folks on the listserve have participated in interviews and discussions on the Edge with non-linguists if I recall. I think you can do a search on the sight...and of course all types respond to these pieces... Here is a link to the "bird brains" piece on PBS...this segment has Norbert Hornstein in it (if I rember)...which seemed odd in the context of the rest of the piece for some reason. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html and a further pbs blurb about the piece http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/03-brain.html The work is mostly about Erich Jarvis' work (a neuro-biologist I think). Cheers, Shannon On Fri, Oct 22, 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. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Brian MacWhinney) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC0738C.3020900 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I > co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar > instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in > literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native > language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as > little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's > language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in > literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single > course in language, which may include theories about why teaching > directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the > sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely > independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer > to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little > background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > > has influenced schools in England" > > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > > official curriculum. > > > > Dick > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz, > >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't > >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of > >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school > >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at > >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be > >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see > >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for > >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't > >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from > >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more > >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see > >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >> > >> Dick (Hudson) > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> > >>> > >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but > >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary > >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes > >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the > >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So > >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are > >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department > >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers > >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined > >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room > >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for > >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY > >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>> ignorance about what language studies are. > >>> > >>> Olga > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>> > >>> Professor and Chair > >>> > >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>> > >>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>> > >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>> > >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>> > >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>> Newmeyer > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>> To: Funknet > >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, > >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance > >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance > >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 > From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" > Subject: [FUNKNET] The view of mathematicians is quite negative > To: > Message-ID: <8D347151772C4604A66263301B32B2DD at ngufa28a6c2639> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and > linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics > is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is > that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That > means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I > began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic > journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. > Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other > linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or > that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist > knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, > one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is > applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric > family. They put Hungarian > into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and > Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. > Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. > May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it > into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many > linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should > say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to > this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite > interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. > What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 > languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has > the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is > that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in > linguistics to yutam > b at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, > Russia. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fren > ch nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > > > > Craig > > > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that > linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >> > >> Dick > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> Dear Fritz, > >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon.u > cl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>> > >>> Dick (Hudson) > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>> Fritz, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing lin > guistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>> > >>>> Olga > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>> > >>>> Professor and Chair > >>>> > >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>> > >>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>> > >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>> > >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>> > >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>> To: Funknet > >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --fritz > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>> > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Funknet" > Message-ID: > <529225deab90693320421ae01a944fb7.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your > purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: > > "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about > academics." > > from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > > Roger Schank comes to mind > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> John, > >> > >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars > >> in > >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > >> foreign > >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend > >> the > >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did > >> not > >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently > >> spared > >> this.) It was a complete farce. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > >>> for > >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >>> > >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >>>> important > >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. > >>>> In my > >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > >>>> intention > >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory > >>>> course > >>>> to > >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in > >>>> linguistics. > >>>> At > >>>> the > >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of > >>>> internal > >>>> and > >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to > >>>> that > >>>> chunk of knowledge: > >>>> > >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >>>> cochlear > >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >>>> teaching > >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >>>> re-education; > >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >>>> history, > >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >>>> social > >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, > >>>> ethics, > >>>> intercultural studies, etc. > >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >>>> history of > >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, > >>>> etc. > >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >>>> better > >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, > >>>> of > >>>> the > >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the > >>>> building > >>>> of > >>>> nationhoods, etc. > >>>> > >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >>>> French > >>>> and, > >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic > >>>> knowledge > >>>> in > >>>> their other class discussions. > >>>> > >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics > >>>> makes > >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware > >>>> that > >>>> their > >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, > >>>> jurists, > >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, > >>>> translators, > >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > >>>> > >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >>>> linguist, I > >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have > >>>> no > >>>> problem > >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful > >>>> and > >>>> also > >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) > >>>> > >>>> Danielle > >>>> > >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >>>> somewhere. I > >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know > >>>> who > >>>> the > >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom > >>>> without > >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > >>>> > >>>> "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." > >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >>>> > >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>>>> in > >>>>> general. > >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>>>> English-speaking > >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language > >>>>> classes > >>>> will > >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>>>> they're > >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language > >>>>> teaching > >>>>> is > >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to > >>>>> linguistics. > >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>>>> stock > >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>>>> bias > >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >>>>>> language > >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where > >>>>>> grammar > >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a > >>>>>> country > >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its > >>>>>> contribution to > >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see > >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > do > >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>>>> countries > >>>>>> such as Spain - see > >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>>>> attitudes > >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>>>> important > >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>>>> especially > >>>>> in > >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > >>>>>> society. > >>>>> We > >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > >>>> you're > >>>>> a > >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > >>>> there > >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>>>> department > >>>>>> did > >>>>> it > >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >>>> accented > >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>>>> scholars > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> practitioners in one room > >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>>>> Oregon's > >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large > >>>>>> and > >>>> make > >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>>>> linguistics > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on > >>>>>> budget > >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > >>>> studies > >>>>>> are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>>> Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>>>> value, > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > >>>>> published > >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > >>>>>> particular > >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>>>>>> The > >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever > >>>>>> I > >>>>> ???re > >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 > From: "Thomas E. Payne" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: > Message-ID: <1621CEF7903E473FA6F34D2EC4A664CF at TEPAYNEPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they > are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory > tower" idealists. > > I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry > Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are > bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the > USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School > Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The > people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to > attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught > who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were > apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > > > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general > >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students > >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them > >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more > >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory > >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached > >> to that chunk of knowledge: > >> > >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among > >> others; > >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >> re-education; > >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, > >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, > >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. > >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of > ideas, etc. > >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's > >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of > >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. > >> > >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, > >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon > >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and > >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class > >> discussions. > >> > >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying > >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. > >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them > >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, > >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, > >> etc. etc. etc. > >> > >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such > >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that > >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and > >> happiness :) > >> > >> Danielle > >> > >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, > >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am > >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you > recognize its source? > >> > >> "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." > >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >> > >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>> in general. > >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that > >>> foreign language classes > >> will > >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign > >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the > connection to linguistics. > >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>> > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything > >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language > >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts > >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the > >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding > >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would > >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know > >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love > >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics > >>>> for education (see > >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I > >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>> countries such as Spain - see > >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>> attitudes > >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>> important > >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>> especially > >>> in > >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > society. > >>> We > >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of > >>>> "Oh, > >> you're > >>> a > >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings > >>>> out > >> there > >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>> department did > >>> it > >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >> accented > >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room > >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>>> at large and > >> make > >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany > >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>>> ignorance about what language > >> studies > >>>> are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >> Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>> from > >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>>> like to cite > >>> published > >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for > >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking > >>>>> for. The > >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>>> 'Whenever I > >>> ???re > >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > >> > >> "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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC184DE.7060000 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Brian, > You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified > and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in > that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though > that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think > of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately > address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did > not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed > away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for > composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers > their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that > many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never > achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the > generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win > Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a > resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use > it, and that is not a finite goal. > What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on > both sides. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fr > ench nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >>> > >>> Dick > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon. > ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing li > nguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 > *************************************** > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 22 21:33:52 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:33:52 -0600 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona Message-ID: Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: ==================== Dear All, I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing neuroimaging work. I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how research is conducted. This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no interest. And, if linguists are interested in data: -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. -Dianne From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 23 04:55:42 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:55:42 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: Well, here's my contribution or two to this discussion. As you'll see from what follows, I don't believe I qualify as an outsider to this field at all, though others may disagree. Anyway, I might just squeeze in as a "literary specialist" under your categories, Dr. Newmeyer. First, a confession: I've never been at a loss when asked how many languages I speak, the answer is five fluently (six, including British English) plus large or small pieces of a dozen others. Brief version of what follows: You're not really a linguist unless you can speak, translate from, more or less translate into, make at least half-way clever puns, read, understand local street signs and ads, grasp the political and social undertones, comprehend cultural & religious factors, experience the climatic & topographical realities, write at least first-drafts of articles, and know some of the popular songs in all of your languages. Not to mention publish non-academic articles, poetry, or fiction in your primary language. So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a language," without bothering to mention whether by "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is spoken back to you, translate in either direction, or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but never comes remotely near actually achieving them. Just theorizing about languages simply doesn't cut it, however elaborate your theory may be. Not all the data in the world will save you. All you've been doing is stamp collecting. Really knowing a language or languages entails knowing how to design, mint, print, and even circulate the stamps yourself and watch the locals accept them as genuine. Here's a more extended view--it comes straight from my recently published book "THE UNTOLD SIXTIES: When Hope Was Born," subtitled "An Insider's Sixties on an International Scale." You'll find this passage in the final chapter, where I discuss how the Sixties succeeded, and where they failed. Linguistics definitely ends up in the latter category. ------------------------------------ One field that truly did not surge ahead during the Sixties was the study of language, rather it would mutate in just a few decades from a remarkably liberal outlook to an almost completely reactionary stance. The Forties and Fifties saw the growth and development of two forces that could have led to enhanced communication between all peoples everywhere. First, the descriptivist school, championed by Whorf and Sapir, which sought to bring about more accurate cross-cultural understanding between remarkably diverse societies. And second, the once quite powerful semanticist movement, which established broad principles for helping people to understand each other within our own society. Unfortunately both were sidetracked before they could fully realize their goals, leaving behind today little more than the words semantics and semantic. This turnaround was engineered by a small clique of doctrinaire linguists, who launched a pseudoscientific campaign against these earlier movements. It was organized around the dubious notion that peoples of all nations are basically saying the same thing, if only we can figure out the principles that unite the world's languages. Culture was demoted as a linguistic force in favor of converting language into mathematical terms as computer code. This ancient and provably false idea--in itself no more profound than the still widely believed notion that anyone can master a language in a month, a week, a weekend, perhaps no more than a few hours--has largely taken over almost all current linguistic research. Those who do not follow it are often caught up in a wasteful struggle to resist it. Advocates of these ideas were able to accomplish this feat thanks to vast funding from the US government and its Department of Defense, itself desperate to believe that an easy way of translating all languages into all other languages could be found, if only to expedite waging war and occupying foreign lands. Key to this objective was something called computer or "machine" translation, which as anyone who has ever seen it in action can testify, does not work, can not work, and will not ever work for any but the most rudimentary translation tasks. The same point can be phrased somewhat differently. While most people in our culture believe they live and deal with something they call reality, to a fair extent this "reality" has always been at least partially a linguistic construct, determined by the culture itself. Other people in other cultures live and deal with what are often significantly different "realities," grounded in their own languages. In other words, the true mission facing linguists during the Sixties was not an abstract or theoretical one, it was rather practical and utilitarian in nature. Ironically, had it been accomplished, it might have solved some theoretical problems and suggested answers for others. Over the last fifty years our professional linguists ought to have been busy describing and demarcating precisely how and where these "realities" differ from one another. It would have been of enormous benefit to both individuals and entire societies if our linguists had in fact been working on this task. But instead almost an entire generation of linguists has in fact missed this point altogether. Instead of helping to identify and bridge the many gaps between various culturally determined "realities," they have themselves fallen into the very trap they ought to have been saving the rest of us from. They too have set up their own private version of "linguistic reality," which they cling to just as tenaciously as non-linguists do. This leaves them in no position to seek out solutions to linguistic and cultural problems, for they have themselves become such a problem. Worst of all, their totally mistaken view of language attempts to completely ignore the basic problem by claiming that on some exotic level all languages are truly alike. They invoke all manner of linguistic and computational logic to prove how totally right they are, while languages remain impervious to their arguments and simply go on their own quite divergent ways. Some of the leaders of this movement affect an independent leftwing outlook, but they rarely took part in the Sixties causes described in these pages--rather, they have most often been content to embrace dated, warmed-over cold-war rhetoric. Overlooked through all these decades has been the unavoidable truth that the primary purpose of language has never been communication. Rather, that purpose has been and remains even today to persuade ourselves against all odds that we understand the world and what is happening around us. To reassure ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. Languages can improvise structures and grammars to serve this purpose, a crucial concept totally overlooked by mainstream linguistic theory, transforming the search for a universal structure or grammar into a purely quixotic one. The study of linguistics, above all others, ought to have been deeply rooted in this principle, and if practicing linguists could have based their study on this truth, they could have provided us with useful insights into all aspects of our lives. Instead, they themselves have merely fallen into the same trap, that they believe they know what they are talking about when often they do not. Fifty years of study have been largely wasted by those promoting and/or debating theories of little worth. My many published papers, articles, and conference presentations on these themes can be found on my website. ---------------- A footnote from an earlier version of this section reads: More information under the linguistics menu at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm but also under the translation and language menus at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/trandex.htm and http://language.home.sprynet.com/langdex.htm ----------- You can find out more about the book at: www.untoldsixties.net With very best wishes to everyone! Alex Gross ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" To: "Funknet" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:12 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary > specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics > for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From ebabaii at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 07:46:00 2010 From: ebabaii at gmail.com (Esmat Babaii) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:16:00 +0330 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Fritz, I want to share what I witnessed in a conference on (theoretical) Linguistics held at an Iranian university years ago, but I don’t know if this incidence is relevant to what you are after. A famous neurologist, who was and is also doing neurolinguistic research, at the beginning of his lecture on ‘brain and language’ addresses the conference manager, a famous linguist, thanking him (a bit ironically) as follows (in Persian): “Thanks for letting a ‘sack maker’ to the circle of ‘silk weavers’! Well, I can’t shape language like linguists. So please excuse me if my speech lacks the expected delicacy and linguistic sophistication. I speak with facts and figures and I think they can speak for themselves”. I guess, he wanted to say that talk and only talk is what linguists do. I should add that this kind of attitude towards linguists (and other social science scholars) can be found among most scholars in pure sciences. Best Esmat Babaii Tarbiat Moallem University Tehran On 10/20/10, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people > outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of > value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes > from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their > views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns > and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me > to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late > computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I fire a > linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 23 08:21:39 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:21:39 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or is it your own idea? Best wishes, John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sat Oct 23 10:46:46 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:46:46 +0100 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC20340.2020902@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Fritz and everyone else, All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about them. If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous strengths as well. Best wishes, Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: > > ==================== > > > Dear All, > I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I > second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a > Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. > I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done > fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years > doing neuroimaging work. > > I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology > and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School > Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of > touch with how research is conducted. > > This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists > might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more > willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of > people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a > trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in > their approach: > > -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that > humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT > a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it > obvious) > > -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and > never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer > (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). > > -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no > interest. > And, if linguists are interested in data: > > -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great > expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who > has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free > ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) > > -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm > Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab > rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) > I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with > that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just > avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some > unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists > give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. > > -Dianne > > > From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 23 12:34:51 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:34:51 -0700 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC2BD16.7040506@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language in question. While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the field, because their contributions were not accepted. Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting value as Grimm's Law. Best, --Aya On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz and everyone else, > > All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which is > a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, partly > thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you > want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his > work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other > disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' > better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the > extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define > a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have > plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics > or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative > analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about > them. > > If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative > clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do > better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of the > world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may > wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've been > at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. > Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our subject > matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, > incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex systems, > all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more or > less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from > philosophy to neuroscience. > > I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love it. > I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous strengths > as well. > > Best wishes, Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >> >> >> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >> >> ==================== >> >> >> Dear All, >> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done fieldwork >> in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing >> neuroimaging work. >> >> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School Chomskian >> perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how >> research is conducted. >> >> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists might >> be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more willing to >> appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these >> fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended >> scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: >> >> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans are >> "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a scientific >> hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >> >> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and never >> bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., well >> vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >> >> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >> interest. >> And, if linguists are interested in data: >> >> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense to >> acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has contributed >> nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good way >> to ingratiate yourself) >> >> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique problem >> solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more >> reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >> >> -Dianne >> >> >> > > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Oct 23 17:40:18 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <1287822099.4cc29b13a36bf@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. --fritz ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or > is it your own idea? > Best wishes, > John > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 23 18:51:31 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, contradicting the premise of the article? I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which aren't consistent with what's really going on. Best wishes, John Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, > I'd > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is > this? > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article > or > > is it your own idea? > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 23 19:52:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, First, Shannon is a he, not a she. Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' side of the field either. Best, TG ========================= john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >>> >> I'd >> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >>> >> this? >> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >>> >> or >> >>> is it your own idea? >>> Best wishes, >>> John >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Oct 24 04:23:42 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz: The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. Lise Menn > >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (Brian MacWhinney) >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au Sun Oct 24 04:33:30 2010 From: andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au (Andrew Pawley) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 Subject: A question for Fritz Message-ID: Dear Fritz > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics  > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other  > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among  > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.  I’m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.  Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.  In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).  Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,  especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin’s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.  In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.  And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.   Regards Andy Pawley _______ > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, I'd > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > people in > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > article is this? > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > the article or > >is it your own idea? > >Best wishes, > >John > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University> > From language at sprynet.com Sun Oct 24 06:06:47 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists. Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first came out fifteen years ago at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can be found at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and gained the impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. Very best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lise Menn" To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > Fritz: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > Lise Menn >> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 24 07:44:46 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. John Quoting alex gross : > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Fritz: > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > Lise Menn > >> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dan at daneverett.org Sun Oct 24 14:52:40 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andy, This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so on). But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the contributions are perhaps more variable. Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss (though see my obituary of L-S here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' of each language). I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly reminded me of his valuable contributions. -- Dan On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > Dear Fritz > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I’m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin’s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies. > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. > Regards > Andy Pawley From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Oct 24 16:06:07 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, since the article has not been published yet. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >>> Fritz: >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> Lise Menn >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Oct 24 16:14:26 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Andrew, We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to find me). I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were cited a day or two ago. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > Dear Fritz > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics  > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other  > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among  > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.  I’m thinking in > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.  Word lists showing close resemblances between > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.  In modern times the syntheses of SE > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest > in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).  Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course, > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > generalisations, which brings me to > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,  especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin’s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.  In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.  > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.   > > Regards > > Andy Pawley > > _______ > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > generated, I'd > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > people in > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > article is this? > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > the article or > > >is it your own idea? > > >Best wishes, > > >John > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University> > > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Sun Oct 24 16:52:04 2010 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a later stage. Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical linguistics outside of our field.) Greetings, Martin Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: > Hi, Andrew, > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were > cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I’m thinking in >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >> interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin’s >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> societies. >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> >> Regards >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> From macw at cmu.edu Sun Oct 24 17:25:27 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:25:27 -0400 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <4CC46434.6000408@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same experience. 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. -- Brian MacWhinney From kemmer at rice.edu Sun Oct 24 17:27:00 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:27:00 -0500 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Re: "The Human Language" documentary of the early 90s: I have a different take from Alex Gross's on why the Searchinger video presents the nativist story of language put out by generative linguistics. Like Fritz, I don't think there were any particular political aims on the part of Gene Searchinger, although the linguists featured obviously wanted to promote their views in bringing linguistics to the attention of the public. Liz Bates told me back when the program came out that she was interviewed for it and so were various other people she knew who did not take anything like a generative perspective on language. In taped interviews they presented their own views on how language is acquired via learning and generalization of patterns, and massive amounts of experience, and on what the striking and crucial cognitive capacities of humans that make language possible are: Not recursion, but the human cognitive and social capacities involved in meaning construction, interaction, pattern generalization, plus a neural architecture of great plasticity, involving massive numbers of potential neural connections that then develop into actual connections by experience and that allow (via repeated reactivation) massive amounts of memory for language patterns and experiential patterns in general. But only the quotes of the generative linguists made it into the program, probably because the filmmaker was looking for a simple narrative to get across to the general public. From all the interviews he did, he discerned a viewpoint--probably the majority view among the names he got of people to interview-- that made a simple unified and instantly graspable story, and one that seemed 'sanctioned' by the main stream of the field. So he left the rest out. I also remember in the program the pronouncement by an east coast linguist close to Chomsky, "MOST OF LANGUAGE IS INNATE". This was rendered with great emphasis and the air of a major discovery. It was obvious to me that the general public is never going to think about how we could possibly quantify language to make a statement like that make any sense at all. Those who read his work, including the generative professors I studied with, know that for Chomsky, all that counts as "Language" is the "core" of language-- an ever-shrinking set of rules accounting for an ever-shrinking data set. What now remains of the core (in the papers co-authored with Fitch and the recently exposed research cheat Hauser) is what Chomsky terms "the Narrow Capacity of Language" --which basically equates to recursion. Everything that scholars outside this tradition, linguists or not, have considered important to human language, including its function and operation in communication -- has no place in any of his theories. These aspects ("Broad Capacity" stuff) are only mentioned in Chomsky's "evolutionary" papers (aimed at Cognitive Scientists) to dismiss them as being unimportant to his concerns. I don't think the psychologists and other non-linguists taking Chomsky as the reference point for linguistics have ever understood just how bizarrely limited his view of what 'counts' as human language really is. That is, even if they ever read more than small parts of his papers, which are notoriously difficult to read. I venture to suggest than many only read the conclusions, skipping both the 'technical junk' for linguists and all of the qualifying and hedging that you can find in Chomsky's work if you look for it. Many people seem to take such hedges as just 'careful scientist' rhetorical filler, not noticing how centrally these hedges affect whether his theories even apply to what they are interested in about language. My view: The most prominent psychologist writing about language to Cognitive Scientists and the general public, Steve Pinker, stuck to the Chomskyan line about innate structures for a long while, explaining the story in the _Language Instinct_ essentially in the form of an early model of generative linguistics, without all the but then had his spectacular blow-up with Chomsky when the latter in the Fitch and Hauser co-authored papers started talking about evolution and language (a subject he had famously dismissed before, because in his view "Language" didn't evolve. ) Pinker, in his reaction paper co-authored with Jackendoff, said that Chomsky had done a big turnabout on that subject, but Chomsky replied in another paper saying his view was consistent all along. No wonder psychologists in general couldn't follow all this. Suzanne On Oct 24, 2010, at 1:06 AM, alex gross wrote: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:32:57 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:32:57 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Dr. Newmeyer, all, Attached is a talk given by Geoffrey K. Pullum that mentions some of the mathematical problems of generative grammar (there may be further references within). Also attached is Nancy Ritter's introduction to the special volume of the Linguistic Review on the status to generative linguistics as cognitive science. Cheers, Shannon On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >   2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >   3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) >   4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) >   5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) >   6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) >   7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >      (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >   8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) >   9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >      (Frederick J Newmeyer) >  10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >  11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: >         > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd >> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? >> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or >> is it your own idea? >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >> I'd >> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >> this? >> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >> or >> > is it your own idea? >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , >        "Bickerton, Derek" > Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Dear John, > > First, Shannon is a  he, not a she. > > Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about > linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with > Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). > > Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY > Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists"  (= Chomsky) are > explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. > > One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose > of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling.  In 1992 Walter Kintch, a > well-known  psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following > quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for > being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated > discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians > gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most > psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him > totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical  predictions"), they are > reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who > was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The > entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his > tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him > was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational > types, and  Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This > has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The > best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) > altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef > Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had > some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). > > All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And > it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing > "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and > disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from > my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines > (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, > primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some > substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' > side of the field either. > > Best,  TG > > ========================= > > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Fritz, >> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously >> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the >> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have >> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> contradicting the premise of the article? >> >> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed >> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little >> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there >> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan >> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that >> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration >> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a >> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences >> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest >> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that >> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a >> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> >> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics >> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be >> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either >> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or >> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their >> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which >> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> >> >>> John, >>> >>> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >>> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >>> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >>> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >>> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >>> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >>> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >>>> >>> I'd >>> >>>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >>>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >>>> >>> this? >>> >>>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >>>> >>> or >>> >>>> is it your own idea? >>>> Best wishes, >>>> John >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Fritz: >        The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The > Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics > and linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course. > >        Lise Menn >> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>     (Brian MacWhinney) >>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 > From: Andrew Pawley > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Fritz > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > Regards > Andy Pawley > _______ >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, I'd >> >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> people in >> >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> article is this? >> >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> the article or >> >is it your own idea? >> >Best wishes, >> >John >> > >> >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> -------- >> >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Lise Menn" ,       "Frederick J Newmeyer" >         > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >        reply-type=response > >> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists. > > Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing >> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and >> linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>     (Brian MacWhinney) >>>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.  Payne) >>>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: alex gross > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, >        Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > >> > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >> being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> > Fritz: >> > The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and >> > linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > >> > Lise Menn >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Today's Topics: >> >>> >> >>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>>     (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.  Payne) >> >>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, >        Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Andy, > > This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in numerous popular books, leading to  the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so on). > > But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' contributions to world knowledge.  It is possible that interactions between linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the contributions are perhaps more variable. > > Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss (though see my obituary of L-S here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' of each language). > > I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly reminded me of his valuable contributions. > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.  I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.  Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.  In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).  Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,  especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.  In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies. >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> Regards >> Andy Pawley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: >         > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something >> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to >> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to >> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily >> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed >> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) >> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting alex gross : >> >>>> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>>> linguists. >>> >>> Thanks, Lise!  And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >>> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >>> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >>> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >>> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >>> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >>> being done.  You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >>> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >>> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >>> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >>> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >>> be found at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >>> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >>> gained the >>> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >>> >>> Very best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Lise Menn" >>> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>>> Fritz: >>>> The Gene Searchinger  films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The  Writing >>>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics  and >>>> linguists.  And 'The Linguists', of course. >>>> >>>> Lise Menn >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>>> >>>>>>  1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>>>  2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>>>>  3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>>     (Brian MacWhinney) >>>>>>  4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>>>>  5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E.  Payne) >>>>>>  6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: >         > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, Andrew, > > We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to find me). > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> >> Regards >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------- >> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > University> >> > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 > From: Martin Haspelmath > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed > > To Andy Pawley's list of  highly regarded achievements of linguistics, > one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last > 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and > quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. > > Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and > dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts > and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a > later stage. > > Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least > in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of > Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). > > While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with > long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the > conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also > recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out > about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the > Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that > generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, > probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical > linguistics outside of our field.) > > Greetings, > Martin > > Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >> Hi, Andrew, >> >> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >> historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >> fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >> Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >> historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, >> etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >> cited a day or two ago. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >>> Dear Fritz >>> >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy.  In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.  I?m thinking in >>> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> >>> (i) Historical linguistics.  In the 18th century, and especially >>> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >>> Pacific.  Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> evidence then available.  In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> interest >>> in the fine points of theories of language change.  What they care >>> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> >>> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >>> Island SE Asia and the Pacific).  Work on the history of >>> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >>> intellectual history.  Darwin was among the first to comment on close >>> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> >>> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most enduring legacies of linguistic research.  Of course, >>> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >>> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> generalisations, which brings me to >>> >>> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >>> associates.  In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> societies. >>> >>> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Andy Pawley >>> >>> _______ >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > Fraser University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > generated, I'd >>> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > people in >>> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > article is this? >>> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > the article or >>> > >is it your own idea? >>> > >Best wishes, >>> > >John >>> > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 > *************************************** > From kemmer at rice.edu Sun Oct 24 18:09:49 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:09:49 -0500 Subject: left out a phrase Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: oops, I left out the phrase 'complications of later versions' in the later part of my posting -- the text should read: ...Steve Pinker[,] stuck to the Chomskyan line about innate structures for a long while, explaining the story in the _Language Instinct_ essentially in the form of an early model of generative linguistics, without all the COMPLICATIONS OF LATER VERSIONS, but then had his spectacular blow-up with Chomsky ... --------------------- I just saw Brian's message, which confirms what Liz told me. I took the single-view perspective in the program to be the result of just a filmmaker looking for a story and, as journalists do, finding some people willing to tell the simple story. Suzanne From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 24 18:18:49 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:18:49 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, What you've written here certainly doesn't seem at all inconsistent with the interpretation I had. As you describe it, it seems difficult to ascribe any intention to the issue other than self-congratulations and self-promotion. It's difficult for me to imagine a journal in any other academic field being devoted to discussion of the question 'why is our line of research so prestigious among other academic disciplines?' In physics? In sociology? In psychology? In literature? In chemistry? In history? That generativists could even think that this is a topic to be discussed in a journal suggests that something pretty weird is going on with regards to substance vs. image. Best wishes, John Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of > a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a > generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given > that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much > prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, > since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy > to > > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. > >> > >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > >> > >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > >> came out fifteen years ago at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > >> > >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > >> > >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > >> be found at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > >> > >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > >> gained the > >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > >> > >> Very best to everyone! > >> > >> alex > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Lise Menn" > >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> > >> > >>> Fritz: > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > >>> > >>> Lise Menn > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Today's Topics: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sun Oct 24 19:04:21 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:04:21 +0100 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz: Just in case you haven't seen this already. Dick Ferreira, Fernanda (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. /The Linguistic Review/ *22*. 365-380. ABSTRACT: In the 1980s, Charles Clifton referred to a "psycholinguistic renaissance" in cognitive science. During that time, there was almost unanimous agreement that any self-respecting psycholinguist would make sure to keep abreast of major developments in generative grammar, because a competence model was essential, and the linguistic theory was the proper description of that competence. But today, many psycholinguists are disenchanted with generative grammar. One reason is that the Minimalist Program is difficult to adapt to processing models. Another is that generative theories appear to rest on a weak empirical foundation, due to the reliance on informally gathered grammaticality judgments. What can be done to remedy the situation? First, formal linguists might follow Ray Jackendoff's recent suggestion that they connect their work more closely to research in the rest of cognitive science. Second, syntactic theory should develop a better methodology for collecting data about whether a sentence is good or bad. A set of standards for creating examples, testing them on individuals, analyzing the results, and reporting findings in published work should be established. If these two ideas were considered, linguistic developments might once again be relevant to the psycholinguistic enterprise. Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 24/10/2010 18:25, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. > > 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. > > 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same experience. > > 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. > > 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. > > 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > From slobin at berkeley.edu Sun Oct 24 19:25:41 2010 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:25:41 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since I did appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions about language, thought, and culture. As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and gave him the first list of people to contact. And though Gene used some of my material, he juxtaposed me with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't there. But Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, leaving a rather muddled and spotty collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the films, you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but other directions too: Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, Lila Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, Alvin Liberman, Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Golinkoff, Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, Ursula Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, Morris Halle, Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca Eilers, Jane Robinson, Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene Dan Slobin At 10:25 AM 10/24/2010, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief >commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, >according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. > >1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in >Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence >on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the >subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism >was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship >systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School >phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb >Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon >thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so >binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of >transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of >grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of >this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted >earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My >understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology >in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but >to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. > >2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on >the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on >language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was >not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and >Catherine Snow had the same experience. > >3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit >complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky >speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their >ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review >and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a >tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within >linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from >genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are >more compatible with these alternative views. > >4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my >mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there >is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they >improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of >respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory >to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata >theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky >hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other >characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar >induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as >a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are >showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic >analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for >endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori >Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists >trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the >challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important >areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. > >5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a >part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, >although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot >of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, >sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. > >-- Brian MacWhinney ****************************************************************************************************************************************** Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley address: email: slobin at berkeley.edu 2323 Rose St. phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 Berkeley, CA 94708, USA http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html ****************************************************************************************************************************************** From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 24 19:31:23 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:31:23 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sid Caesar? On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since I did > appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions about language, > thought, and culture. > As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and gave him the > first list of people to contact. And though Gene used some of my material, > he juxtaposed me > with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't there. But > Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, leaving a rather > muddled and spotty > collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the films, > you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but other directions too: > Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, Lila > Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, Alvin Liberman, > Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. > Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry > Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, > Roberta Golinkoff, Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, > Ursula Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah > Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, Morris Halle, > Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca Eilers, Jane Robinson, > Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene > > Dan Slobin > > At 10:25 AM 10/24/2010, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything >> mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but >> let me add a few more wrinkles. >> >> 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in >> Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the >> development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive >> Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as >> Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive >> feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions >> were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both >> Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital >> computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of >> transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar >> as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the >> 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought >> this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this >> linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures >> in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. >> >> 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone >> about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and >> emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to >> develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same >> experience. >> >> 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. >> Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for >> linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system >> functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any >> lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the >> range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they >> offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics >> (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. >> >> 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is >> the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous >> claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their >> grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other >> hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the >> 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students >> still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests >> that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in >> grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web >> as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are >> showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And >> there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and >> under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues >> are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and >> SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. >> So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in >> reintroducing linguistics. >> >> 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part >> of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although >> personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and >> respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, >> aphasiology, and so on. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney > > > ****************************************************************************************************************************************** > Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, University > of California, Berkeley > address: email: > slobin at berkeley.edu > 2323 Rose St. phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94708, USA > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > ****************************************************************************************************************************************** > > From mark at polymathix.com Sun Oct 24 21:19:09 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:19:09 -0500 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC2BD16.7040506@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: With apologies for extracting a parenthetical and turning it into an actual point: Dick wrote: "(OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.)" I think that if Chomsky had been doing science -- i.e. grounding his work in scientific method -- then we could ask the question about how much of Chomsky's work produced scientifically valid statements about human language. That's the question about "right" and "wrong" I'd like to be able to ask. Sadly, Chomsky eschewed scientific method, and explicitly so (to the point of ridiculing his critics for expecting him to follow what he called "naive falsificationism"). So if Chomsky did produce any statements about human language that can now be held to be scientifically valid, it's because he thought long and hard enough about language that he was occasionally able to make statements that could be interpreted (by others) as proper hypotheses. But it's not because Chomsky did the science. The same would be true of, say, Wittgenstein, or of any other philosopher of language. So the question about Chomsky's work being "right" or "wrong" has the same import as if we were asking about Wittgenstein or Kierkegaard. Work in philosophy is seldom considered "right" unless a successful stream of scientific discovery can be related back to it. Work in philosophy is seldom considered "wrong" unless it is shown to be internally inconsistent or else grossly incompatible with current scientific thinking. So was all of Chomsky's work "wrong"? No, probably not -- any intelligent philosopher of language is bound to be able to throw enough Jell-O at the wall that something will eventually stick when seen through the lens of scientific method. But did Chomsky advance the science of human language? Well, if he did, it was by accident. So, as a recovering Chomsky-basher, I'd like to put him on a pedestal right up there with all the great philosophers of language. Then I'd like to see academic linguistics become self-aware about the way it does, or should be doing, science. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz and everyone else, > > All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? > Which is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 > years, partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your > bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would > be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question > to ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but > whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is > a particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in > linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept > 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of > colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or > field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative > analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know > about them. > > If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative > clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can > do better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest > of the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, > and may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but > we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are > trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of > insight into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet > achieved? And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 > completely different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be > reconciled with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch > of neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. > > I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I > love it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has > enormous strengths as well. > > Best wishes, Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >> >> >> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >> >> ==================== >> >> >> Dear All, >> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >> fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years >> doing neuroimaging work. >> >> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology >> and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >> Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of >> touch with how research is conducted. >> >> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >> might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >> willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of >> people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a >> trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in >> their approach: >> >> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that >> humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT >> a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it >> obvious) >> >> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >> never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer >> (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >> >> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >> interest. >> And, if linguists are interested in data: >> >> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great >> expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who >> has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free >> ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) >> >> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with >> that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just >> avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some >> unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists >> give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >> >> -Dianne >> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From mark at polymathix.com Sun Oct 24 21:33:01 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:33:01 -0500 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm in violent agreement with Aya here. A. Katz wrote: > If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb > paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language > in question. And if the world wants to know about language typology, they'll want to consult a linguist, who may or may not be fluent in any L2 at all. It turns out that you don't have to be fluent in lots of languages in order to study similarities and differences among languages. If you're studying hundreds or thousands of languages, then fluency in your subject languages is not even practical. > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. *raises hand* > Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest > impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual > ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. > > There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate > ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask > ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting > value as Grimm's Law. There are plenty of academic linguists who have been able to walk that fine line between bucking Chomskyan orthodoxy and staying on a tenure track. That was easier to do outside the States, but some of us failed even there. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz and everyone else, >> >> All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? >> Which is >> a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, >> partly >> thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me >> if you >> want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if >> his >> work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good >> other >> disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our >> job' >> better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the >> extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to >> define >> a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we >> have >> plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based >> sociolinguistics >> or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative >> analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know >> about >> them. >> >> If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative >> clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can >> do >> better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of >> the >> world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may >> wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've >> been >> at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. >> Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our >> subject >> matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, >> incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex >> systems, >> all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more >> or >> less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from >> philosophy to neuroscience. >> >> I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I >> love it. >> I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous >> strengths >> as well. >> >> Best wishes, Dick >> >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >>> >>> ==================== >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >>> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >>> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >>> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >>> fieldwork >>> in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing >>> neuroimaging work. >>> >>> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >>> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >>> Chomskian >>> perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how >>> research is conducted. >>> >>> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >>> might >>> be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >>> willing to >>> appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these >>> fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended >>> scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: >>> >>> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans >>> are >>> "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a >>> scientific >>> hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >>> >>> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >>> never >>> bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., >>> well >>> vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >>> >>> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >>> interest. >>> And, if linguists are interested in data: >>> >>> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great >>> expense to >>> acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has >>> contributed >>> nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good >>> way >>> to ingratiate yourself) >>> >>> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >>> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >>> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >>> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >>> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >>> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique >>> problem >>> solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more >>> reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >>> >>> -Dianne >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From slobin at berkeley.edu Sun Oct 24 21:35:13 2010 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:35:13 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: yup - from his Show of Show clips, speaking meaninglessly in what sounded like various languages - another side of linguistics in the popular imagination? At 12:31 PM 10/24/2010, A. Katz wrote: >Sid Caesar? > >On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since >>I did appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions >>about language, thought, and culture. >>As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and >>gave him the first list of people to contact. And though Gene used >>some of my material, he juxtaposed me >>with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't >>there. But Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, >>leaving a rather muddled and spotty >>collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the >>films, you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but >>other directions too: >>Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, >>Lila Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, >>Alvin Liberman, Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden >>Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry >>Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, >>Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Golinkoff, >>Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, Ursula >>Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah >>Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, >>Morris Halle, Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca >>Eilers, Jane Robinson, Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene >> >>Dan Slobin > > >****************************************************************************************************************************************** >Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, >University of California, Berkeley >address: email: >slobin at berkeley.edu >2323 Rose St. phone (home): >1-510-848-1769 >Berkeley, CA 94708, >USA >http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >****************************************************************************************************************************************** From language at sprynet.com Mon Oct 25 01:03:20 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:03:20 -0400 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona Message-ID: Thanks to Richard Hudson and Aya Katz for your thoughts! > I just think it would be extraordinary if his [Chomsky's] work had been > ALL wrong. Oddly enough, I have no problem at all with this notion. Would it really be helpful if his work turned out to be only 90% or 95% wrong? If you have not already seen it, you just might want to take a look at "44 Reasons Why the Chomskyans Are Mistaken" by myself and Sergio Navega. It comes in both a longish, full-text format and a small-chunk, easy-reading hypertext version, they're down at the bottom of the Linguistics menu at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm > But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other disciplines think > linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. To this question, I would juxtapose Aya Katz' point: > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. How could anyone else be doing your job better, when you have not even allowed them to begin trying to do so? When for at least three decades the whole field was steeped with so high a level of monomania and triumphalism that perhaps even its chief exponent might have noted with a certain sense of irony a similarity to Stalinism? When you have heaped so much ridicule on opposing theories that even more recent & relatively moderate observers like Pinker & Deutscher have also found it necessary to devalue the Whorf-Sapir approach? Precisely why have culture and local beliefs no place in the formation and hence also the analysis of language? I challenge any of you to answer this question without falling back into generative dogma and generative jargon. Also, why was it de rigueur over several decades for mainstreamers to pillory Whorf for his claim that the Inuit have a number of words for "snow," yet it suddenly became okay and primely Chomskyan for Searchinger in his film "The Human Language" to show that Arabic can have many words for "camel," replete with scenes of numerous snorting camels? I would love to hear a non-terminological, non-obfuscative answer to this question. All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Katz" To: "Richard Hudson" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona > If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb > paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language > in question. > > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. > > Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest > impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual > ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. > > There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate > ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask > ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting > value as Grimm's Law. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz and everyone else, >> >> All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which >> is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, >> partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks >> at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be >> extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to >> ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but whether >> anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is a >> particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in >> linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept >> 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of >> colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or >> field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative >> analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about >> them. >> >> If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative >> clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do >> better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of >> the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and >> may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but >> we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are >> trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight >> into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? >> And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely >> different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be reconciled >> with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch of >> neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. >> >> I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love >> it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous >> strengths as well. >> >> Best wishes, Dick >> >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >>> >>> ==================== >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >>> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >>> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >>> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >>> fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years >>> doing neuroimaging work. >>> >>> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >>> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >>> Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch >>> with how research is conducted. >>> >>> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >>> might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >>> willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people >>> in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of >>> offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their >>> approach: >>> >>> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans >>> are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a >>> scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >>> >>> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >>> never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer >>> (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >>> >>> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >>> interest. >>> And, if linguists are interested in data: >>> >>> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense >>> to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has >>> contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is >>> not a good way to ingratiate yourself) >>> >>> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >>> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >>> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >>> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >>> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >>> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique >>> problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the >>> more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >>> >>> -Dianne >>> >>> >>> >> >> > From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Mon Oct 25 08:09:57 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:09:57 +0100 Subject: Chomsky Message-ID: Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did that were right, and inspired good work. My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between gerunds and nominalisations. - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but not his morpheme-based analysis). - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his conclusions. - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later abandonment of the substance. I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. Dick Hudson -- Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Oct 25 08:44:05 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:44:05 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC53B55.8050508@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dick, (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all original--Jespersen made the same observations. (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's langue/parole. (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), although I'm not sure that I believe this. John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > that were right, and inspired good work. > > My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > gerunds and nominalisations. > - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > not his morpheme-based analysis). > - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > conclusions. > - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > abandonment of the substance. > I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > > And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > > Dick Hudson > > -- > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From ebabaii at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 09:24:17 2010 From: ebabaii at gmail.com (Esmat Babaii) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:54:17 +0330 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi John, Until a couple of years ago, Chomsky had been idolized in our linguistics departments that it would be a professional suicide if someone criticized his works, something like Andersen’s “Emperor’ New Suits” story! Interesting to read your comments. Esmat On 10/25/10, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> >> -- >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Mon Oct 25 09:22:36 2010 From: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se (Henrik Rosenkvist) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:22:36 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi! Some quotes from Talmy Givón, that might be of interest: [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Givón 1979:26). "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of the more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects – constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness and syntactic control – were matters I took for granted but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Givón 2001:xv) "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Givón 2001:xv) "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). I think one can see true development here... Henrik R. john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> >> -- >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > -- Henrik Rosenkvist docent, nordiska språk Språk- och litteraturcentrum Lunds universitet Box 201 221 00 Lund tel: 046-222 87 04 e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Henrik Rosenkvist Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages Dept. of Languages and Literature Lund University P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Mon Oct 25 10:20:40 2010 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:20:40 +0200 Subject: JOB: 2 positions in English Linguistics, Lille, France [URGENT action needed] Message-ID: This is a re-post of the job announcement sent out last week. People interested should go through the qualification procedure, deadline for this is Oct. 28, 16h00 (Paris time), so *only 2 days left*. The procedure is not all that complicated. Apologies for multiple postings. -------- Original Message -------- Two tenure track positions in English Linguistics, Université Lille3, France http://www.univ-lille3.fr !!! URGENT JOB NOTICE !!! Answer needed before Oct. 28, 2010 (see below)!!! The University of Lille 3, France, will have two tenure track positions available track position in English Linguistics, with the following profile: 1) Corpus linguistics, syntax 2) didactics (ESL) and/or language acquisition REQUIREMENTS The candidate must hold a PhD, or be sure to have a PhD in hand by December 1, 2010 at the latest, in the field of English Linguistics (or comparable, with good command of English) and have demonstrated expertise in this domain, through quality publication and solid teaching experience. The ideal candidate will engage in the further expansion of the corpus linguistics group (position 1) or the ESL teaching and research group (position 2) with the STL research center at the Université Lille 3 (http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/). Normal teaching load is about 7 hours per week (2 terms of 13 weeks) and concerns English linguistics classes, or possibly also English for non-specialists (ESP) (mostly undergraduate level). Hiring will be done at the level of "Maître de Conférences" (MCF) with a monthly salary scale ranging from 2,058 to 3,722 (before taxes and withholdings), depending on the number of years of experience at MCF level (i.e. most positions for which a PhD is required). Initially, there is no requirement that candidates speak French fluently, but it is preferred that they at least have a sufficient working knowledge to understand the procedures. The successful candidate must be authorized to work legally in France by Sept. 1, 2011, the start date of the position. PROCEDURE Candidates who are interested in this position should contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; please send along your CV too, so that he can check whether all's ok. (No need to send a full application to him, just the CV.) Meanwhile you can already start the first official step for candidates which is to register on-line for the QUALIFICATION by *October 28, 2011, 16:00* (Parisian time) on the official site of the Ministère de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche; https://www.galaxie.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/ensup/candidats.html on the right, click on "accès Galaxie/qualification" (you'll also see a link to the "calendrier" with important dates for the qualification MCF) The idea is that you need to get the qualification MCF before you can apply for a job as an MCF. People who hold a position of rank similar to MCF could apply without the qualification, but it is safer to follow the usual official procedure, which is open to all nationalities anyway. Do not hesitate to contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) should you have any questions on this position or on the official procedure. -- Den bästa taktiken är inte alltid att hålla sig upprätt, utan att lära sig falla mjukt" (Kajsa Ingemarsson, "Små citroner gula", p. 292) -- Maarten (=Martin) Lemmens Professeur en linguistique et didactique des langues (Spécialités: linguistique anglaise & linguistique cognitive) Université Lille 3, B.P. 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France Bureau B4.138; tél.: +33 (0)3.20.41.67.18 Membre de l'UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage http://perso.univ-lille3.fr/~mlemmens Editor-in-Chief "CogniTextes" (revue de l'AFLiCo) http://cognitextes.revues.org/ Membre du bureau de l'Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive http://www.aflico.fr/ Board member of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.cogling.org/ -- From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Oct 25 12:56:56 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:56:56 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC54C5C.3000307@nordlund.lu.se> Message-ID: Yep, you're right, except I'm not sure of the genesis of the A over A constraint. I'm pretty sure that it was Ross who made the observations about the data. Actually for me the one indispensable article of Chomsky's is 'On Wh-movement.' But there is another point in this. Our exchange here has demonstrated that to the extent that Chomsky's work has had lasting value, it's been because he's been a conduit for other people's ideas. Nothing wrong with that, very few of us can claim to have been more than that. But this is NOT the way that Chomsky is popularly understood, and this has been because of the way he has been packaged--neither he nor his acolytes refer at all to Jespersen, Saussure, or Harris, and even Ross has been largely purged from their history. To the extent that generative linguistics really does have cross-disciplinary prestige (and this obviously depends upon one's perspective), it is due to people having ascribed supernatural genius to Chomsky, and a crucial part of this program has been consciously or unconsciously excising history. The major reason that some people believe Chomsky to be a really original thinker is that Chomsky himself has not referred to his own intellectual antecedents and his followers have not thought to read for themselves. This is directly related to the original posting of Fritz's which began this discussion. Apparently, such is the nature of the generative enterprise that its practitioners see fit to devote their energy to demonstrating--at least to themselves-- that their own line of research is highly prestigious. This really is weird, if you think about it, just as it is also weird Chomsky and his acolytes behave as though (and apparently believe that) real linguistics sprung full-grown from Chomsky's head. And these two peculiarities are, I would argue, intimately related to each other--when Chomsky is no longer on the scene, the advertising campaign around him will have to be redirected entirely to his dynasty, so that its practitioners will be able to justify their own positions. And the article which Fritz is commenting is obviously part of this. John Thanks John. But: (1) It was Chomsky who re-introduced Jespersen's contrast into recent linguistics, and argued the case so cogently. (2) It was Chomsky who suggested the first island constraint (A over A) and Haj Ross was just improving on his suggestion. (3) It was Chomsky who introduced the contrast between knowledge and behaviour into USA linguistics, and thereby triggered a lot of psycholinguistic work; whether it's the same as langue/parole we could debate, but as you say, it's similar. (4) It was Chomsky who developed Harris's ideas with the help of formalisms from maths. And it was Chomsky who inspired a host of giants who later rejected some of his main ideas: think of Bresnan, Ross, Fillmore, Lakoff, ... I doubt if any of them would agree that Chomsky's influence has been 100% negative. Dick On 25/10/2010 09:44, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> Quoting Henrik Rosenkvist : > Hi! > > Some quotes from Talmy Givֳ³n, that might be of interest: > > [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, > transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the > notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of > empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a > sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Givֳ³n 1979:26). > > "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was > possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive > motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of the > more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects ג€“ > constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness > and syntactic control ג€“ were matters I took for granted but chose to > defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Givֳ³n 2001:xv) > > "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Givֳ³n 2001:xv) > > "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation > to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of > syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). > > I think one can see true development here... > > Henrik R. > On 25/10/2010 09:44, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > > > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > >> that were right, and inspired good work. > >> > >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > >> gerunds and nominalisations. > >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > >> not his morpheme-based analysis). > >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > >> conclusions. > >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > >> abandonment of the substance. > >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > >> > >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > >> > >> Dick Hudson > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska sprֳ¥k > Sprֳ¥k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Oct 25 15:18:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:01 -0600 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC54C5C.3000307@nordlund.lu.se> Message-ID: I think Henrik is trying to jiggle our memory chains. So yes, some people have short memories. One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, my earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) properties of grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them exclusively. The epitome of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation to "function without structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many functionalists' work. The most cursory perusal of the history of biology, beginning with Aristotle's placing the on firm functionalist (= adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, ought to convince us that this is utter logical nonsense. Another one concerns innateness, which for any evolutionist means, quite simply, the acknowledgement that evolution has taken place, and that the cumulative adaptive experience of ancestral generations has found its way into the genome. Just because Chomsky's extreme abuse of this notion in his non-empirical account of language acquisition does not mean that the genetic basis of human language is in any way tainted. No reasonable primatologist or child-language scholar could get away with such a position. Likewise, Chomsky's abuse of the notion 'theory' (=formalism) and 'universals' is a lame excuse for functionalist to reject the profound value of theory (=universals & their explanation). In science, data without theory is missing the whole point. Lastly, I think Chomsky-bashing is a rather unprofitable exercise for functionalist, especially that quite often we are guilty of the very same intellectual insularity as the generativists. For my money, I have learned an incredible amount from Noam. True, a lot of it was via a negative venue, but what the hell, you pick 'em where you find 'em. So perhaps the old Biblical caution ought to apply here: "Remove a beam from your own eye before you take a speck out of the eye of a friend". Cheers, TG ===================== Henrik Rosenkvist wrote: > Hi! > > Some quotes from Talmy Givón, that might be of interest: > > [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, > transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the > notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of > empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming > a sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Givón 1979:26). > > "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was > possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive > motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of > the more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects – > constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, > finiteness and syntactic control – were matters I took for granted > but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Givón > 2001:xv) > > "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Givón 2001:xv) > > "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation > to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of > syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). > > I think one can see true development here... > > Henrik R. > > john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: >> Dick, >> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not >> at all >> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' >> thesis. >> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >> langue/parole. >> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >> there), >> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting Richard Hudson : >> >>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, >>> but >>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he >>> did >>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>> >>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction >>> between >>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>> conclusions. >>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>> abandonment of the substance. >>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally >>> non-Chomskyan) >>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>> >>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>> >>> Dick Hudson >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From mark at polymathix.com Mon Oct 25 15:22:53 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:22:53 -0500 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As many of us here know, that was true in many places -- vehemently so in the 70's and early 80's. Hence my comment about needing to walk the fine line in order to do non-Chomskyan work and stay on a tenure track. As Dick Hudson has pointed out, there are indeed some folks here who have done and continue to do non-Chomskyan, even anti-Chomskyan, work and do have tenure. These are the ones who found a way to walk that fine line (or, in a few cases, were doing non-Chomskyan work while Chomsky was writing Aspects...). For each one of them, I'd wager that there are a dozen of us who either didn't figure it out or who were prevented (by financial, family or other factors) from finding greener pastures. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Esmat Babaii wrote: > Hi John, > > Until a couple of years ago, Chomsky had been idolized in our > linguistics departments that it would be a professional suicide if > someone criticized his works, something like Andersen?s ?Emperor? New > Suits? story! Interesting to read your comments. > > Esmat > > > On 10/25/10, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Dick, >> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at >> all >> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' >> thesis. >> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >> langue/parole. >> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >> there), >> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting Richard Hudson : >> >>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, >>> but >>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he >>> did >>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>> >>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction >>> between >>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>> conclusions. >>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>> abandonment of the substance. >>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally >>> non-Chomskyan) >>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>> >>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>> >>> Dick Hudson >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From faucon at cogsci.ucsd.edu Mon Oct 25 17:14:28 2010 From: faucon at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Gilles Fauconnier) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:14:28 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: The functional linguist is a tragic Oedipian figure, consumed with desire for his mother "la langue," and with hatred for the evil father who keeps her locked up in the ivory tower of MIT ... Gilles From amnfn at well.com Mon Oct 25 17:46:39 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:46:39 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, I agree with the part about function without structure being utter nonsense. I'll have to respectfully disagree on innateness. You write: "No reasonable primatologist or child-language scholar could get away with such a position." I'm a primatologist. I have raised a chimpanzee in a cross-fostering environment with very good results for language acquisition, and though I acknowledge that evolution did happen, and that we are closely related to chimpanzees genetically, I don't believe that the genetic relationship necessarily accounts for the language acquisition. I think the environment had a great deal more to do with it. And I acknowledge that Alex the Parrot, who was less closely related to a human than a chimpanzee, also had some excellent results. I don't think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and chimpanzees. It's possible that Saussure was right and that language is an abstract system of signs, and that genetics has only a very small part to play in all this. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > I think Henrik is trying to jiggle our memory chains. So yes, some people > have short memories. > > One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, my > earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the > bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) properties of > grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them exclusively. The epitome > of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation to "function without > structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many functionalists' work. The > most cursory perusal of the history of biology, beginning with Aristotle's > placing the on firm functionalist (= adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, > ought to convince us that this is utter logical nonsense. > > Another one concerns innateness, which for any evolutionist means, quite > simply, the acknowledgement that evolution has taken place, and that the > cumulative adaptive experience of ancestral generations has found its way > into the genome. Just because Chomsky's extreme abuse of this notion in his > non-empirical account of language acquisition do No reasonable primatologist or > child-language scholar could get away with such a positiones not mean that the genetic > basis of human language is in any way tainted. No reasonable primatologist or > child-language scholar could get away with such a position. > > Likewise, Chomsky's abuse of the notion 'theory' (=formalism) and > 'universals' is a lame excuse for functionalist to reject the profound value > of theory (=universals & their explanation). In science, data without theory > is missing the whole point. > > Lastly, I think Chomsky-bashing is a rather unprofitable exercise for > functionalist, especially that quite often we are guilty of the very same > intellectual insularity as the generativists. For my money, I have learned an > incredible amount from Noam. True, a lot of it was via a negative venue, but > what the hell, you pick 'em where you find 'em. So perhaps the old Biblical > caution ought to apply here: "Remove a beam from your own eye before you take > a speck out of the eye of a friend". > > Cheers, TG > > ===================== > > Henrik Rosenkvist wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Some quotes from Talmy Givón, that might be of interest: >> >> [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, >> transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the notion >> of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of empirical >> irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a sad >> caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Givón 1979:26). >> >> "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was possible >> to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive motivation and >> typological diversity, without an explicit account of the more formal >> aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects – constituency, hierarchy, >> grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness and syntactic control – >> were matters I took for granted but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a >> bad mistake." (Givón 2001:xv) >> >> "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Givón 2001:xv) >> >> "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation to >> seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of syntactic >> structures" (2001:xvi). >> >> I think one can see true development here... >> >> Henrik R. >> >> john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: >>> Dick, >>> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at >>> all >>> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >>> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. >>> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >>> langue/parole. >>> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >>> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >>> there), >>> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >>>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >>>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>>> >>>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >>>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>>> conclusions. >>>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>>> abandonment of the substance. >>>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >>>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>>> >>>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>>> >>>> Dick Hudson >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > > From jlmendi at unizar.es Mon Oct 25 18:44:45 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:44:45 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "A. Katz" wrote: (...) I don't > think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even > primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans > who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and > chimpanzees. Can you explain what are you referring to? Have you discovered human populations without language, or healthy humans that have not succeed acquiring language? Best regards: José-Luis Mendívil -- Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 19:47:04 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:47:04 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added the papers on my website at Pullam 2009 http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf Ritter 2005 http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the 1995 flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is believing that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various sections on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon that gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there is no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). Several computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach was of interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they found the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it is just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just make up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has gone by the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. Cheers, Shannon On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) > 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) > 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) > 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to > the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey > article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, > I'd > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is > this? > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article or > > is it your own idea? > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? > Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't > enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a > little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while > there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, > that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of > admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social > sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the > latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think > that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific > linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be > either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, > or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of > their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises > which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target > > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics > > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. > And > > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to > linguistics > > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social > sciences, > > and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, > > I'd > > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people > in > > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article > is > > this? > > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article > > or > > > is it your own idea? > > > Best wishes, > > > John > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , > "Bickerton, Derek" > Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Dear John, > > First, Shannon is a he, not a she. > > Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about > linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with > Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). > > Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY > Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are > explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. > > One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose > of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a > well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following > quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for > being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated > discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians > gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most > psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him > totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are > reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who > was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The > entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his > tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him > was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational > types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This > has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The > best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) > altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef > Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had > some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). > > All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And > it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing > "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and > disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from > my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines > (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, > primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some > substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' > side of the field either. > > Best, TG > > ========================= > > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > Fritz, > > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You > obviously > > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet > (the > > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? > Have > > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > > contradicting the premise of the article? > > > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't > enjoyed > > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a > little > > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while > there > > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, > that > > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of > admiration > > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was > a > > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social > sciences > > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the > latest > > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I > think that > > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense > a > > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific > linguistics > > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be > either > > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of > affairs, or > > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of > their > > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises > which > > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > > > > >> John, > >> > >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target > >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and > >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been > true > >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics > >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. > And > >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to > linguistics > >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social > sciences, > >> and cognitive sciences. > >> > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, > >>> > >> I'd > >> > >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people > in > >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article > is > >>> > >> this? > >> > >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article > >>> > >> or > >> > >>> is it your own idea? > >>> Best wishes, > >>> John > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Fritz: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The > Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics > and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > Lise Menn > > > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> (Brian MacWhinney) > >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > >> Payne) > >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 > From: Andrew Pawley > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Fritz > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several > kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been > influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, > population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, > among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, > (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the > three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence > dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists > showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy > provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the > syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, > Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great > weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members > of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of > theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics > is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions > that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and > historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of > Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the > Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a > place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among > the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of > historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists > today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and > subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular > genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other > disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and > are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes > stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in > cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in > lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary > interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast > literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals > is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and > fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts > such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages > and societies.? > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger > Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > Regards > Andy Pawley > _______ > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > generated, I'd > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > people in > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > article is this? > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > the article or > > >is it your own idea? > > >Best wishes, > > >John > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Fritz: > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > Lise Menn > >> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: alex gross > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy > to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > > linguists. > > > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists." > > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > > came out fifteen years ago at: > > > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > > be found at: > > > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > > gained the > > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > > > > Very best to everyone! > > > > alex > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lise Menn" > > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > Fritz: > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > > > Lise Menn > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Today's Topics: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > Payne) > > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, > Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Andy, > > This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a > myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced > our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from > my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in > numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon > (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so > on). > > But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds > of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. > There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring > archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of > historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' > contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between > linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the > contributions are perhaps more variable. > > Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss > (though see my obituary of L-S here: > http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me > than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the > in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' > of each language). > > I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward > Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly > reminded me of his valuable contributions. > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > Dear Fritz > > > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several > kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been > influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, > population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, > among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, > (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after > the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic > evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word > lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and > Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern > times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like > Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all > give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. > Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest > in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in > historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and > lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of > prehistoric communities. > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and > historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of > Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). > Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some > eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to > comment on close parallels between the family models of historical > linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically > do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often > without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular > language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do > this on a grand scale. > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other > disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and > are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes > stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in > cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in > lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary > interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast > literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals > is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and > fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts > such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages > and societies. > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger > Keesing, among other anthropologists. > > Regards > > Andy Pawley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one > of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a > generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, > given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys > so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't > say more, since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe > something > > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked > to > > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide > legitimacy to > > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. > >> > >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > >> > >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists." > >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > >> came out fifteen years ago at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > >> > >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book > "The > >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > >> > >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > >> be found at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > >> > >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > >> gained the > >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > >> > >> Very best to everyone! > >> > >> alex > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Lise Menn" > >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> > >> > >>> Fritz: > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > >>> > >>> Lise Menn > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Today's Topics: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > Payne) > >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, Andrew, > > We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long > Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to > find me). > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical > linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else > wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and > they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, > conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann > pieces that were cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > Dear Fritz > > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and > have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular > science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in > > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, > (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > > > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after > the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the > Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between > > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful > evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE > > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch > and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, > members of other historical disciplines have little interest > > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about > in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture > and environment of prehistoric communities. > > > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by > > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning > the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European > languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close > parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their > sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades > with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > > > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, > > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as > works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar > writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > > generalisations, which brings me to > > > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of > cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas > about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his > associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and > societies.? > > > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > > > > Regards > > > > Andy Pawley > > > > _______ > > > John, > > > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > > Fraser University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > > generated, I'd > > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > > people in > > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > > article is this? > > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > > the article or > > > >is it your own idea? > > > >Best wishes, > > > >John > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------- > > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > > University> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 > From: Martin Haspelmath > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed > > To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, > one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last > 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and > quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. > > Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and > dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts > and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a > later stage. > > Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least > in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of > Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). > > While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with > long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the > conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also > recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out > about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the > Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that > generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, > probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical > linguistics outside of our field.) > > Greetings, > Martin > > Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that > > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other > > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the > > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream > > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, > > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were > > cited a day or two ago. > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > >> Dear Fritz > >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > >> > >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world > >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by > >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of > >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in > >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and > >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > >> > >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially > >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the > >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between > >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful > >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE > >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, > >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. > >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little > >> interest > >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care > >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the > >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > >> > >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of > >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by > >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those > >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of > >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close > >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do > >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic > >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > >> > >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the > >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, > >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as > >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in > >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > >> generalisations, which brings me to > >> > >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, > >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of > >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s > >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his > >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and > >> societies. > >> > >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Andy Pawley > >> > >> _______ > >> > John, > >> > > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > >> > commentary to a separate survey article. > >> > > >> > --fritz > >> > > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > >> > > >> > > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >> > Fraser University > >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > >> > generated, I'd > >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > >> > people in > >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > >> > article is this? > >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > >> > the article or > >> > >is it your own idea? > >> > >Best wishes, > >> > >John > >> > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 > *************************************** > From amnfn at well.com Mon Oct 25 22:39:50 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:39:50 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101025204445.dcs9hsq99wc0owc0@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: I am referring to humans who were not exposed to language and therefore grew up feral, and to other humans who have intact brains but underdeveloped social skills, and who therefore remain non-verbal, despite normal exposure to language. I am also referring to indivduals who experienced sensory deprivation during the early years, and behaved like feral children, until a different way to expose them to language was found. People like Helen Keller. I am not referring to "whole populations." I am talking about individuals and the environmental effect on them of exposure to language. Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is innate. Language is not. Language is learned. --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > "A. Katz" wrote: > > (...) I don't >> think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even >> primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans >> who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and >> chimpanzees. > > Can you explain what are you referring to? Have you discovered human > populations without language, or healthy humans that have not succeed > acquiring language? > Best regards: > José-Luis Mendívil > > > -- > Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > From dan at daneverett.org Tue Oct 26 00:02:31 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:02:31 -0400 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism Message-ID: I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations would develop different genotypes over time. It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a prediction. It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of more general cognitive properties. Dan From elc9j at virginia.edu Tue Oct 26 00:36:10 2010 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:36:10 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: As to whether function without structure is utter nonsense, that depends on what you mean by "structure". If the "structure" emerges from a theory that does not take functional motivation into account, then a functionalist can justifiably question its validity. I would also hesitate to describe anything Erica García said as nonsense. For a meticulously worked out and functionally grounded analysis, check out her last work, the Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs (John Benjamins 2009). [Full disclosure: I'm a co-editor of the book series it appears in.] Ellen On 10/25/2010 11:18 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, > my earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the > bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) > properties of grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them > exclusively. The epitome of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation > to "function without structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many > functionalists' work. The most cursory perusal of the history of > biology, beginning with Aristotle's placing the on firm functionalist (= > adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, ought to convince us that this is > utter logical nonsense. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Anthropology Department University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 From bischoff.st at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 01:44:29 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:44:29 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, I guess my comments may need a little clarification, as they may have come across as perhaps a bit flippant judged by a few offline comments. First, I think the Pullum article speaks to the issue fairly well, and duly notes that Chomsky has made major contributions in terms of mathematics. The point that I was attempting to make was that in post-GB Chomskian theory Chomsky has seemed to move away from much of the mathematical clarity of his earlier work. This has lead to, I think, a good deal of confusion, in and outside the field, as to what he is referring to in terms of "computationality" and "algorithms". It has also lead many to refer to Chomsky's use of mathematical terminology as pseudo-mathematical in recent years when referring to his later work. Additionally, my own personal experience suggests that like myself, many trained in the generative tradition, lack an understanding of the formal foundations (i.e. discreet mathematics) to fully understand what they are doing and to better understand the goals of contemporary generative theory in terms of what Chomsky has to say especially in Chomsky 1995 or earlier work. Without the grounding in discreet mathematics linguists must take Chomsky's word for it, and even as good a mathematician as Chomsky is, there were a couple of serious errors in Syntactic Structure, which Pullum notes. Chomsky himself when asked about the issue of "no algorithm" replies: * **"Every approach to the computational system of language -- or of bee navigation, or of ... -- seeks to discover the nature of the computation -- by definition. Another term for "computation" is "algorithm." No final answers are known to nontrivial empirical issues in the sciences, here or elsewhere.*" This doesn't inspire computational scientists that I know, because it is not the kind of answer they expect I think. Again, this isn't a comment on Chomsky's understanding of mathematics, but rather a comment on others' understanding of Chomsky and how mathematics is employed in generative linguistics. In terms of my comments regarding OT...of the half-dozen or so OT practitioners I knew in 2005 all have abandoned OT (most before tenure). Some of which had done major work in the area., and are quite bitter now. All have given me the impression that OT is waning. Also, there have been papers published by computational linguists who have implemented OT grammars proposed by others that have shown serious problems in the original work and demonstrated that the human mind can not keep track of all the variables and relevant data required for such grammars. Again, my comments were not meant as flippant., and I am quite certain the Chomsky knows what he is talking about. Rather, I think that (1) Chomsky's own lack of mathematical clarity in recent years (especially in Chomsky 1995) has lead to a lot of criticism and misunderstanding inside and outside the field, and (2) that many students are not getting training in the formal foundations that the generative program has it roots in, and thus many younger linguists (perhaps some older) don't really understand what it is they are doing at a fundamental level. I think Pullum has attempted to speak to these issues in the past as has Lauri Karttunen in different ways. Cheers, Shannon On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added the > papers on my website at > > Pullam 2009 > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf > > Ritter 2005 > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf > > As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic > principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in > inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the 1995 > flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic > mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and > nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. > > One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is believing > that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more > traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various sections > on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon that > gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there is > no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). Several > computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach was of > interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they found > the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. > > Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are > nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it is > just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just make > up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has gone by > the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. > > Cheers, > Shannon > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >> 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) >> 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) >> 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >> 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) >> 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >> >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to >> the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey >> article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >> I'd >> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >> this? >> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article or >> > is it your own idea? >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Fritz, >> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >> obviously >> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >> (the >> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? >> Have >> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> contradicting the premise of the article? >> >> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >> enjoyed >> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a >> little >> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while >> there >> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan >> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, >> that >> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >> admiration >> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a >> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >> sciences >> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >> latest >> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think >> that >> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense >> a >> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> >> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >> linguistics >> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be >> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >> either >> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, >> or >> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of >> their >> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >> which >> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target >> > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and >> > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >> true >> > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics >> > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. >> And >> > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >> linguistics >> > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >> sciences, >> > and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, >> > I'd >> > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >> is >> > this? >> > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article >> > or >> > > is it your own idea? >> > > Best wishes, >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 >> From: Tom Givon >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , >> "Bickerton, Derek" >> Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> >> Dear John, >> >> First, Shannon is a he, not a she. >> >> Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about >> linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with >> Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). >> >> Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY >> Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are >> explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. >> >> One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose >> of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a >> well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following >> quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for >> being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated >> discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians >> gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most >> psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him >> totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are >> reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who >> was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The >> entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his >> tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him >> was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational >> types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This >> has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The >> best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) >> altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef >> Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had >> some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). >> >> All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And >> it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing >> "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and >> disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from >> my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines >> (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, >> primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some >> substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' >> side of the field either. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ========================= >> >> john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > Fritz, >> > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >> obviously >> > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >> (the >> > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? >> Have >> > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> > contradicting the premise of the article? >> > >> > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >> enjoyed >> > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a >> little >> > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while >> there >> > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >> Chomskyan >> > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >> think, that >> > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >> admiration >> > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was >> a >> > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >> sciences >> > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >> latest >> > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >> think that >> > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >> sense a >> > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> > >> > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >> linguistics >> > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not >> be >> > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >> either >> > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >> affairs, or >> > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance >> of their >> > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >> which >> > aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> > >> > >> >> John, >> >> >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target >> >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and >> >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >> true >> >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >> the >> >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics >> >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. >> And >> >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >> linguistics >> >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >> sciences, >> >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, >> >>> >> >> I'd >> >> >> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >> is >> >>> >> >> this? >> >> >> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article >> >>> >> >> or >> >> >> >>> is it your own idea? >> >>> Best wishes, >> >>> John >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 >> From: Lise Menn >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics >> and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >> > >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> >> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> >> Payne) >> >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 >> From: Andrew Pawley >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose >> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several >> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, >> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, >> among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, >> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the >> three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence >> dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists >> showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy >> provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the >> syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, >> Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great >> weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members >> of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of >> theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics >> is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions >> that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >> Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a >> place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among >> the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of >> historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists >> today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and >> subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular >> genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other >> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and >> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes >> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in >> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast >> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals >> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and >> fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts >> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages >> and societies.? >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger >> Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> Regards >> Andy Pawley >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------- >> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > University> >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 >> From: "alex gross" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=response >> >> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers >> and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> > Fritz: >> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > >> > Lise Menn >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Today's Topics: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: alex gross >> Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, >> Frederick J Newmeyer >> Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 >> >> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >> something >> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked >> to >> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >> legitimacy to >> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >> necessarily >> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >> assumed >> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, >> (2) >> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting alex gross : >> >> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > > linguists. >> > >> > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> > >> > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists." >> > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> > came out fifteen years ago at: >> > >> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> > >> > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >> "The >> > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> > >> > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> > be found at: >> > >> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> > >> > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers >> and >> > gained the >> > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> > >> > Very best to everyone! >> > >> > alex >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Lise Menn" >> > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> > >> > >> > > Fritz: >> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing >> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > > >> > > Lise Menn >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> Today's Topics: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 >> From: Daniel Everett >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Andrew Pawley >> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, >> Frederick J Newmeyer >> Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> Andy, >> >> This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a >> myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced >> our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from >> my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in >> numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon >> (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so >> on). >> >> But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds >> of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. >> There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring >> archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of >> historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' >> contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between >> linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the >> contributions are perhaps more variable. >> >> Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss >> (though see my obituary of L-S here: >> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me >> than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the >> in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' >> of each language). >> >> I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward >> Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly >> reminded me of his valuable contributions. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >> > Dear Fritz >> > >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, >> several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, >> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, >> among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, >> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after >> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >> evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word >> lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >> Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern >> times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like >> Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all >> give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in >> historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and >> lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of >> prehistoric communities. >> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). >> Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some >> eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to >> comment on close parallels between the family models of historical >> linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically >> do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often >> without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular >> language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do >> this on a grand scale. >> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other >> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and >> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes >> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in >> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast >> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals >> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and >> fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts >> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages >> and societies. >> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger >> Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> > Regards >> > Andy Pawley >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >> >> John, >> >> You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one >> of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a >> generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, >> given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys >> so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't >> say more, since the article has not been published yet. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >> something >> > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked >> to >> > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >> legitimacy to >> > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >> necessarily >> > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >> assumed >> > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >> anything, (2) >> > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> > John >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting alex gross : >> > >> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> >>> linguists. >> >> >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists." >> >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >> "The >> >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> >> be found at: >> >> >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >> producers and >> >> gained the >> >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> >> >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> >> >> alex >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Lise Menn" >> >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> >> Cc: >> >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> >> >>> Fritz: >> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing >> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >>> >> >>> Lise Menn >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Today's Topics: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 10 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Andrew Pawley >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" >> >> Hi, Andrew, >> >> We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted >> 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in >> order to find me). >> >> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical >> linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else >> wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and >> they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, >> conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann >> pieces that were cited a day or two ago. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >> > Dear Fritz >> > >> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and >> have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular >> science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >> > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> > >> > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after >> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >> > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >> > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, >> members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about >> in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> > >> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning >> the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European >> languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades >> with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> > >> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >> > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar >> writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> > generalisations, which brings me to >> > >> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas >> about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> societies.? >> > >> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Andy Pawley >> > >> > _______ >> > > John, >> > > >> > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > > >> > > --fritz >> > > >> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > > >> > > >> > > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > > Fraser University >> > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > >> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > > >> > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > > generated, I'd >> > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > > people in >> > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > > article is this? >> > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > > the article or >> > > >is it your own idea? >> > > >Best wishes, >> > > >John >> > > > >> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -------- >> > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > > University> >> > > >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 >> From: Martin Haspelmath >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Funknet >> Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed >> >> To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, >> one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last >> 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and >> quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. >> >> Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and >> dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts >> and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a >> later stage. >> >> Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least >> in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of >> Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). >> >> While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with >> long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the >> conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also >> recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out >> about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the >> Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that >> generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, >> probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical >> linguistics outside of our field.) >> >> Greetings, >> Martin >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >> > Hi, Andrew, >> > >> > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >> > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >> > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >> > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >> > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, >> > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >> > cited a day or two ago. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> > University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Fritz >> >> >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >> >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >> >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in >> >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> >> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >> >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >> >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >> >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >> >> interest >> >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >> >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >> >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >> >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >> >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in >> Western >> >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >> >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >> >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >> >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >> >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >> >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> >> societies. >> >> >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> >> >> _______ >> >> > John, >> >> > >> >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> > >> >> > --fritz >> >> > >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> >> > Fraser University >> >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> >> > generated, I'd >> >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> >> > people in >> >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> >> > article is this? >> >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> >> > the article or >> >> > >is it your own idea? >> >> > >Best wishes, >> >> > >John >> >> >> >> >> >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 >> *************************************** >> > > From mark at polymathix.com Tue Oct 26 03:59:56 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:59:56 -0500 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: s.t. bischoff wrote: > > [some stuff snipped] > > > Chomsky himself when asked about the issue of "no algorithm" replies: > * > **"Every approach to the computational system of language -- or of bee > navigation, or of ... -- seeks to discover the nature of the computation > -- > by definition. Another term for "computation" is "algorithm." No final > answers are known to nontrivial empirical issues in the sciences, here or > elsewhere.*" > > This doesn't inspire computational scientists that I know, because it is > not the kind of answer they expect I think. Again, this isn't a comment on > Chomsky's understanding of mathematics, but rather a comment on others' > understanding of Chomsky and how mathematics is employed in generative > linguistics. Well, one reason they're not inspired might be that in computer science, "algorithm" is in no way another term for "computation". If a mere mortal had made this statement, any computer scientist would send that person back to CompSci 101. So what I assume is going on here is that some computer scientists or computational linguists criticized one of Chomsky's formalisms either because Chomsky didn't provide any algorithms for processing it or because the critics determined that algorithmic processing is impossible. Either way, Chomsky's answer here would then be that "algorithm" is really just "computation", and as long as you're working with the formalism and computing something, well, then, _sure_ there's an algorithm. > [some other stuff snipped] -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, s.t. bischoff > wrote: > >> Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added >> the >> papers on my website at >> >> Pullam 2009 >> http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf >> >> Ritter 2005 >> http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf >> >> As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic >> principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in >> inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the >> 1995 >> flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic >> mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and >> nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. >> >> One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is >> believing >> that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more >> traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various >> sections >> on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon >> that >> gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there >> is >> no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). >> Several >> computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach >> was of >> interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they >> found >> the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. >> >> Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are >> nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it >> is >> just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just >> make >> up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has >> gone by >> the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >>> 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) >>> 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) >>> 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >>> 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) >>> 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >>> >>> John, >>> >>> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >>> target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics >>> enjoys >>> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and >>> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question >>> to >>> the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate >>> survey >>> article. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> I'd >>> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >>> is >>> this? >>> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article or >>> > is it your own idea? >>> > Best wishes, >>> > John >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> Fritz, >>> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >>> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >>> obviously >>> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >>> (the >>> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her >>> references >>> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other >>> sources? >>> Have >>> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >>> contradicting the premise of the article? >>> >>> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >>> enjoyed >>> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date >>> a >>> little >>> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a >>> while >>> there >>> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >>> Chomskyan >>> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >>> think, >>> that >>> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >>> admiration >>> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there >>> was a >>> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >>> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >>> sciences >>> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >>> latest >>> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or >>> else >>> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >>> think >>> that >>> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >>> sense >>> a >>> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >>> >>> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >>> linguistics >>> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not >>> be >>> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >>> either >>> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >>> affairs, >>> or >>> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance >>> of >>> their >>> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >>> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >>> which >>> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >>> Best wishes, >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >>> >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >>> target >>> > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and >>> > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics >>> > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the >>> List. >>> And >>> > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> > and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> > I'd >>> > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> article >>> is >>> > this? >>> > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article >>> > or >>> > > is it your own idea? >>> > > Best wishes, >>> > > John >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 >>> From: Tom Givon >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , >>> "Bickerton, Derek" >>> Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> >>> Dear John, >>> >>> First, Shannon is a he, not a she. >>> >>> Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about >>> linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with >>> Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). >>> >>> Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY >>> Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are >>> explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. >>> >>> One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose >>> of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a >>> well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the >>> following >>> quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for >>> being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated >>> discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians >>> gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most >>> psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him >>> totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they >>> are >>> reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who >>> was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The >>> entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his >>> tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him >>> was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational >>> types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This >>> has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. >>> The >>> best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) >>> altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef >>> Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had >>> some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). >>> >>> All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. >>> And >>> it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing >>> "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and >>> disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from >>> my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines >>> (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, >>> primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some >>> substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' >>> side of the field either. >>> >>> Best, TG >>> >>> ========================= >>> >>> john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > Fritz, >>> > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you >>> don't >>> > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >>> obviously >>> > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from >>> funknet >>> (the >>> > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her >>> references >>> > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other >>> sources? >>> Have >>> > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >>> > contradicting the premise of the article? >>> > >>> > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >>> enjoyed >>> > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the >>> date a >>> little >>> > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a >>> while >>> there >>> > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >>> Chomskyan >>> > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >>> think, that >>> > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >>> admiration >>> > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there >>> was >>> a >>> > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and >>> that >>> > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >>> sciences >>> > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >>> latest >>> > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or >>> else >>> > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >>> think that >>> > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >>> sense a >>> > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >>> > >>> > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >>> linguistics >>> > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply >>> not >>> be >>> > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to >>> be >>> either >>> > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >>> affairs, or >>> > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general >>> importance >>> of their >>> > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the >>> only >>> > explanation for people like the author of this articles making >>> premises >>> which >>> > aren't consistent with what's really going on. >>> > Best wishes, >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >>> > >>> > >>> >> John, >>> >> >>> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on >>> a >>> target >>> >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> and >>> >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics >>> >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the >>> List. >>> And >>> >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >> >>> >> --fritz >>> >> >>> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> with >>> >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> >> and cognitive sciences. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> >>> >>> >> I'd >>> >> >>> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> article >>> is >>> >>> >>> >> this? >>> >> >>> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article >>> >>> >>> >> or >>> >> >>> >>> is it your own idea? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 >>> From: Lise Menn >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >>> >>> Fritz: >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics >>> and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> Lise Menn >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Today's Topics: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> >> Payne) >>> >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 5 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 >>> From: Andrew Pawley >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >>> >>> Dear Fritz >>> >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >>> whose >>> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, >>> several >>> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >>> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural >>> anthropologists, >>> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared >>> Diamond, >>> among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical >>> linguistics, >>> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after >>> the >>> three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >>> evidence >>> dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists >>> showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >>> Malagasy >>> provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times >>> the >>> syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like >>> Bellwood, >>> Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> great >>> weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, >>> members >>> of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points >>> of >>> theories of language change.? What they care about in historical >>> linguistics >>> is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical >>> reconstructions >>> that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric >>> communities. >>> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >>> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >>> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >>> Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds >>> a >>> place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was >>> among >>> the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of >>> historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists >>> today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and >>> subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular >>> genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen >>> Cavalli-Sforza >>> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other >>> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference >>> and >>> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and >>> sometimes >>> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >>> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >>> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest >>> in >>> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >>> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The >>> vast >>> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term >>> universals >>> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora >>> and >>> fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key >>> concepts >>> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island >>> languages >>> and societies.? >>> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger >>> Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >>> Regards >>> Andy Pawley >>> _______ >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > Fraser University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > generated, I'd >>> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > people in >>> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > article is this? >>> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > the article or >>> > >is it your own idea? >>> > >Best wishes, >>> > >John >>> > > >>> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > -------- >>> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> > University> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 6 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 >>> From: "alex gross" >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >>> reply-type=response >>> >>> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > linguists. >>> >>> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >>> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >>> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >>> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >>> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >>> was >>> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >>> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >>> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >>> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >>> can >>> be found at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >>> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers >>> and >>> gained the >>> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> >>> Very best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Lise Menn" >>> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>> > Fritz: >>> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> > >>> > Lise Menn >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 7 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: alex gross >>> Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, >>> Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 >>> >>> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >>> something >>> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was >>> asked >>> to >>> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >>> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >>> legitimacy to >>> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >>> necessarily >>> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >>> assumed >>> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >>> anything, >>> (2) >>> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >>> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting alex gross : >>> >>> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > > linguists. >>> > >>> > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> > >>> > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human >>> Language" >>> > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of >>> generative >>> > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other >>> fields >>> > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important >>> work >>> was >>> > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it >>> first >>> > came out fifteen years ago at: >>> > >>> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> > >>> > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> > >>> > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's >>> film, >>> can >>> > be found at: >>> > >>> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> > >>> > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers >>> and >>> > gained the >>> > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> > >>> > Very best to everyone! >>> > >>> > alex >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Lise Menn" >>> > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> > Cc: >>> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> > >>> > >>> > > Fritz: >>> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> > > >>> > > Lise Menn >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Today's Topics: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri >>> Tambovtsev) >>> > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. >>> Line) >>> > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 8 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 >>> From: Daniel Everett >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Andrew Pawley >>> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, >>> Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a >>> myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow >>> advanced >>> our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, >>> from >>> my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, >>> propagated in >>> numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' >>> phenomenon >>> (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and >>> so >>> on). >>> >>> But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the >>> kinds >>> of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my >>> experience. >>> There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and >>> enduring >>> archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of >>> historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' >>> contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions >>> between >>> linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here >>> the >>> contributions are perhaps more variable. >>> >>> Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss >>> (though see my obituary of L-S here: >>> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me >>> than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics >>> being the >>> in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the >>> 'genius' >>> of each language). >>> >>> I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward >>> Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly >>> reminded me of his valuable contributions. >>> >>> -- Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Fritz >>> > >>> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE >>> Asia, >>> several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have >>> been >>> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural >>> anthropologists, >>> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared >>> Diamond, >>> among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical >>> linguistics, >>> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >>> after >>> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >>> evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. >>> Word >>> lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >>> Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern >>> times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists >>> like >>> Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, >>> all >>> give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> interest >>> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >>> about in >>> historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, >>> and >>> lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment >>> of >>> prehistoric communities. >>> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >>> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >>> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >>> Pacific). >>> Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of >>> some >>> eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first >>> to >>> comment on close parallels between the family models of historical >>> linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today >>> typically >>> do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try >>> (often >>> without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with >>> particular >>> language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying >>> to do >>> this on a grand scale. >>> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other >>> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference >>> and >>> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and >>> sometimes >>> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >>> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >>> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest >>> in >>> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >>> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The >>> vast >>> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term >>> universals >>> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora >>> and >>> fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key >>> concepts >>> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island >>> languages >>> and societies. >>> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger >>> Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> > Regards >>> > Andy Pawley >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 9 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >>> >>> John, >>> >>> You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am >>> one >>> of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a >>> generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, >>> given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it >>> enjoys >>> so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I >>> shouldn't >>> say more, since the article has not been published yet. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >>> something >>> > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was >>> asked >>> to >>> > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for >>> generative >>> > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >>> legitimacy to >>> > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >>> necessarily >>> > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article >>> simply >>> assumed >>> > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >>> anything, (2) >>> > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >>> > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Quoting alex gross : >>> > >>> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> >>> linguists. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >> >>> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human >>> Language" >>> >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of >>> generative >>> >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other >>> fields >>> >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important >>> work >>> was >>> >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it >>> first >>> >> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >> >>> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >> >>> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >> >>> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's >>> film, >>> can >>> >> be found at: >>> >> >>> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >> >>> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers and >>> >> gained the >>> >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> >> >>> >> Very best to everyone! >>> >> >>> >> alex >>> >> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> From: "Lise Menn" >>> >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> >> Cc: >>> >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Fritz: >>> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri >>> Tambovtsev) >>> >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. >>> Line) >>> >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 10 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Andrew Pawley >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> Hi, Andrew, >>> >>> We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted >>> 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in >>> order to find me). >>> >>> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical >>> linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody >>> else >>> wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct >>> and >>> they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, >>> conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and >>> Gell-Mann >>> pieces that were cited a day or two ago. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Fritz >>> > >>> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >>> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >>> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >>> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> and >>> have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> popular >>> science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >>> > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> > >>> > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially >>> after >>> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >>> Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, >>> members of other historical disciplines have little interest >>> > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care >>> about >>> in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> > >>> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> concerning >>> the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >>> > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of >>> Indo-European >>> languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >>> > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close >>> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> clades >>> with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> > >>> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >>> > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >>> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> grammar >>> writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> > generalisations, which brings me to >>> > >>> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> ideas >>> about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >>> associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> societies.? >>> > >>> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Andy Pawley >>> > >>> > _______ >>> > > John, >>> > > >>> > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > > >>> > > --fritz >>> > > >>> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > > Fraser University >>> > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > > >>> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > > generated, I'd >>> > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > > people in >>> > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > > article is this? >>> > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > > the article or >>> > > >is it your own idea? >>> > > >Best wishes, >>> > > >John >>> > > > >>> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > -------- >>> > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> > > University> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 11 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 >>> From: Martin Haspelmath >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Funknet >>> Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed >>> >>> To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, >>> one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last >>> 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and >>> quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. >>> >>> Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and >>> dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) >>> texts >>> and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a >>> later stage. >>> >>> Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least >>> in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of >>> Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). >>> >>> While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with >>> long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the >>> conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also >>> recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out >>> about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the >>> Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that >>> generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, >>> probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical >>> linguistics outside of our field.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Martin >>> >>> Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >>> > Hi, Andrew, >>> > >>> > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >>> > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >>> > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >>> > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >>> > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, >>> Eurocentric, >>> > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >>> > cited a day or two ago. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> > University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear Fritz >>> >> >>> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >> >>> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >>> >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in >>> >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> >> >>> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >>> >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of >>> the >>> >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> >> interest >>> >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >>> >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> >> >>> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers >>> across >>> >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >>> >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in >>> Western >>> >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on >>> close >>> >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> >> >>> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >>> >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these >>> as >>> >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> >> generalisations, which brings me to >>> >> >>> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and >>> his >>> >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> >> societies. >>> >> >>> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> >>> >> Andy Pawley >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> > John, >>> >> > >>> >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >> > >>> >> > --fritz >>> >> > >>> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> >> > Fraser University >>> >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> >> > generated, I'd >>> >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> >> > people in >>> >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> >> > article is this? >>> >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> >> > the article or >>> >> > >is it your own idea? >>> >> > >Best wishes, >>> >> > >John >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 >>> *************************************** >>> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 05:34:07 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:34:07 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). John Quoting Daniel Everett : > > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > would develop different genotypes over time. > > It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the > current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a > prediction. > > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > more general cognitive properties. > > Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Oct 26 07:08:23 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:08:23 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <1288071247.4cc6684fb9643@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, I do not know whether it makes to to refer to some kind of Lamarckism in order to account for clicks and ejectives. True, the production of clicks usually involves a specific training of some muscles relevant in articulating these sounds (esp. tongue), but this simply is a matter of language acquisition. By the way, many of us can and do produce clicks, too, embodied in terms of the so-called "para-linguistic usages of clicks" (e.g. [ | | ] (reduplicated in German) in order to (a) make a horse or so moving or (b) to indicate negation (in e.g. Syrian Arabioc, [ non-reduplicated [ | ] would be the usual para-linguistic negator. Sure, certain genetically determined features of 'oral geometry' may favor the production of certain sounds, but we cannot (and probably mus nor) say that this geormetry has developed 'in order to prucde' these specific sounds. Such a claim would turn around the cause/effect relation. As for ejectives: Have a look at WALS (World Atlas of Language Strcutures, feature 7 (written by Ian Maddieson, by the way) to see that ejectives are far from being restricted to "groups living in high altitudes". This simply is a myth. For instance, in one of my field work languages (Udi, East Caucasian), ejectives are a pronounced feature in one of its dialects, whereas it tends to get lost in the other. Both (!) variants are spoken in the plains adjacent to the Southern slopes of the Great Caucasus mountain range, not in 'high altitude' . Some neighboring dialects of Azeri even tend to adopt the ejective articulation (as it is true for some low-land Qumyk dialects in Daghestan). Also note that other languages with ejectives such as Lakohta are spoken (more or less) on the plains, too. Obviously, ejectives have nothing to do with 'high mountains' except for the fact the communicative style 'on the plains' may have caused the loss of the ejective option (!), simply because the ejective feature may be less audible in 'long distance' communication among (say) shepherds or so. Again, this has nothing to do with genetics. Rather, we have to deal with the adoption of an articulatory style that may have developed under specific conditions and that was then handed over to the next generation in terms of language acquisition (learning). As for Dan's comment: > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > would develop different genotypes over time. In my eyes, this is an extremely difficult (and in parts dangerous) claim. First, we should define what is meant by 'culture' (integrating and respecting the actual discussion in the wide field of 'cultural sciences. As far as I can see there is no/communis opinio /concerning the definition of 'culture'). Second, it may have been (and still may be) that certain (alamodistic) preferences in cultural patterns relevant to 'partner selection' develop concerning specific human properties and that these properties will then (slowly) become dominant in a given social group (all this presupposes that these preferences are rather stable over time). It also may have been the case that idiosyncratic human features developed by mutation acquire a 'high value' within a culture and that they may later see a greater distribution because of their relevance for partner selection. But all this has nothing to do with language, not to speak of 'languages (plural). It's not language that is condition by genetics, but by [among others] (a) the ability to link articulatory patterns (that is: patterns of muscle activities etc. used to manipulate the air streaming when breathing) to conceptual 'events' in cognition (in other words:symbolization in its broadest sense) and (b) the ability to turn complex 'event images' into linear sequences (already in cognition). In this sense, you are right when say: > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > more general cognitive properties. But you should perhaps make clear what you mean by "result". For instance, you may say that (a) language is an instantiation of these properties (hence genetic by itself), or that (b) language is nothing but an stabilized emergent event in cognition the properties have nothing to do with the properties of the relevant cognitive 'micro level'. Or, you may say that (c) 'result' means nothing by the application and activation of these properties during knowledge acquisition, with hlanguage being nothing but 'learning how other people make use of these properties in order to produce language'. Personally, I waver between option (b) and (c). Best wishes, Wolfgang . Am 26.10.2010 07:34, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). > John > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Neue Anschrift // New address [!] Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistiky' Fakultahumanitny'ch vied UniverzitaMateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica Tajovske'ho40 SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich 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 Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 08:26:20 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:26:20 -0700 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <1288071247.4cc6684fb9643@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, Dan's point about Phil Lieberman's assertion is a very good one, I think, but I did not take it to be specifically about phonetics. There are people who can't articulate at all, and they can still acquire a language whose normal mode of expression is through articulation. A child born with a damaged larynx has no trouble picking up whatever language is spoken around him or her. If a writing system is available, the child will be just as fluent as anyone at writing that language. In the local population where I live, here in the Ozarks, there are children who can't make a very good "r" sound, but this does not affect their ability to communicate effectively in English. If we compare parrots and chimpanzees, clearly parrots have an advantage in articulating human languages, despite being less closely related to humans genetically than chimpanzees. What really counts as language is not the sounds, but the use of the system of contrasts to express information. So, when I was comparing Alex's achievements with Bow's, I was comparing Bow's use of spelling in English and Hebrew with Alex's use of articulation, but the measure of whether it was language was at a much higher level of encoding and decoding. Overall, there is no evidence that general intelligence, rather than a specific language module in the brain, cannot account for language processing in real time. --Aya On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). > John > > > > > Quoting Daniel Everett : > >> >> I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism >> predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is >> so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the >> last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. >> So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that >> prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations >> would develop different genotypes over time. >> >> It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the >> current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a >> prediction. >> >> It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of >> more general cognitive properties. >> >> Dan > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 09:17:25 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <4CC67E67.1020702@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, I'm not a phonetician and so I'm not in a position to intelligently discuss this issue (are you?). The statements were made by Ian Catford and (IIRC) Peter Ladefoged, two of the most respected phoneticians in the world, I did not fully understand the articulatory and acoustic arguments they were making, and I respect the field of phonetics enough, and sufficiently recognize its intellectual autonomy, to think that it's very likely that phoneticians understand things which not only other people but even other linguists don't really understand. Dan asked a question, I suggested something which he might look at in relation to his question. If he (or anyone) is interested in seriously investigating this, s/he should talk to a phonetician. I should say that I don't recall whether Ian specifically thought that physiological differences were associated with ejectives (this claim was definitely made with regards to the clicks, though). It was more of a statement about the acoustic properties of ejectives which make them easier to pronounce at high altitudes. The basic idea (if I remember and understood more or less correctly) was that pronouncing ejectives requires compressing and then releasing air pressure between the glottis and a more external point of closer, the tricky thing being that the air being released can't be expelled by the lungs because the glottis is closed, and this is easier if the air pressure from outside is weaker, as it is at higher altitudes. The fact that there is not a PERFECT correlation between contemporary altitude and the presence of ejectives does not mean that there is not a correlation which is far greater than chance in several places around the world, and such a correlation suggests to the inquiring and interested mind that there must be SOME explanation, and physiology might be that explanation, whether or not it seems in one way or another dangerous. Why then would there be exceptions? The counterevidence which you offer could have other explanations. The lowland Caucasian languages having ejectives might have originated in the highlands (the Israeli Circassians have been living at sea level for 130 years and still have ejectives). Or the ejectives may have spread to the lowlands as an areal feature. Both highland and lowland Mayan languages have ejectives BUT there is an extremely strong tendency for only the highland languages to have UVULAR ejectives (when I mentioned this to Catford he said that was natural enough given his understanding of why there is a correlation between altitude and ejectives, because it's particularly hard to build up the air pressure necessary to produce an ejective if the second point of closer is the uvula, because of the relative smallness of the air cavity and the general inflexibility of the articulator--that is, if there's one ejective you'll lose first, it'll be the uvular one). Of course anyone can learn to produce some kind of sound APPROXIMATING clicks in Khoisan languages/Zulu/Xhosa, and some of these can be approximated more easily than others. But there is no way that you or I can learn to produce in particular a lateral or retroflex click in exactly the same way as a Zulu speaker, especially in running speech (the bilabial and alveolar ones are easier). Have you actually heard a native speaker pronounce a retroflex click? I remember hearing a recording of Miriam Makeba singing in Xhosa and at first I literally assumed that the retroflex clicks were a wood block or some other musical instrument, they were that loud and clear, it was only when I became a linguist that I realized that she was singing them. If Peter Ladefoged declares himself to be physiologically incapable of pronouncing a certain sound in a remotely native-like way, this suggests to me that we are dealing with someone more than just language acquisition. Incidentally the alveolar click (with lips rounded) meaning negation isn't just in Syrian Arabic, it's found in many places around the Mediterranian (e.g. here in Israel) and at least in Brazil. I agree that claims explaining anything in language in terms of genetic or physiological differences are dangerous and very likely to be wrong. But that doesn't mean that ALL of them are dangerous or wrong. Best wishes, John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear John, > I do not know whether it makes to to refer to some kind of Lamarckism in > order to account for clicks and ejectives. True, the production of > clicks usually involves a specific training of some muscles relevant in > articulating these sounds (esp. tongue), but this simply is a matter of > language acquisition. By the way, many of us can and do produce clicks, > too, embodied in terms of the so-called "para-linguistic usages of > clicks" (e.g. [ | | ] (reduplicated in German) in order to (a) make a > horse or so moving or (b) to indicate negation (in e.g. Syrian Arabioc, > [ non-reduplicated [ | ] would be the usual para-linguistic negator. > Sure, certain genetically determined features of 'oral geometry' may > favor the production of certain sounds, but we cannot (and probably mus > nor) say that this geormetry has developed 'in order to prucde' these > specific sounds. Such a claim would turn around the cause/effect relation. > > As for ejectives: Have a look at WALS (World Atlas of Language > Strcutures, feature 7 (written by Ian Maddieson, by the way) to see that > ejectives are far from being restricted to "groups living in high > altitudes". This simply is a myth. For instance, in one of my field work > languages (Udi, East Caucasian), ejectives are a pronounced feature in > one of its dialects, whereas it tends to get lost in the other. Both (!) > variants are spoken in the plains adjacent to the Southern slopes of the > Great Caucasus mountain range, not in 'high altitude' . Some neighboring > dialects of Azeri even tend to adopt the ejective articulation (as it is > true for some low-land Qumyk dialects in Daghestan). Also note that > other languages with ejectives such as Lakohta are spoken (more or less) > on the plains, too. Obviously, ejectives have nothing to do with 'high > mountains' except for the fact the communicative style 'on the plains' > may have caused the loss of the ejective option (!), simply because the > ejective feature may be less audible in 'long distance' communication > among (say) shepherds or so. Again, this has nothing to do with > genetics. Rather, we have to deal with the adoption of an articulatory > style that may have developed under specific conditions and that was > then handed over to the next generation in terms of language acquisition > (learning). > > As for Dan's comment: > > > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This > is > > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random > mutations. > > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > > would develop different genotypes over time. > In my eyes, this is an extremely difficult (and in parts dangerous) > claim. First, we should define what is meant by 'culture' (integrating > and respecting the actual discussion in the wide field of 'cultural > sciences. As far as I can see there is no/communis opinio /concerning > the definition of 'culture'). Second, it may have been (and still may > be) that certain (alamodistic) preferences in cultural patterns relevant > to 'partner selection' develop concerning specific human properties and > that these properties will then (slowly) become dominant in a given > social group (all this presupposes that these preferences are rather > stable over time). It also may have been the case that idiosyncratic > human features developed by mutation acquire a 'high value' within a > culture and that they may later see a greater distribution because of > their relevance for partner selection. But all this has nothing to do > with language, not to speak of 'languages (plural). It's not language > that is condition by genetics, but by [among others] (a) the ability to > link articulatory patterns (that is: patterns of muscle activities etc. > used to manipulate the air streaming when breathing) to conceptual > 'events' in cognition (in other words:symbolization in its broadest > sense) and (b) the ability to turn complex 'event images' into linear > sequences (already in cognition). In this sense, you are right when say: > > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > > more general cognitive properties. > But you should perhaps make clear what you mean by "result". For > instance, you may say that (a) language is an instantiation of these > properties (hence genetic by itself), or that (b) language is nothing > but an stabilized emergent event in cognition the properties have > nothing to do with the properties of the relevant cognitive 'micro > level'. Or, you may say that (c) 'result' means nothing by the > application and activation of these properties during knowledge > acquisition, with hlanguage being nothing but 'learning how other people > make use of these properties in order to produce language'. Personally, > I waver between option (b) and (c). > > Best wishes, > Wolfgang . > > Am 26.10.2010 07:34, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian > Catford, > > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us > have > > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air > pressure > > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really > understand > > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had > become in > > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance > running > > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high > altitudes). > > John > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > /Primary contact: / > > Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen > > Neue Anschrift // New address [!] > > Ludwigstra?e 25 > > D-80539 Mu"nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > /Second contact: / > > KatedraGermanistiky' > > Fakultahumanitny'ch vied > > UniverzitaMateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica > > Tajovske'ho40 > > SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica > > Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 > > Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 > > Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk > > Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich 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 Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Oct 26 09:40:37 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:40:37 -0400 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism Message-ID: Hmmm- interesting. Some years ago I noticed, in my oh so widely recognized, accepted, and respected work on sound symbolism, a relatively weak but definitely present tendency for words with clicks to have something to do with moisture content. In the context of the Kalahari, and the well-known dessication of much of Africa in past times, this might be relevant. Bushmen knowing where every errant microdroplet of water is hiding, and how to extract it, and so on. So if ejectives get you altitude, do clicks associate with adaptation to desert life (not talking about wells here). Frank Herbert missed this one. So, what goes with heat and cold?? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From m.norde at rug.nl Tue Oct 26 14:02:50 2010 From: m.norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:02:50 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Rosalind Franklin Fellowships Message-ID: Dear FUNKNET members, The Faculty of Arts at the University of Groningen has announced four "Rosalind Franklin positions". The deadline for applications is Jan. 7, 2011. These are prestigious and attractive positions offering an unusual amount of freedom in pursuing research. Although the conditions are quite demanding, the positions foresee in decisions for further promotion to reader and to professor. See the web site for details: http://www.rug.nl/let/onderzoek/rff/ Please inform potential, highly qualified young researchers of this opportunity! Ideal candidates are women 5-10 years after the Ph.D. who have already been successful in attracting postdoc funding. Please note that the positions are open to female applicants only. Sincerely, Muriel Norde -- Prof. dr. Muriel Norde Scandinavian Languages and Cultures University of Groningen P.O. Box 716 9700 AS Groningen The Netherlands http://www.murielnorde.com From d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Oct 26 14:14:50 2010 From: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Lesley-Neuman, D.F.) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:14:50 +0200 Subject: Regarding the importance of Linguistics Message-ID: One thing I have found shuffling between formal and functionalist departments is that generative syntacticians have they view that what they do IS linguistics, or, even SYNTAX, and don't know any different themselves. I got a real chuckle out of a formal syntax class at another institution in the States about a year or so back when the instructor said in class that grammaticalization was a new hot topic, that only a very few syntacticians worked in it! When I pointed out that almost everybody who has been doing so generally IS a syntactician, especially those who do language description with historical linguistics, but simply do not work within the same theoretical framework, it was a kind of revelation within that environment. Formal programs consciously repress other views within their programs and do such a complete job of it that even many of their teaching staff don't have an idea of the literature. This is why Shannon (who, by the way guys, is male) has been so persistent on this list to get more information about functionalism. Diane Lesley-Neuman PhD Researcher Leiden University Centre for Linguistics/ Languages and Cultures of Africa Van Wijkplaats 4 Office 103A 2311 BX Leiden The Netherlands Email: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Telephone: +31 71 527-1663 From jlmendi at unizar.es Tue Oct 26 15:51:26 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:51:26 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "A. Katz" wrote: > Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that > despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is > innate. Language is not. Language is learned. > Dear Aya (if I may): If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems to be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by Newmeyer's first message): "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something about human children which differentiates them from other species, and this something provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this neutrally as ‘the human capacity to acquire language’. In generative linguistics this capacity is traditionally called the ‘Language Acquisition Device’, and a characterization of its properties termed ‘Universal Grammar’ (Chomsky 1965, reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they are shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words exist and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of French — it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely a general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky’s revival of the term, which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, both ‘Language Acquisition Device’ and, especially, ‘Universal Grammar’ arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that such a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term ‘Universal Grammar’, even by people who accept without question that a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is specific to language)." T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In Biolinguistics, 3-4: p. 288 Best regards, José-Luis -- Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 16:09:43 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:09:43 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101026175126.ooqam7hjk8s08g8w@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: Hi, Jose-Luis, I seemed to have gotten this message of yours twice, so I take it you really want an answer. Your quote here from Fitch starts: "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for language to develop in most organisms." It's not clear to me. Some parrots do speak the language of the humans around them without special training, and they use it to communicate actual information relevant at the time. So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need to use other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and this sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up literacy by himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams in standard orthography. http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy Best, --Aya On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > "A. Katz" wrote: > > >> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >> > > Dear Aya (if I may): > > If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's > learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People > defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate > capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems to > be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other > capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a > non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by > Newmeyer's first message): > > "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken > language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something > about > human children which differentiates them from other species, and this > something > provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this > neutrally as ‘the human capacity to acquire language’. In generative > linguistics > this capacity is traditionally called the ‘Language Acquisition Device’, > and a > characterization of its properties termed ‘Universal Grammar’ (Chomsky > 1965, > reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply > designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they are > shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional > grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words exist > and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of > French > — it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that > does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. > The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature of > this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely a > general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky’s revival of the term, > which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, both > ‘Language Acquisition Device’ and, especially, ‘Universal Grammar’ > arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that such > a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello > 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term > ‘Universal Grammar’, even by people who accept without question that a > biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a > uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. The > substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity for > language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of terminology, > but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is specific to > language)." > > T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In > Biolinguistics, > 3-4: p. 288 > > Best regards, > José-Luis > > -- > Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > From crm5 at rice.edu Tue Oct 26 16:21:43 2010 From: crm5 at rice.edu (crm5 at rice.edu) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:21:43 -0500 Subject: Rice Working Papers in Linguistics: Second Call for papers Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS The Rice Working Papers in Linguistics is currently soliciting submissions for its third volume (you can see published volumes at http://owling.blogs.rice.edu/rwpl-vol-1/ and http://owling.blogs.rice.edu/rwpl-vol-2/). The deadline is November 15th. Please see the guidelines below and consider submitting your work to rwpl at rice.edu. *** Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 3 Deadline: **November 15th, 2010** The Rice Linguistics Society (RLS) solicits submissions from all subfields of linguistics (with the exception of ESL/TESOL and related areas of applied linguistics) for publication in the Rice Working Papers in Linguistics. Students and post-docs are strongly encouraged to submit. We especially welcome submissions in line with our department's focus on functional, usage-based approaches to language study using empirical data, including but not limited to the following: -cognitive/functional linguistics -typology and language universals -field studies in less commonly researched languages -sociolinguistics, including sociophonetics -phonetics and speech processing -laboratory phonology -forensic linguistics -corpus linguistics -discourse -neurolinguistics -psycholinguistics and language processing -language change and grammaticalization Submitted papers must meet the following minimum style requirements: -recommended length 15-25 pages (normally 5000-8000 words); significantly longer or shorter papers will be considered on a case-by-base basis (contact the editorial board) -For comprehensive details on format (such as font, margins, examples, references, etc.) please refer to the RWPL template available on the Style sheet link at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rls/files/Style_Sheet.dot -submit an abstract (maximum 500 words), including 3-5 keywords, as a separate Word file -submit two copies (in addition to your abstract): (1) one copy in Word (2003 or 2007) (2) in addition to the Word submission, you must send a PDF version to ensure fonts are preserved RLS accepts only electronic submissions for the working papers. These must be sent to rwpl at rice.edu, and the body of the e-mail should include: -title of paper -name of author(s) -affiliation -address -phone number -contact e-mail address The deadline for receipt of submissions is **November 15th, 2010**. Questions regarding the submissions process or style requirements may be addressed to the editorial board at rwpl at rice.edu. Carlos Molina-Vital RWPL EIC From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 26 17:02:12 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:02:12 -0600 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents Message-ID: Sometime in the 1990s, I asked Bill Bright what he thought Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were - and remember, Bill was among those who felt more and more miserable at UCLA as the department became increasingly formalist in the 1970s and '80s. When he was editor of Language, he had been attacked -sometimes quite angrily - by both pro- and anti-Chomskyan folks - as he attempted to preserve the journal's neutrality. He said he figured that if he was getting it from both sides, he was doing his job. Here's what Bill said, to the best of my recollection (yes, I should have written it down, but it was only a dinner-table conversation): First, Chomsky brought renewed attention to syntax; most of the major work on language structures {until Harris, who was a lot harder to read - LM] stopped at morphology and morphophonemics. Second, he worked on an extremely widely and well-known language, English. People could argue about it from their own knowledge, and test claims easily. This really broke things open in a way we have forgotten; how many linguists were native speakers of Menomini? And third, he got a lot of people excited about linguistics; new departments were founded like crazy. We owe him a big debt of thanks for that. My own two cents: Charismatic figures who open up fields (Freud, Schliemann, Levi-Strauss, Piaget...) do/say a lot of things that later generations of critical thinkers rightly deplore, or at least find to be oversimplified. But there has to be a first approximation before there can be refinement. I'm in my 40th year of explaining why Jakobson was wrong - Marilyn Vihman and I have a paper about the development of features in the forthcoming Benjamins volume edited by Clements & Ridouane - but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who today would even be interested in child phonology? Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 grvsmth at panix.com Tue Oct 26 17:14:01 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:14:01 -0400 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/26/2010 1:02 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who > today would even be interested in child phonology? I don't know much about Jakobson, but it's possible that someone else would have taken it up in a better way. That's the trouble with hindsight. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From dan at daneverett.org Tue Oct 26 17:15:31 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:15:31 -0400 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is excellent, Lise. I completely agree. In my obituary of Levi-Strauss, reference a few days ago on this list, I said this about Chomsky, Freud, and Levi-Strauss. They opened our eyes to many possibilities and said and wrote many very interesting things. Dan On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Sometime in the 1990s, I asked Bill Bright what he thought Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were - and remember, Bill was among those who felt more and more miserable at UCLA as the department became increasingly formalist in the 1970s and '80s. When he was editor of Language, he had been attacked -sometimes quite angrily - by both pro- and anti-Chomskyan folks - as he attempted to preserve the journal's neutrality. He said he figured that if he was getting it from both sides, he was doing his job. > > Here's what Bill said, to the best of my recollection (yes, I should have written it down, but it was only a dinner-table conversation): > First, Chomsky brought renewed attention to syntax; most of the major work on language structures {until Harris, who was a lot harder to read - LM] stopped at morphology and morphophonemics. > Second, he worked on an extremely widely and well-known language, English. People could argue about it from their own knowledge, and test claims easily. This really broke things open in a way we have forgotten; how many linguists were native speakers of Menomini? > And third, he got a lot of people excited about linguistics; new departments were founded like crazy. We owe him a big debt of thanks for that. > > My own two cents: Charismatic figures who open up fields (Freud, Schliemann, Levi-Strauss, Piaget...) do/say a lot of things that later generations of critical thinkers rightly deplore, or at least find to be oversimplified. But there has to be a first approximation before there can be refinement. I'm in my 40th year of explaining why Jakobson was wrong - Marilyn Vihman and I have a paper about the development of features in the forthcoming Benjamins volume edited by Clements & Ridouane - but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who today would even be interested in child phonology? > > Lise > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > 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 mark.dingemanse at mpi.nl Tue Oct 26 18:11:18 2010 From: mark.dingemanse at mpi.nl (Mark Dingemanse) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:11:18 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz Message-ID: I know Fritz is looking for quotes, but one way to gauge outside views of our discipline is to see how our published work is being cited. This shows how scholars vote with their feet. On that issue, I must second Brian Macwhinney's note on Conversation Analysis. Two out of the five most cited articles in the flagship journal of our discipline are CA articles. The top article by number of citations is Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974. With 5638 citations recorded by Google Scholar, and the next article (Dowty 1991) coming in at a "mere" 2007 citations, this surely is the most cited article in the entire history of the journal. I hesitate to mention this because it's only tangentially related, but these statistics were prompted by the member survey that the LSA is currently doing. See http://ideophone.org/language-anthology-citations/ for background and data. Funknetters might be interested to know that a substantial number of the most viewed, downloaded, and cited articles in the journal Language are of a broadly functionalist bent. Mark -- Mark Dingemanse Language & Cognition group Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics From yutamb at mail.ru Tue Oct 26 18:28:59 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:28:59 +0700 Subject: An eye opener Message-ID: Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the sounds without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know I study different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was always surprised why different people all over the world produce more or less the same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot produced human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 19:00:05 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:00:05 +0200 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <9C48C84E19BE4005A74F25EADC034FED@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Shannon recently sent an article in which it was argued that (IIRC) birds, bats, elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more developed communicative vocalizations than primates and speculated on what in the brain this is associated with. John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak > better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why > so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You > wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? > The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of > the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books > and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the sounds > without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know I study > different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was always > surprised why different people all over the world produce more or less the > same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot produced > human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 26 19:10:39 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:10:39 -0600 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <1288119605.4cc7253515d19@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Yuri, some of the most extensive and best-documented work has been done by Irene Pepperberg. Try some of the links on this page: http://www.google.com/search?q=irene+pepperberg+alex&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:00 PM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Shannon recently sent an article in which it was argued that (IIRC) > birds, bats, > elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more developed communicative > vocalizations than primates and speculated on what in the brain this > is > associated with. > John > > > > > Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > >> Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot >> can speak >> better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better >> phrases? Why >> so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to >> speak? You >> wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is >> that true? >> The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from >> that of >> the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? >> The books >> and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate >> the sounds >> without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know >> I study >> different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was >> always >> surprised why different people all over the world produce more or >> less the >> same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot >> produced >> human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, >> Russia >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 kemmer at rice.edu Tue Oct 26 19:58:18 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:58:18 -0500 Subject: Exploring the Mind through Music: Last call for fellowship appls Message-ID: To those interested in cognition and music: There are still a few days until the Nov. 1 deadline for fellowship applications for the "Exploring the Mind through Music" symposium June 13-17, 2011 at Rice. I'm informed there are large numbers of applicants by professional musicians and faculty and students in music schools, but not so many from people who are professionally active in studying cognition, including language. See http://www.rice.edu/mindandmusic/index.shtml Feel free to forward this to potentially interested people and groups. ---Suzanne From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 20:51:38 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:51:38 -0700 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <9C48C84E19BE4005A74F25EADC034FED@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, It is not my parrot I speak of. I am speaking of parrots belonging to other people. Have you heard of Irene Pepperberg's work with Alex, the African Grey Parrot? That parrot is now deceased, but the work is documented. Irene Pepperberg is very careful not to make immodest claims about Alex's achievements and to couch her artciles in scientific jargon that is acceptable for publication, but if you watch the videos, you can judge for yourself. She did not teach Alex how to pronounce the words. She taught him about colors and shapes. The articulatory gestures were something he had to figure out all on his own. Since embarking on my work with Bow, I have informally met with many parrot owners who have experienced this and more with their parrots. As a linguist, I was taught to believe that parrots only imitated sound, but did not understand meaning. Parrot owners, on the other hand, can tell you that parrots will spontaneously announce that it is time for their favorite TV show, or that the family car is now approaching their home town. Nobody taught them to say these things. Even so, as a linguist and a primatologist I would caution against putting too much emphasis on the ability to pronounce well. That chimpanzees have a harder time pronouncing (and in fact cannot be understood when they try to speak a human language) does not take away from the ability to understand and express themselves using written symbols -- and in fact, their ability to distinguish phonemes is no worse than a parrot's. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak better than your primate? > I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why so? Does it mean that >birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You wrote that your >parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? The speech >apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of the >primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books >and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the >sounds without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know >I study different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was >always surprised why different people all over the world produce more or >less the same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your >parrot produced human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, >Novosibirsk, Russia > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 21:39:14 2010 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:39:14 +0200 Subject: post-doctoral position Message-ID: Dear all, I am writing to let you all know about a fairly new post-doctoral fellowship in the humanities and social sciences, including linguistics, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It's a generous grant, including housing, and the conditions for doing research are fantastic. The terms of the application are detailed in the attached files, and I am pasting them into this mail as well. It should be mentioned that the grant is a joint Israeli-German venture, and is limited to people with a connection to one of the two countries. It would be great if you would let people know about this. Israel, whatever its flaws, is a great place for linguists, including those interested in field research on a pretty wide range of languages. Best wishes, Eitan Grossman The Martin Buber Society of Fellows, a joint venture of the Hebrew University and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), aims at fostering inter-disciplinary and inter-cultural academic discourse at the highest level among outstanding young scholars (post-doctoral) from Israel and Germany together with selected senior colleagues. Each year the Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society selects up to ten exceptionally gifted young scholars (five from Israel, five from Germany) in all fields of the humanities broadly defined and including social sciences (with the exception of law and economics). Scholars who have completed their Ph.D. at an Israeli or German university, or citizens of Israel or Germany who have received their Ph.D. in other countries, are eligible to apply. The Ph.D. degree must have been approved after October 1, 2006 and no later than March 15, 2011. Doctoral candidates submitting their dissertation in U.S. universities in the winter-spring of 2011 are entitled to submit their candidacy, subject to approval of the dissertation by May 2011. Fellows will become part of a vibrant scholarly community reflecting the widest possible disciplinary spectrum in the humanities and social sciences and embodying a spirit of shared intellectual adventure. *No special connection to Jewish studies or Israel is required*. We are looking for creative humanists and social scientists with broad intellectual horizons. Discussions in the Martin Buber Society will take place in English (not in Hebrew or German). The Fellows will be asked to move to Jerusalem. They will receive a monthly stipend of approximately 9000 Israeli shekels and a housing subsidy either for apartments in the university’s Student Village on Mount Scopus or in town. They will be given offices at the Hebrew University (Mount Scopus campus) and will participate in bi-weekly seminars, lectures, study excursions, and other interactive academic modes. Each will have the opportunity to pursue his or her individual research under optimal conditions for the term of his or her fellowship. Scholarships are initially granted for two years (subject to a review at the end of the first year), beginning October 1, 2011, on the basis of a detailed outline and description of a research project of major scope and innovative character. The scholarship may be further extended beyond two years upon the approval of the Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society. The deadline for applications for 2011-2012 is January 30, 2011. Documents should not arrive after this date. Applications must be sent as hard copy, *without staples*, and accompanying diskette and must include: a complete CV and list of publications; a discursive description of the research project to be pursued in Jerusalem (up to five pages double-spaced); a one-page abstract of the Ph.D. dissertation; two letters of recommendation; and the evaluators' reports on the dissertation, if available. Applications must be sent *in English* (with the exception of the evaluators' reports if they are written in another language). Applications should be submitted, by post, in 3 hard copies, in a simple plastic folder, preferably with a transparent cover, along with a CD containing an electronic copy of all of the materials. Please avoid using staples on any of the documents and please do not send us application materials via email. Letters of recommendation must, however, be sent either directly by the recommender to the email address below or in sealed and signed envelopes. Please do not send applications by email. The Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society will meet at the end of March to choose next year’s fellows. Outstanding candidates will be invited --at relatively short notice-- for an interview either in person or on Skype. Postal Address: The Martin Buber Society of Fellows, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rabin Building, Room 2201, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905. For further inquiries please contact Yael Baron on buberso at mscc.huji.ac.il Tel. 00972 (0)2-5883901 or 00972(0)2 5881747 Website: http://buberfellows.huji.ac.il/ From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Oct 26 21:56:49 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:56:49 -0400 Subject: crossing the eyes and dotting the t's Message-ID: I had the local news station on television going (I like background noise...), and one of their staff announced that later they would be talking about how leading a minimalist life might be the key to happiness. Egads! (B)oy have they got the wrong vampire.... :-) Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From jlmendi at unizar.es Wed Oct 27 09:47:02 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9-Luis_Mend=EDvil?=) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:47:02 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: El 26/10/2010, a las 18:09, A. Katz escribió: > Hi, Jose-Luis, > > I seemed to have gotten this message of yours twice, so I take it you > really want an answer. I'm sorry, It was a mistake: I sent it to you and then to the list. > > Your quote here from Fitch starts: "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic > environment is not enough for language to develop in most organisms." > > It's not clear to me. Some parrots do speak the language of the humans > around them without special training, and they use it to communicate > actual information relevant at the time. > Is it not clear for you that most organisms (even in linguistic immersion) do not acquire human language? Nevertheless, if you believe that parrots speak English (or any other language), then our notion of 'language' is so different that more discussion is pointless. Best regards, José Luis > So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human > language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need > to use other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and > this sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up > literacy by himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams > in standard orthography. > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > >> "A. Katz" wrote: >> >> >>> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >>> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >>> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >> >> Dear Aya (if I may): >> >> If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. >> It's learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this >> sense. People defending that language is innate mean rather that >> there is an innate capacity to learn a language from the environment. >> A capacity that seems to be specific to humans (in the same sense >> that other animals have other capacities). Let me use a claryfing >> quote from Fitch (by the way, a non-linguist who thinks that >> linguistics is important, as requiered by Newmeyer's first message): >> >> "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for >> spoken >> language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be >> something about >> human children which differentiates them from other species, and this >> something >> provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss >> this >> neutrally as ‘the human capacity to acquire language’. In generative >> linguistics >> this capacity is traditionally called the ‘Language Acquisition >> Device’, and a >> characterization of its properties termed ‘Universal Grammar’ >> (Chomsky 1965, >> reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) >> simply >> designated those aspects of human language competence which, because >> they are >> shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in >> traditional >> grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that >> words exist >> and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar >> of French >> — it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact >> that does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to >> language. The original usage of the term made no particular claims >> about the nature of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to >> language, or conversely a general aspect of human cognition), nor did >> Chomsky’s revival of the term, which is quite neutral on such >> questions by my reading. However, both ‘Language Acquisition Device’ >> and, especially, ‘Universal Grammar’ arouse suspicion and rejection >> from scholars who nonetheless accept that such a human-specific >> biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello 1999, >> 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term >> ‘Universal Grammar’, even by people who accept without question that >> a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a >> uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known >> animal. The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a >> human capacity for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear >> regardless of terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to >> which it is specific to language)." >> >> T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. >> In Biolinguistics, >> 3-4: p. 288 >> >> Best regards, >> José-Luis >> >> -- >> Dr José-Luis Mendívil-Giró >> General Linguistics >> Universidad de Zaragoza >> Spain >> Dr José-Luis Mendívil General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From amnfn at well.com Wed Oct 27 13:35:58 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:35:58 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <686d4b32f88d47bea74191813d527606@unizar.es> Message-ID: Jose-Luis, Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to mammals and birds.) Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for you? Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a language that some humans who were present did not understand? I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed my mind. Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that experience? Best, --Aya On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Jos�-Luis Mend�vil wrote: > Is it not clear for you that most organisms (even in linguistic immersion) do > not acquire human language? > > Nevertheless, if you believe that parrots speak English (or any other > language), then our notion of 'language' is so different that more discussion > is pointless. > > Best regards, > Jos� Luis > > >> So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human >> language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need to use >> other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and this >> sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up literacy by >> himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams in standard >> orthography. >> >> http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >> >>> "A. Katz" wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >>>> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >>>> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >>> >>> Dear Aya (if I may): >>> >>> If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's >>> learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People >>> defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate >>> capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems >>> to be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other >>> capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a >>> non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by >>> Newmeyer's first message): >>> >>> "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken >>> language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something >>> about >>> human children which differentiates them from other species, and this >>> something >>> provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this >>> neutrally as �the human capacity to acquire language�. In generative >>> linguistics >>> this capacity is traditionally called the �Language Acquisition Device�, >>> and a >>> characterization of its properties termed �Universal Grammar� (Chomsky >>> 1965, >>> reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply >>> designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they >>> are >>> shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional >>> grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words >>> exist >>> and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of >>> French >>> � it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that >>> does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. >>> The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature >>> of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely >>> a general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky�s revival of the >>> term, which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, >>> both �Language Acquisition Device� and, especially, �Universal Grammar� >>> arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that >>> such a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, >>> Tomasello 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the >>> term �Universal Grammar�, even by people who accept without question that >>> a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a >>> uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. >>> The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity >>> for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of >>> terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is >>> specific to language)." >>> >>> T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In >>> Biolinguistics, >>> 3-4: p. 288 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jos�-Luis >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jos�-Luis Mend�vil-Gir� >>> General Linguistics >>> Universidad de Zaragoza >>> Spain >>> > Dr Jos�-Luis Mend�vil > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon Oct 25 14:40:36 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:40:36 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I think it is important to bear in mind what preceded the 'Chomskyan revolution' against empiricism. For one thing it was the bias against 'mentalism' that originated in American structuralism aligned with behaviourist psychology. As far as I recall that was the main target of Chomsky's critiques. Recently I was reminded of just how problematic extreme empiricism can still be when I attended a conference in Italy dominated by a certain school of corpus linguistics. I was shocked at the level of bias against theory and in favour of counting numbers of occurrences in particular pieces of discourse. The number of times a word, say 'do', occurs in a text, say Othello, tells you how 'important' this word is in that text. Then the number of times that it occurs in the company of some other word(s) tells you all about 'phraseology'. I told some of the people I met there that this reminded me more of Bloomfield and structuralist type 'slot filling' than anything else, which didn't go down well. But I think this kind of empiricism, which is an anti-intellectualism in favour of some notion of 'authenticity,' is highly repellant and if it ever became the dominant paradigm then we would surely need a new Chomsky to destroy it again. I had trouble recognising it as linguistics at all. Tahir >>> 10/25/2010 10:44 am >>> Dick, (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all original--Jespersen made the same observations. (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's langue/parole. (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), although I'm not sure that I believe this. John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > that were right, and inspired good work. > > My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > gerunds and nominalisations. > - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > not his morpheme-based analysis). > - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > conclusions. > - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > abandonment of the substance. > I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > > And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > > Dick Hudson > > -- > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From jlmendi at unizar.es Wed Oct 27 15:49:40 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:49:40 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Aya: I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason that they lack a human brain. Best regards, José-Luis "A. Katz" wrote: > Jose-Luis, > > Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that > most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? > (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to > mammals and birds.) > > Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human > languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human > language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for > you? > Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a > language that some humans who were present did not understand? > > I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been > trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen > dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present > in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. > > Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and > since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. > It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed > my mind. > > Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this > because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to > you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is > not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if > that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped > conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that > experience? > > Best, > > --Aya From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 27 16:04:35 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:04:35 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC5B2E2.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: It is a common myth that before Chomsky 'mentalism' was a bad word. Chomsky certainly brought mentalistm to a greater prominence in American linguistics than it had held previously. But he was not the first North American linguist interested in the mind by any means. Nor was he the dividing line between empiricism and rationalism in US linguistics. It is not nor has it been the case that the field can be divided neatly into 'empiricists' vs 'rationalists', either pre or post Chomsky. Sapir, for example, was very different from Bloomfield (or Harris for that matter). Chomsky is much more closely aligned with Bloomfield in his focus on structures. Sapir was concerned about what went on in the mind. But Sapir's take was partially that psychology should be a subdiscipline of anthropology and that we needed to see the developments of minds and languages as part of culture. And vice-versa (Sapir recognized that cognition, culture, and language interact and that each has causal relations to the other - these relations are not uni-directional). Also, although Bloomfield was interested in semantics and in the mind, he seems in some places to have let them lie because he didn't believe that we were prepared to study them yet, because to fully understand meaning or thinking was to understand everything. And yet at the same time, Bloomfield's own study of morphophonemics in Menominee has a strongly mentalist flavor in parts. (See Bever, T.G. (1963). Theoretical implications of Bloomfield's 'Menomini Morphophonemics'.Quarterly Progress Report, R.L.E., MIT Press.) There is an interesting correspondence between Sapir and Ken Pike about the perception of tones in tone languages, one letter leading Pike to distinguish contour vs. register tone systems, based on native speaker perceptions, if I recall (at least that is how Ken Pike explained it to me). I believe that the correspondence is on file at SIL Dallas. It is a pity for all of us that Sapir died so young. His Sterling Professorship at Yale was, after his death, occupied by his long-time rival/friend Bloomfield, who, as Sapir before him, moved to Yale from the U of Chicago (from the German department in Bloomfield's case). In some readings of his work, Sapir can be seen as skeptical about the professionalization of linguistics into departments of linguistics, rather than having linguists interspersed through other departments. My interpretation is that he feared a reification of language studies that would proceed independently of the study of actual languages or anthropology. Dan From amnfn at well.com Wed Oct 27 17:50:19 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:50:19 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101027174940.k7on5xhi4ggccc0o@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: Jose-Luis, So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are English? If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not these particular two. Best, --Aya On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > Dear Aya: > > I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of communicative > interaction with owners and trainers. And of course I'm aware that there is > clear evidence that many species have complex and sophisticated systems of > thought. But this does not mean they can acquire and use a human language. > For me, as for many people (regardless of the often sterile debate on > innatism) a language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a > creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the reach of > other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason that they lack a human > brain. > Best regards, > José-Luis > > > "A. Katz" wrote: > >> Jose-Luis, >> >> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that >> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? >> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to >> mammals and birds.) >> >> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human >> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human >> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for >> you? >> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a >> language that some humans who were present did not understand? >> >> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been >> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen >> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present >> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. >> >> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and >> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. >> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed >> my mind. >> >> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this >> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to >> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is >> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if >> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped >> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that >> experience? >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya > > From yutamb at mail.ru Wed Oct 27 19:48:10 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:48:10 +0700 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics Message-ID: Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev From mark at polymathix.com Wed Oct 27 20:23:53 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:23:53 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <0083D4F8E5764B74B3932D20C97E4ACA@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev It can't be done. Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee size of N. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From oesten at ling.su.se Wed Oct 27 20:43:53 2010 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=96sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:43:53 +0200 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <90a9e825b72bdf18a13f24ee14b32c5a.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: If your library has a subscription, you can read Geoff Pullum's thoughts on the matter here: No Trips to Stockholm Geoffrey K. Pullum Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Vol. 3, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 265-270 or, with a couple of pages missing, here: http://tinyurl.com/38xfduw - Östen On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:23:53 -0500, "Mark P. Line" wrote: > Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >> Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble >> prize? >> Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev > > It can't be done. > > Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of > linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about > anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no > less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee > size of N. > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK From lamb at rice.edu Wed Oct 27 21:24:36 2010 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:24:36 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <90a9e825b72bdf18a13f24ee14b32c5a.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in 4th world societies. -Syd Lamb On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? > > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev > > It can't be done. > > Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of > linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about > anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no > less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee > size of N. > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > Sydney M. Lamb Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 27 23:48:42 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:48:42 -0400 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pike was nominated I think 5 times for the Nobel peace prize. The initial efforts were led by Adam Makkai. Haj Ross's grandfather, John Raleigh Mott, won the Nobel peace prize in 1946. Dan On 27 Oct 2010, at 17:24, Sydney Lamb wrote: > Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was > once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in > 4th world societies. > > -Syd Lamb > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > >> Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >>> Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? >>> Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev >> >> It can't be done. >> >> Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of >> linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about >> anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no >> less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee >> size of N. >> >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> Bartlesville, OK >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb > Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences > Rice University, Houston, TX > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Oct 28 00:56:17 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:17 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sydney Lamb wrote: > Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was > once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in > 4th world societies. Oh yes. But not just once -- he was nominated in 15 or 16 consecutive years! I guess this comes back around to one possible data point in answer to Fritz's query, unless the Nobel committee was not considering his *linguistic* work in the 4th world. -- Mark > -Syd Lamb > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > >> Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >> > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble >> prize? >> > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev >> >> It can't be done. >> >> Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of >> linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about >> anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no >> less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee >> size of N. >> >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> Bartlesville, OK >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb > Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences > Rice University, Houston, TX > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Oct 28 02:05:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:05:01 -0600 Subject: Ellen Prince, RIP Message-ID: In Memoriam Ellen F. Prince It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our colleague Ellen F. Prince. Ellen died peacefully at home in Philadelphia on Sunday, October 24, after a long battle with cancer. After earning her doctorate in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1974, Ellen joined the faculty of the Penn Linguistics Department in the same year. She taught here until her retirement in 2005 and served as chair of our department from 1993 to 1997. Ellen was also active in the affairs of the Linguistic Society of America, serving on the executive committee and in many other capacities. She was noted for her interdisciplinary perspective and held a secondary appointment in Penn's Computer and Information Sciences Department. Among her many honors were the Presidency of the Linguistic Society of America in 2008 and election to the AAAS in 2009. A pioneer in linguistic pragmatics, Ellen worked on her own and with many colleagues and students on various aspects of the subject. Several of her incisive and tightly argued papers became classics in the field. She is perhaps best known for her typology of information statuses in discourse, based on the study of naturally-occurring data; but she also devoted major efforts to the study of the pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions, including the various species of cleft and left-periphery constructions, including topicalization and left-dislocation. She had a particular interest in Yiddish and used her knowledge of that language to do ground-breaking work on the cross-linguistic comparison of the pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions. In later years, she continued her work on the referential status of noun phrases in the framework of centering theory, as developed by colleagues Aravind Joshi, Scott Weinstein and Barbara Grosz. Ellen was an inspirational and caring teacher, imparting high intellectual standards while at the same time providing solid support and mentoring to her many students. We missed her acutely when she retired from our department; she will be even more sorely missed now and for years to come. Friends, colleagues and students who would like to remember Ellen Prince by making a charitable donation are asked to donate to the American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/donate/). Gillian Sankoff & Tony Kroch From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 28 05:15:11 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:15:11 -0600 Subject: Ellen Prince, RIP In-Reply-To: <4CC8DA4D.5080904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: A small correction of an error in the original: election as a Fellow of the AAAS in 2009. Joining AAAS is open to anyone. Lise (Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics and Language Sciences]) On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > In Memoriam Ellen F. Prince > > It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our colleague > Ellen F. Prince. Ellen died peacefully at home in Philadelphia on > Sunday, October 24, after a long battle with cancer. > After earning her doctorate in linguistics at the University of > Pennsylvania in 1974, Ellen joined the faculty of the Penn > Linguistics Department in the same year. She taught here until her > retirement in 2005 and served as chair of our department from 1993 > to 1997. Ellen was also active in the affairs of the Linguistic > Society of America, serving on the executive committee and in many > other capacities. She was noted for her interdisciplinary > perspective and held a secondary appointment in Penn's Computer and > Information Sciences Department. Among her many honors were the > Presidency of the Linguistic Society of America in 2008 and election > to the AAAS in 2009. > > A pioneer in linguistic pragmatics, Ellen worked on her own and with > many colleagues and students on various aspects of the subject. > Several of her incisive and tightly argued papers became classics in > the field. She is perhaps best known for her typology of information > statuses in discourse, based on the study of naturally-occurring > data; but she also devoted major efforts to the study of the > pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions, including the > various species of cleft and left-periphery constructions, including > topicalization and left-dislocation. She had a particular interest > in Yiddish and used her knowledge of that language to do ground- > breaking work on the cross-linguistic comparison of the pragmatic > functions of syntactic constructions. In later years, she continued > her work on the referential status of noun phrases in the framework > of centering theory, as developed by colleagues Aravind Joshi, Scott > Weinstein and Barbara Grosz. > > Ellen was an inspirational and caring teacher, imparting high > intellectual standards while at the same time providing solid > support and mentoring to her many students. We missed her acutely > when she retired from our department; she will be even more sorely > missed now and for years to come. > > Friends, colleagues and students who would like to remember Ellen > Prince by making a charitable donation are asked to donate to the > American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/donate/). > > Gillian Sankoff & Tony Kroch > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute of Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Thu Oct 28 06:54:03 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:54:03 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using language Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language also don't learn any language. The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was exposed to? An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. best, Keith Johnson On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Jose-Luis, > > So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of > reach of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a > human brain" falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if > presented-- change your mind? If there isn't, then your statement is > an article of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. > > What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language > is beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple > reason that they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that > this hypothesis is falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone > without any English ancestry was able to master English better than > someone whose ancestors are English? > > If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex > have mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better > than people who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who > don't speak any language at all, there are also humans who do speak > some language, but not these particular two. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > >> Dear Aya: >> >> I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of >> communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course >> I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have >> complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not >> mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many >> people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a >> language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a >> creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the >> reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason >> that they lack a human brain. >> Best regards, >> José-Luis >> >> >> "A. Katz" wrote: >> >>> Jose-Luis, >>> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that >>> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic >>> immersion? >>> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring >>> to >>> mammals and birds.) >>> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human >>> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire >>> human >>> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for >>> you? >>> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a >>> language that some humans who were present did not understand? >>> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been >>> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have >>> seen >>> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were >>> present >>> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not >>> understand. >>> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and >>> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long >>> time. >>> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I >>> changed >>> my mind. >>> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this >>> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it >>> to >>> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the >>> answer is >>> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? >>> Or if >>> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped >>> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that >>> experience? >>> Best, >>> --Aya >> >> Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From yutamb at mail.ru Thu Oct 28 10:15:36 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:15:36 +0700 Subject: Crisis in linguistics Message-ID: True, but mathematicians have no Nobel Prize. So, they set up their own Prize. In linguistics the researcher follow the fashion, but not the important direction which may lead to some non-trivial results. The selection of articles in "Language" or "Word" is quite arbitrary and by chance. The last but not least. There is a crisis in linguistics, though linguists do not care to notice it. What is the way out? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 12:38:13 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:38:13 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Keith, You are quite right that Pepperberg does not claim that Alex learned a human language. She is very careful not to make immodest claims, as I mentioned before, and if you read her writings you will see that she goes to great trouble, jumping through convoluted verbal hoops to explain that the fact that Alex could answer questions correctly about color and shape does not necessarily mean that he understood what he was talking about in human terms. In order to get published by a reputable scientific journal, you pretty much have to do that. I do not blame her for this. What I was saying is that if any of you want to judge for yourself, watch the videos. Pay attention also to the unsolicited things that Alex said. Notice how he kept asking for water. Notice Irene asking him whether he really wanted water, or he was just trying to interrupt. Evaluate their relationship. Take into account that answering all those questions repeatedly was boring for Alex, and that they weren't talking about anything that really interested him. Understand that Irene and Alex had a relationship that went beyond that, but that their job was to prove small, palatable things involving formal sound/meaning correspondences. You think Alex's pronunciation sounded mechanical? He had a completely different articulatory system from yours. He spent hours trying to figure out the right articulatory gestures to make those sounds. He had no formal instruction on that! He did it on his time off, when there wasn't even anyone there with him. I think he did a pretty good job all things considered. Compare his production with those of a human with an artificial larynx. For that matter, compare his productions with those of a non-native speaker of English. Or even consider this: have you ever heard an autistic child who does speak, but who has no affect? The catch-22 in animal language studies is that if it spontaneous and a nonce utterance it is not replicable, and you can't do statistical studies on it, and so it doesn't count. But if you go the other route, and you create an elaborate structure that is amenable to statistical testing, then you take all the creativity the subject can muster out of it. If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better. But none of us actually had to prove that we were talking rather than repeating something we heard, before our speech was allowed to pass for language. --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex > learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance > I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be > able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't > display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using > language > > Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in > mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we > are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that > deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of > people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing > world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure > to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic > input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language > also don't learn any language. > > The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been > exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference > between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with > greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was > exposed to? > > An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) > of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word > productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone > has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide > some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. > > best, > Keith Johnson > > On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Jose-Luis, >> >> So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach >> of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" >> falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your >> mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a >> scientific hypothesis. >> >> What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is >> beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that >> they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is >> falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English >> ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are >> English? >> >> If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have >> mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people >> who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any >> language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not >> these particular two. >> >> Best, >> From bjking at wm.edu Thu Oct 28 13:01:14 2010 From: bjking at wm.edu (bjking at wm.edu) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:01:14 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Colleagues, I think Aya Katz has it right, with her focus on Alex's creativity and on the emergence of Alex's thoughtful communication in the context of a key social relationship (Alex and Pepperberg). I've not met or communicated directly with Alex, but I've watched videos extensively. I have met and communicated directly with bonobos Kanzi and Panbanisha, and I've written extensively about their communication skills and the social-emotional contexts in which they emerge. What I've argued for years, in my book The Dynamic Dance (2004, Harvard), and in books and articles since, is that we miss worlds of richness and complexity when we content ourselves with focusing on the Alexes, Kanzis and Panbanishas (as wonderful as they are), and asking ONLY if nonhuman creatures "have language." OK, it's an interesting question. But as an anthropologist I think there are more interesting questions, questions that avoid an insistence on comparing other creatures with ourselves. I've observed apes (bonobos, gorillas mostly) for years, and filmed their interactions, and there's a world of subtlety and richness in their back-and-forth, creative communication with each other: via gaze, body position and degree of muscular tension, vocalizations, manual and head gestures, and so on. It is of vastly less interest to me to ask whether this is language than to understand the richness of this system, how it emerges, how it may different between individuals or between groups, how infants learn the system, what it allows these creatures to do (and not to do), and so on. Doing this requires years of watching, and filming and analyzing videotapes; a sender-receiver, message-based model isn't sufficient to capture the dynamic nature of the communication, which is often contingent and co-constructed by the social partners rather than fixed. We can look for similar phenomena in elephants, cetaceans, etc.; if we keep asking over and over if these species are capable of language, we won't see what they spontaneously do with each other-- and that's worth knowing in its own right. It's also potentially, if arguably, useful (in some cases, e.g., apes) in reconstructing evolutionary trajectories, but there again we run the risk of using a human standard with which to evaluate everything. Best wishes, Barbara Barbara J. King Blogging animals at http://www.barbarajking.com/ Chancellor Professor of Anthropology Director, Undergraduate Studies in Anthropology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA, USA 23187 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT) >From: "A. Katz" >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >To: Keith Johnson >Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > >Keith, > >You are quite right that Pepperberg does not claim that Alex learned a >human language. She is very careful not to make immodest claims, as I >mentioned before, and if you read her writings you will see that she goes >to great trouble, jumping through convoluted verbal hoops to explain that >the fact that Alex could answer questions correctly about color and shape >does not necessarily mean that he understood what he was talking about in >human terms. > >In order to get published by a reputable scientific journal, you pretty >much have to do that. I do not blame her for this. > >What I was saying is that if any of you want to judge for yourself, watch >the videos. Pay attention also to the unsolicited things that Alex said. >Notice how he kept asking for water. Notice Irene asking him whether he >really wanted water, or he was just trying to interrupt. Evaluate their >relationship. Take into account that answering all those questions >repeatedly was boring for Alex, and that they weren't talking about >anything that really interested him. Understand that Irene and Alex had a >relationship that went beyond that, but that their job was to prove small, >palatable things involving formal sound/meaning correspondences. > >You think Alex's pronunciation sounded mechanical? He had a completely >different articulatory system from yours. He spent hours trying to figure >out the right articulatory gestures to make those sounds. He had no formal >instruction on that! He did it on his time off, when there wasn't even >anyone there with him. I think he did a pretty good job all things >considered. Compare his production with those of a human with an >artificial larynx. For that matter, compare his productions with those of >a non-native speaker of English. Or even consider this: have you ever >heard an autistic child who does speak, but who has no affect? > >The catch-22 in animal language studies is that if it spontaneous and a >nonce utterance it is not replicable, and you can't do statistical studies >on it, and so it doesn't count. But if you go the other route, and you >create an elaborate structure that is amenable to statistical testing, >then you take all the creativity the subject can muster out of it. > >If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, >they wouldn't fare much better. But none of us actually had to prove that >we were talking rather than repeating something we heard, before our >speech was allowed to pass for language. > > > --Aya > >http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies > > >On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > >> Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex >> learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance >> I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be >> able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't >> display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using >> language >> >> Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in >> mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we >> are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that >> deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of >> people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing >> world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure >> to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic >> input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language >> also don't learn any language. >> >> The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been >> exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference >> between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with >> greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was >> exposed to? >> >> An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) >> of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word >> productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone >> has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide >> some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. >> >> best, >> Keith Johnson >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Jose-Luis, >>> >>> So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach >>> of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" >>> falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your >>> mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a >>> scientific hypothesis. >>> >>> What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is >>> beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that >>> they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is >>> falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English >>> ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are >>> English? >>> >>> If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have >>> mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people >>> who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any >>> language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not >>> these particular two. >>> >>> Best, >>> From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Oct 28 15:06:53 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:53 -0700 Subject: Nobel and Kyoto In-Reply-To: <224C0AD2A29E44AAB3F5D39BF816A52F@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: In addition to the Nobel Prize, there is the Kyoto Prize. Here is the blurb: "The Kyoto Prize has been awarded annually since 1985 by the Inamori Foundation, founded by Kazuo Inamori. The prize is a Japanese award similar in intent to the Nobel Prize, as it recognizes outstanding works in the fields of philosophy, arts, science and technology. The awards are given not only to those that are top representatives of their own respective field, but also to those that have contributed to humanity with their work. Prizes are given in the fields of Advanced Technology, Basic Sciences and Arts and Philosophy. Within each broad category, the prize rotates among subfields, e.g. the technology prize rotates across electronics, biotechnology, materials science and engineering, and information science. The prize was endowed with 50 million yen and Kyocera stock. The prize is rising in prestige as it covers fields not often awarded by the Nobel Prizes." The only linguist to win the Kyoto Prize has been Noam Chomsky, in 1988, in the 'cognitive science' subdivision of 'basic sciences' -- the only award so far in that subdivision. The Kyoto Prize is more like a 'lifetime achievement award' than the Nobel, which is generally awarded for a specific achievement. --fritz From dan at daneverett.org Thu Oct 28 15:08:11 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:08:11 -0400 Subject: Nobel and Kyoto In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > The Kyoto Prize is more like a 'lifetime achievement award' than the Nobel, which is generally awarded for a specific achievement. > > > > Good thing in the case of the single linguist to win it. Dan From lamb at rice.edu Thu Oct 28 15:18:10 2010 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed > that Alex learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read > of his performance I would have to agree. Right. She is very careful to avoid making any such claims. -Syd > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > > > >> Dear Aya: > >> > >> I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of > >> communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course > >> I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have > >> complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not > >> mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many > >> people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a > >> language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a > >> creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the > >> reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason > >> that they lack a human brain. > >> Best regards, > >> José-Luis > >> > >> > >> "A. Katz" wrote: > >> > >>> Jose-Luis, > >>> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that > >>> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic > >>> immersion? > >>> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring > >>> to > >>> mammals and birds.) > >>> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human > >>> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire > >>> human > >>> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for > >>> you? > >>> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a > >>> language that some humans who were present did not understand? > >>> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been > >>> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have > >>> seen > >>> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were > >>> present > >>> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not > >>> understand. > >>> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and > >>> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long > >>> time. > >>> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I > >>> changed > >>> my mind. > >>> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this > >>> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it > >>> to > >>> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the > >>> answer is > >>> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? > >>> Or if > >>> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped > >>> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that > >>> experience? > >>> Best, > >>> --Aya > >> > >> > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > > > > Sydney M. Lamb Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Thu Oct 28 17:38:04 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:38:04 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better." I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to explain. Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 17:47:33 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:47:33 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Keith, I agree with you that it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. I don't agree that proof that a child is aware of the meaning of what he is saying is held to an equal standard as proof for a non-human. If you ask a child in a controlled setting which of several objects on the table is blue, and the child picks the blue object, the researcher writing up the experiment does not have to go into a big long discussion about how the child's understanding of "blue", or the syntax of the entire question, is not proof that the child has acquired human language. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, > they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research > reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are > studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman > creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman > species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an > observation that we should be able to explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether > nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are > seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call > language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for > language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Oct 28 20:00:59 2010 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:00:59 -0600 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/28/10 11:38 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Just an expansion on what Keith has said, (and one I assume he would agree with): if we approach this search with the assumption that the "capacity for language" is a unitary thing, our answer is always going to be "only humans have the capacity for human language." We need to approach it by studying the cognitive, social, perceptual, and motoric abilities that make up the "capacity for language," to see which of those are shared across species -- and eventually to understand how they arose, to what extent they are the same/different across species, and how they came together to make possible this amazing thing we call human language. -- Sherman Wilcox Professor of Linguistics University of New Mexico From swellsj at bgsu.edu Thu Oct 28 20:10:16 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:10:16 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. Peace, Sheri Sheri Wells-Jensen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM To: A.Katz Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better." I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to explain. Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 20:48:58 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:48:58 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn from them may not be exactly the same. I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse them. That's syntax. Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than production. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Folks, > It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. > > He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. > It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. > > For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. > > Peace, > Sheri > > > Sheri Wells-Jensen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM > To: A.Katz > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really > talk, they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of > research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". > Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently > than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic > accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of > humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to > explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > From swellsj at bgsu.edu Thu Oct 28 20:58:47 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Aya, What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their linguistic abilities per se. Sheri -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn from them may not be exactly the same. I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse them. That's syntax. Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than production. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Folks, > It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. > > He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. > It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. > > For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. > > Peace, > Sheri > > > Sheri Wells-Jensen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM > To: A.Katz > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really > talk, they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of > research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". > Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently > than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic > accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of > humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to > explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Oct 28 21:15:14 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:15:14 -0400 Subject: Chomsky- selective breeding Message-ID: I'd like to suggest a long-term study to see if parrots and other animals good at imitation can be selectively bred for syntactic abilities and larger vocabularies. The birds appear to be of reproductive age at from 5-7 years, so generational turnover can be relatively fast. Heck, they domesticated the Siberian silver fox in a few decades of dedicated work. What else could be accomplished here? Soon we may be forced to admit birds to our universities, and give them civil rights. Hurrah for Uplift. Jess Tauber From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 21:57:22 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:57:22 -0700 Subject: Chomsky- selective breeding In-Reply-To: <17273400.1288300515133.JavaMail.root@wamui-haziran.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jess, So you think syntactic ability is innate? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, jess tauber wrote: > I'd like to suggest a long-term study to see if parrots and other animals good at imitation can be selectively bred for syntactic abilities and larger vocabularies. The birds appear to be of reproductive age at from 5-7 years, so generational turnover can be relatively fast. Heck, they domesticated the Siberian silver fox in a few decades of dedicated work. What else could be accomplished here? Soon we may be forced to admit birds to our universities, and give them civil rights. Hurrah for Uplift. > > Jess Tauber > > From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 22:29:39 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:29:39 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Hi Aya, > What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex > experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood > would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work > on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >linguistic abilities per se. > > > Sheri > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn > from them may not be exactly the same. > > I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to > interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse > them. That's syntax. > > Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than > production. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Folks, >> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >> >> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >> >> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >> >> Peace, >> Sheri >> >> >> Sheri Wells-Jensen >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >> To: A.Katz >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >> >> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >> >> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >> explain. >> >> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >> >> >> Keith Johnson >> Professor of Linguistics >> University of California >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Oct 29 01:19:24 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:19:24 -0400 Subject: Chomsky-selective breeding Message-ID: There was just a NOVA show, from 2009, on crow intelligence, on the local PBS station. In it they talk about sociality, shared responsibilities, communication, tool making and use- the works. Supposedly crows (all, some?) have more than 200 vocal signals. What is the inner architecture of such a large set? Combinations of signs from a smaller set? Each unique? A mix? What are the communicative outlines? Just kin hierarchy, challenge, food, warnings, mating, the usual set? Or something more? Sounds like a much cheaper set of test/experimental subjects than parrots, and less likely to drive populations to extinction. Anyone know if they have imitative capacities? In experiments they clearly can learn- how about acoustically, for verbalized concepts? Go nuts, become a Raven Lunatic... Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From gaelv at uvigo.es Fri Oct 29 10:18:45 2010 From: gaelv at uvigo.es (Gael Vaamonde) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:18:45 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote Message-ID: Hello, I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! Gael Vaamonde University of Vigo From brian.nolan at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 12:06:57 2010 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:06:57 +0100 Subject: Call for abstracts - SLE2011: Functionally motivated computational approaches to models of language and grammar In-Reply-To: <686d4b32f88d47bea74191813d527606@unizar.es> Message-ID: Functionally motivated computational approaches to models of language and grammar Within the framework of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, to be held at the Universidad de La Rioja (Logroño, Spain), 8-11 September 2011, we would like to propose a workshop on functionally motivated work in computational approaches to models of language and grammar Convenors: Brian Nolan (Institute of Technology Blanchardstown Dublin Ireland) Carlos Periñán Pascual (Universidad Católica de San Antonio, Murcia Spain) In this call for papers we propose to host a workshop under the SLE to examine and discuss recent and current work in the use of functional, cognitive and constructional approaches to the computational modelling of language and grammars. While recognising that in recent times much work has concentrated on statistical models, we wish to examine in particular computational models that are linguistically motivated and that deal with problems at the interfaces between concept, semantics, lexicon, syntax and morphology. Many functionally oriented models of grammar, including Functional Grammar, Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and reference Grammar have lent them selves to work as diverse as lexically motivated machine translation from Arabic to English (Nolan and Salem 2009, Salem and Nolan 2009a and 2009b) and to the conceptual ontological work on FunGramKB (Periñán-Pascual & Arcas-Túnez 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Periñán-Pascual & Mairal Usón 2009) plus recent work undertaken within the Lexical-Constructional Model (Mairal Usón, R. & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008 and 2009, Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José and Mairal, Ricardo. 2008, Guest, Nolan & Mairal-Uson. 2009) and Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 2005, Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). Indeed, similar work has been ongoing quietly within the domain of Sign Linguistics where various initiatives based upon variations of the original Mental Spaces Model (Fauconnier 1994) have been productively used in the creation of digital intelligent avatars to translate spoken/written languages into several Sign Languages (Morrissey & Way 2006, Cassell et al 2000, Prendinger & Ishizuka 2010). Sign Languages, as visual gestural languages, pose interesting problems for functional models of grammar (Leeson & Nolan 2008, Leeson et al 2006). The organisers of this workshop are a European group of linguists, computational linguists and computer scientists who, since the 2004 Role and Reference Grammar International Conference in Dublin have formulated computational proposals in different areas concerned with the lexicon and concept ontologies, and the computational processing of the syntax, morphology and semantics of a variety of languages. Thus far, these actual computational projects have encompassed 1) rule-based lexicalist interlingua bridge machine translation, 2) ontological engineering of concepts that enhance and enrich logical structures in a machine tractable way, 3) the implementation of a unified lexical meta-language in software, and 4) the parsing of complex sentences. The languages that have undergone a computation treatment in RRG have included English, Arabic and Spanish, and others. A consequence of this computational work has been the enrichment of the theoretical elements of the RRG theory, especially in its semantics and lexical underpinnings where they connect with concepts, and the building of frame based applications in software that demonstrate its viability in natural language processing. Furthermore, this computational work provides compelling evidence that functional approaches to grammar have a positive and crucial role to play in natural language processing. We claim that a functional approach to grammar delivers a credible and realistic linguistic model to underpin these kinds of NLP applications. The main topics of the workshop will include, but are not limited to, the following: · The deployment of functional models in parse and generation · The architecture of the lexicon · The linking system between semantics, lexicon and morphosyntax · Interpretation of the linguistic model into an algorithm specification · Issues for the layered structure of the clause and word · Complexity issues · Concept formation · Linguistically motivated computational approaches to gesture in language We would like to present a forum for a functional and cognitive linguistic, computational research agenda, based around an inclusive model consisting of the various cognitive and functional approaches to grammar. In sum, the aim of this workshop is to offer a forum for discussion and critical evaluation of the full gamut of research projects concerned with a broadly functional computational linguistics and that also contributes to our understanding of languages in a functionally oriented way. Procedure: ---------------------- Abstracts are invited for 20 minute presentations with 10 minute discussion. Interested researchers and linguists are invited to email brian.nolan at gmail.com with their name, affiliation and provisional abstract of 500 words by 10 November 2010. Important dates ---------------------- Submission of provisional abstract: 10 November 2010. Notification of acceptance of workshop proposal: 15th December 2010. If the workshop proposal is accepted then all abstracts will need to be submitted to SLE by 15th January 2011, via the SLE conference website: http://sle2011.cliap.es Notification of acceptance: 31st March 2011 Registration: From April 2011 onwards Conference: 8-11 September 2011 Selected references Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (Eds.). 2000. Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Guest, Elizabeth, Brian Nolan and Ricardo Mairal-Uson. 2009. Natural Language processing applications in an RRG Framework. Proceedings of the 10th International Role and Reference Grammar Conference. University of California, Berkeley USA. Leeson, Lorraine and Brian Nolan. 2008. Digital Deployment of the Signs of Ireland Corpus in Elearning. Language Resources and Evaluation LREC2008 - 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. Marrakech, Morocco. Leeson, Lorraine, John Saeed, Deirdre Byrne-Dunne, Alison Macduff and Cormac Leonard. 2006. Moving Heads and Moving Hands: Developing a Digital Corpus of Irish Sign Language. The ‘Signs of Ireland’ Corpus Development Project. IT&T Conference (www.ittconference.ie). IT Carlow, Ireland. http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/handle/2262/1597 Mairal Usón, R. and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008: New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). In Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. Universidad de La Laguna. Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2009: Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler and J. Martín Arista (eds.). Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Morrissey, Sara and Andy Way. 2006. Lost in Translation: the Problems of Using Mainstream MT Evaluation Metrics for Sign Language Translation. In Proceedings of Strategies for developing machine translation for minority languages: 5th SALTMIL Workshop on Minority Languages. Genoa, Italy. pp.91-98 Nolan, Brian and Yasser Salem. 2009. UniArab: An RRG Arabic-to-English machine translation software. Proceedings of the Role and Reference Grammar International Conference. University of California, Berkeley USA. Periñán-Pascual, Carlos, and Francisco Arcas-Túnez. 2005. Microconceptual- Knowledge Spreading in FunGramKB. Proceedings on the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. 239-244, ACTA Press, Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich. Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas Túnez. 2007. Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39, 197-204. Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas Túnez. 2010a. Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44, 27-34. Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas Túnez. 2010b. The architecture of FunGramKB. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2667-2674. Periñán-Pascual, Carlos and Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43, 265-273. Prendinger, Helmut and Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2010. Life-Like Characters: Tools, Affective Functions, and Applications (Cognitive Technologies). Springer. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José and Mairal, Ricardo. 2008: ‘Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model’. Folia Linguistica 42/2 (2008), 355–400. Salem, Y., Hensman, A., and Nolan, B., 2008a. Implementing Arabic-to-English machine translation using the Role and Reference Grammar linguistic model. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Information Technology and Telecommunication (IT&T 2008), Galway, Ireland. Salem, Y. and Nolan, B., 2009a. Designing an XML lexicon architecture for Arabic machine translation based on Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools (MEDAR 2009), Cairo, Egypt. Salem, Y. and Nolan, B., 2009b. UNIARAB: An universal machine translator system for Arabic Based on Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Germany (DGfS 2009). Van Valin, R., 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantic Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, R. and LaPolla, R., 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge University Press. From jlmendi at unizar.es Fri Oct 29 12:16:41 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9-Luis_Mend=EDvil?=) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:16:41 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote In-Reply-To: <20101029121845.bwzmql5vgkcco00k@correoweb.uvigo.es> Message-ID: I'm not sure this is what you are looking for, but (the need of) the distinction between 'grammaticallity' and 'unnaceptability' was discussed interestingly in Newmeyer's 1983 (still) remarkable book: Newmeyer, F.J. (1983): Grammatical Theory. Its Limits and Its Possibilities, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago y Londres. Best regards, José-Luis Mendívil El 29/10/2010, a las 12:18, Gael Vaamonde escribió: > Hello, > > I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of > the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be > better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated > context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or > indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the > source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote > or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! > > Gael Vaamonde > University of Vigo > > Dr José-Luis Mendívil General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Oct 29 12:31:28 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:31:28 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote In-Reply-To: <20101029121845.bwzmql5vgkcco00k@correoweb.uvigo.es> Message-ID: Gael, have a look at "Recontextualizing Context Grammaticality meets appropriateness" by Anita Fetzer (Benjamins 2004): She discusses these terms together with their (first) proponents at length p. 12ff. Best wishes, Wolfgang Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 121 2004. Am 29.10.2010 12:18, schrieb Gael Vaamonde: > Hello, > > I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of > the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be > better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated > context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or > indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the > source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote > or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! > > Gael Vaamonde > University of Vigo > -- -- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 Postanschrift / Postal address:Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 // 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistiký Fakultahumanitných vied UniverzitaMateja Béla / Banská Bystrica Tajovského40 SK-97401 Banská Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From swellsj at bgsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:58:34 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:58:34 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). Sheri -- Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen Assistant Director English as a Second Language Program Associate Professor Department of English 423 East Hall Bowling Green State University (419) 372-8935 -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Hi Aya, > What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex > experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood > would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work > on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >linguistic abilities per se. > > > Sheri > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn > from them may not be exactly the same. > > I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to > interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse > them. That's syntax. > > Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than > production. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Folks, >> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >> >> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >> >> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >> >> Peace, >> Sheri >> >> >> Sheri Wells-Jensen >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >> To: A.Katz >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >> >> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >> >> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >> explain. >> >> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >> >> >> Keith Johnson >> Professor of Linguistics >> University of California >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 17:50:00 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:50:00 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from language? --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Aya, > > I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). > > Sheri > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much > difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because > many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. > > The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition > when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit > pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how > did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? > > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Hi Aya, >> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >> linguistic abilities per se. >> >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >> from them may not be exactly the same. >> >> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >> them. That's syntax. >> >> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >> production. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>> >>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>> >>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>> >>> Peace, >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>> To: A.Katz >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>> >>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>> >>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>> explain. >>> >>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>> >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> Professor of Linguistics >>> University of California >>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>> >>> >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 19:21:26 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:21:26 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dianne, Yes, Pepperberg has published some on the phenomenon you are describing. Shortly before Alex died she gave a talk at LACUS, in which she was very circumspect as usual in not claiming too much, but after seeing her presentation I was convinced that Alex had mastered English phonology. Again, she said no such thing herself-- she beat around the bush in the terminology she used, but that's what her evidence suggested. For anybody who is interested in what she actually said, and in her evidence, her paper for LACUS is availabel online: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/34/103_pepperberg_i.pdf --Aya On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Dianne Patterson wrote: > While I would not touch the "language" question with a 10 foot pole, > I can tell you that Alex engaged in fascinating word play (and so did the > younger parrots). > In these vocal games he would do things like swap consonants within words. > > He would also perform a sort of scaffolding behavior behavior for learning > new words based on similar old words. > Whatever you call this, he certainly did NOT treat words as unanalyzable > wholes. > > -Dianne Patterson, Ph.D. > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Sheri, >> >> Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were >> symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she >> spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? >> >> I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on >> them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do >> this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's >> not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that >> compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. >> >> How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? >> >> This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for >> humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would >> you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the >> subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from >> language? >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >> Aya, >>> >>> I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by >>> language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily >>> "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to >>> hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and >>> Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel >>> ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported >>> in anything I've read). >>> >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Assistant Director >>> English as a Second Language Program >>> >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of English >>> >>> 423 East Hall >>> Bowling Green State University >>> >>> (419) 372-8935 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM >>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Sheri, >>> >>> I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much >>> difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because >>> many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. >>> >>> The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition >>> when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit >>> pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how >>> did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aya, >>>> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and >>>> reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed >>>> at Alex >>>> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the >>>> best measures of what he actually understood >>>> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way >>>> outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the >>>> published work >>>> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >>>> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >>>> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >>>> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >>>> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >>>> linguistic abilities per se. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sheri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >>>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>> >>>> Sheri, >>>> >>>> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >>>> from them may not be exactly the same. >>>> >>>> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >>>> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >>>> them. That's syntax. >>>> >>>> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >>>> production. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and >>>>> the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot >>>>> cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly >>>>> that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate >>>>> his various (impressive) abilities. >>>>> >>>>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's >>>>> fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, >>>>> demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>>>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities >>>>> necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the >>>>> parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>>>> >>>>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex >>>>> Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>>>> >>>>> Peace, >>>>> Sheri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >>>>> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>>>> To: A.Katz >>>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>>> >>>>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>>>> >>>>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>>>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>>>> >>>>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>>>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>>>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>>>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>>>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>>>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>>>> explain. >>>>> >>>>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>>>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>>>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>>>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>>>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Keith Johnson >>>>> Professor of Linguistics >>>>> University of California >>>>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dianne Patterson, Ph.D. > dkp at u.arizona.edu > University of Arizona > SLHS 314 > 621-9877 > From swellsj at bgsu.edu Fri Oct 29 19:32:27 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:32:27 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I remember feeling the same way about our daughter when she was about one: I kept thinking: those are certainly signs that refer to things, but I wonder if it's language ... yet. Later on, at some point, she crossed over some productivity point and it seemed clear to me that she was actually using language. I can't say when that was or what made me feel like it was language, but there was a point where I thought it wasn't and then later a point where I thought it was. I like to think of things in terms of a continuum and this seems to be an example of this to me. I respect the way the Alex papers are all quite conservative with the claims made about everything. I wouldn't say Alex didn't use language, but I feel cautious about all such claims: human and animal I guess. Sheri: apparently feeling difficult today! :) -- Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen Assistant Director English as a Second Language Program Associate Professor Department of English 423 East Hall Bowling Green State University (419) 372-8935 -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:50 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from language? --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Aya, > > I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). > > Sheri > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much > difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because > many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. > > The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition > when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit > pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how > did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? > > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Hi Aya, >> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >> linguistic abilities per se. >> >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >> from them may not be exactly the same. >> >> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >> them. That's syntax. >> >> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >> production. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>> >>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>> >>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>> >>> Peace, >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>> To: A.Katz >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>> >>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>> >>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>> explain. >>> >>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>> >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> Professor of Linguistics >>> University of California >>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>> >>> >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 20:25:18 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:25:18 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, Okay. I certainly respect that. There is a point with every child where you're not sure if they're really talking, or we're just reading too much into it. But that's usually before they can reliably produce recognizable output. There's even sometimes the point at which only some family members can understand what they are saying. It's because we give them the benefit of the doubt that they can proceed along the path beyond that point. I don't have problems with a graded approach. But then we'd have to admit that some humans don't have language at all, and others have mastered phonology and the lexicon, but not syntax. And others still are good at almost everything, but they can't write metrical poetry to save their lives. So if we really went around making each human subject prove with the same exactitude what degree of mastery they have over language, it would be a level playing field. And there would be no more grandiose claims about what anyone knows just by virtue of being human. But I don't think we're even allowed to say that Alex mastered phonology, after seeing him manipulate phonemes. I have people who tell me they do not doubt that Bow can spell words and construct sentences, but that somehow it isn't the same, because he's not human. The same proof should apply in all cases. (And if social cuing is not okay for other animals, then it's not okay for humans, too.) The great thing about Alex is that no one can claim that he was being cued as to what vocal gesture he should make. --Aya On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > I remember feeling the same way about our daughter when she was about one: I kept thinking: those are certainly signs that refer to things, but I wonder if it's language ... yet. Later on, at some point, she crossed over some productivity point and it seemed clear to me that she was actually using language. I can't say when that was or what made me feel like it was language, but there was a point where I thought it wasn't and then later a point where I thought it was. I like to think of things in terms of a continuum and this seems to be an example of this to me. I respect the way the Alex papers are all quite conservative with the claims made about everything. I wouldn't say Alex didn't use language, but I feel cautious about all such claims: human and animal I guess. > > Sheri: apparently feeling difficult today! :) > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:50 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were > symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if > she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? > > I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on > them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do > this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that > it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes > that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we > speak. > > How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? > > This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for > humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, > would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and > the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart > from language? > > > --Aya > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word > > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Aya, >> >> I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Assistant Director >> English as a Second Language Program >> >> Associate Professor >> Department of English >> >> 423 East Hall >> Bowling Green State University >> >> (419) 372-8935 >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much >> difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because >> many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. >> >> The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition >> when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit >> pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how >> did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Hi Aya, >>> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >>> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >>> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >>> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >>> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >>> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >>> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >>> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >>> linguistic abilities per se. >>> >>> >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Sheri, >>> >>> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >>> from them may not be exactly the same. >>> >>> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >>> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >>> them. That's syntax. >>> >>> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >>> production. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>>> >>>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>>> >>>> Peace, >>>> Sheri >>>> >>>> >>>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>>> To: A.Katz >>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>> >>>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>>> >>>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>>> >>>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>>> explain. >>>> >>>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>>> >>>> >>>> Keith Johnson >>>> Professor of Linguistics >>>> University of California >>>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Oct 29 20:47:18 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: Chomsky Message-ID: It would be interesting to know whether parrots or other imitating birds can deal with human phonosemantic trends. Say, train them in a language with huge numbers of transparent ideophones (for ex. a Gbaya dialect) but minimal derivation and inflection. See how they do. Or conversely, use a heavily polysynthetic language where there is little such iconic transparency. Could they handle it? Would they fare differently with languages of different morphosyntactic typology? Or we could look at differently quantized phonological systems- something with a minimal set but lots of surface variation depending on local context, or maximal with minimal variation (Ubykh? !Kung?). Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 30 03:25:47 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:25:47 -0400 Subject: Linguistics, MT, and AI... Message-ID: Thanks to Yuri Tambovtsev for the following: > There is a crisis in linguistics, though linguists do not care to notice > it. I don't intend to push the points I have already made too much further, since I respect all of you for the difficult situation in which you find yourselves, even if you "do not care to notice it." If it's any consolation, you're not alone in this situation, it's one shared by everyone in the AI field, of which MT is just one branch (and yes, I'm aware there was an MT movement before AI which would later merge). Up there on that Tokyo Prize stage with Chomsky was John McCarthy, the inventor of the phrase Artificial Intelligence and often named as its father. (If memory serves, you'll find a photo of them both on that Tokyo platform in Barsky's bio). It was a heady year, 1988, when AI was at its summit of prestige, when we were told repeatedly that it was only a matter of time before KEs (Knowledge Engineers) would be arriving in every area of business, education, and industry to consult with DEs (Domain Experts), and once the KEs had absorbed what the DEs knew, they would digitize it all, and DEs would no longer be needed. But it all worked out rather differently, just as in MT, where it was widely boasted in 1988 that human translators, the DEs in their field, were soon due to vanish. What actually turned out is that almost all the MT companies of the 80s & 90s went under, while remaining MT/TM companies are virtually begging human translators to use their systems, since only human translators are capable of coping with them. Back during those ambitious 80s & 90s, it was widely boasted that the Austin CYC project would soon solve all of AI and language by joining vast numbers of computers together to simulate the human mind & human language. We hear little about CYC these days, though according to the Times it has just been reborn at Carnegie Mellon under its new name of NELL (Never Ending Language Learning). I'm willing to bet that my 1994 criticisms of CYC will still apply to NELL, you'll find them at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/nextwave.htm#totop Just a few weeks ago the New York Times published another pro-AI article claiming that robotically driven cars are nearly here. None other than John McCarthy made this claim to me on-line back in 1998, and once again I believe that most of the counter-arguments I made to him then still hold. You'll find them at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/autocars.htm I could go on and on with further AI examples but will spare you. The future of linguistics is your problem, and sooner or later you will need to confront it. Very best to everyone! alex PS--I realize that "culture" is a dirty word around here, but the granting of the Tokyo Prize to Chomsky and McCarthy by Japan was scarcely a disinterested one devoid of cultural and political overtones. This was the period when the Japanese were staking their own future on AI with their so-called Fifth Generation drive, and they saw these two men as providing key guidance in their campaign, Chomsky for language, McCarthy for everything else. I discussed all of this in some detail at the time in a review you can find here: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/japanai.htm#totop From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Sat Oct 30 18:23:06 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:23:06 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Sheri, I wonder if your feeling that your daughter had crossed a language learning threshold might have been at about 18 months, the usual time of the "vocabulary explosion"? Bob McMurray has some really interesting ideas about how to explain this feature of language acquisition. He simulated the vocabulary explosion by making only two assumptions. (1) words are being learned in parallel - a little bit of learning for many words at the same time, and (2) some words are easier to learn than others. That's all it takes to have a vocabulary explosion - no language module needed. McMurray posted a very helpful discussion of his work: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mcmurray/science/ If the sense that a child has crossed a linguistic threshold is related to the vocabulary explosion, and if the vocabulary explosion is related to McMurray's two factors, then what keeps Alex from crossing the threshold must be one of two things; he is learning words sequentially rather than in parallel, or he finds it much harder to learn words than children do. If the first impediment is the culprit then perhaps training methods could be adjusted, but if the second is the crucial factor then it may not be possible for a parrot to cross that language-learning threshold with English. Earlier work with Chimps has tried to address the word difficulty problem by teaching ASL rather than spoken language, but one wonders if the difficulty lies at a more conceptual level of word learning than mere input/output system unnaturalness. Still the LACUS paper that Aya pointed us to hints at an impressive use by parrots of duality of patterning (one of Hockett's 13 design features of language Hockett, C (1960) "The Origin of Speech". in Scientific American, 203, pp. 89–97). best, Keith Johnson p.s. I would like to say, regarding the range of human linguistic ability (Aya's repeated point that some humans don't have language), that it would be useful to remember that clinical speech and language pathologists have developed numerous standardized tests of human linguistic ability, and school-aged children are routinely tested to detect developmental delays. Perhaps, if one wanted to measure the level of linguistic accomplishment reached by a parrot or other animal it would be good to score the animal on some standardized tests. From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 30 18:42:09 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:42:09 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <0F705506-C1CF-4618-B13A-D4260EE82C7A@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Keith, Overall that was a very useful suggestion concerning the standards established by language pathologists to assess first language learning. However, I'm a little more skeptical that these tests are effective at detecting problems with "general language ability" as opposed to the success of a particular child with the acquisition of a specific language. There are numerous stories about language delay experts being unable to independently detect the difference between general language delay and the fact that the child in question is not a speaker of the particular language being tested. To my knowledge, there is no test of generalized language ability even for humans. --Aya On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Hi Sheri, > > I wonder if your feeling that your daughter had crossed a language learning > threshold might have been at about 18 months, the usual time of the > "vocabulary explosion"? > > Bob McMurray has some really interesting ideas about how to explain this > feature of language acquisition. He simulated the vocabulary explosion by > making only two assumptions. (1) words are being learned in parallel - a > little bit of learning for many words at the same time, and (2) some words > are easier to learn than others. That's all it takes to have a vocabulary > explosion - no language module needed. > > McMurray posted a very helpful discussion of his work: > http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mcmurray/science/ > > If the sense that a child has crossed a linguistic threshold is related to > the vocabulary explosion, and if the vocabulary explosion is related to > McMurray's two factors, then what keeps Alex from crossing the threshold must > be one of two things; he is learning words sequentially rather than in > parallel, or he finds it much harder to learn words than children do. If the > first impediment is the culprit then perhaps training methods could be > adjusted, but if the second is the crucial factor then it may not be possible > for a parrot to cross that language-learning threshold with English. > > Earlier work with Chimps has tried to address the word difficulty problem by > teaching ASL rather than spoken language, but one wonders if the difficulty > lies at a more conceptual level of word learning than mere input/output > system unnaturalness. Still the LACUS paper that Aya pointed us to hints at > an impressive use by parrots of duality of patterning (one of Hockett's 13 > design features of language Hockett, C (1960) "The Origin of Speech". in > Scientific American, 203, pp. 89–97). > > best, > Keith Johnson > > p.s. I would like to say, regarding the range of human linguistic ability > (Aya's repeated point that some humans don't have language), that it would be > useful to remember that clinical speech and language pathologists have > developed numerous standardized tests of human linguistic ability, and > school-aged children are routinely tested to detect developmental delays. > Perhaps, if one wanted to measure the level of linguistic accomplishment > reached by a parrot or other animal it would be good to score the animal on > some standardized tests. From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:16:59 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:16:59 +0700 Subject: Glottal stops Message-ID: Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 30 19:31:36 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:31:36 -0700 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yuri, It's not that the brain commands us to use glottal stops or not. There is a historical process whereby languages change their phonetic inventories. It has nothing to do with the genetic configuration of different brains. --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 30 19:39:03 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:39:03 +0200 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I meant glottalized sounds, not simple glottal stops--the glottalized sounds essentially have glottal stops as secondary articulations. In relation to frequency of occurrence--and since you said you've done frequency counts-- I should say that I remember having the impression when I was looking at Mayan languages that--aside from the fact that highland languages almost always have the uvular glottal stop while lowland languages almost never do--the general frequency of glottal stops was much higher in highland languages like Quiche than lowland languages like Yucatec. I was doing text analyses of word order variation, not frequency of occurrence of different phonemes, but I remember having this impression very clearly. Would you happen to have done any studies of any of these languages? Best wishes, John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in > Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, > then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the > sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort > of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. > They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what > is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds > more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of > research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one > language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same > sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human > Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human > speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound > pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world > languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:41:41 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:41:41 +0700 Subject: Brain sends commands to the articulators Message-ID: Yuri, It's not that the brain commands us to use glottal stops or not. There is a historical process whereby languages change their phonetic inventories. It has nothing to do with the genetic configuration of different brains. --Aya My dear Aya, if you read books on phonetics, you'll learn that Brain sends commands to the articulators to produce this or that sound. What you wrote is quite strange for specialists in phonetics. Be well Yuri From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sat Oct 30 19:47:22 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:47:22 -0600 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: <1288467543.4ccc7457ad2fd@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: this sort of question is exactly what the on-line World Atlas of Linguistic Structures is intended to help with. In about a minute, I got to the page for the distribution of glottalized consonants of various types: http://wals.info/feature/7?tg_format=map&v1=cfff&v2=c00d&v3=cd00&v4=dff0&v5=c909&v6=d00d&v7=dd00&v8=d909&s=20&z4=3000&z8=2999&z7=2998&z5=2997&z6=2996&z3=2995&z2=2994&z1=2993 Paste this link into your browser to go to the Google map WALS generated for me. Lise On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:39 PM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I meant glottalized sounds, not simple glottal stops--the > glottalized sounds > essentially have glottal stops as secondary articulations. In > relation to > frequency of occurrence--and since you said you've done frequency > counts-- > I should say that I remember having the impression when I was > looking at Mayan > languages that--aside from the fact that highland languages almost > always have > the uvular glottal stop while lowland languages almost never do--the > general > frequency of glottal stops was much higher in highland languages > like Quiche > than lowland languages like Yucatec. I was doing text analyses of > word order > variation, not frequency of occurrence of different phonemes, but I > remember > having this impression very clearly. Would you happen to have done any > studies of any of these languages? > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > >> Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they >> are used in >> Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of >> occurrence, >> then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds >> in the >> sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too >> much effort >> of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world >> languages. >> They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting >> enough, but what >> is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of >> speech sounds >> more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this >> direction of >> research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently >> in one >> language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use >> the same >> sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes >> that Human >> Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the >> Human >> speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound >> pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on >> 256 world >> languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:48:17 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:48:17 +0700 Subject: Quiche Message-ID: I counted a small text of Quiche all right. I do not remember that the per cent of occurrence of glottal stops in it was higher than the other speech sounds. From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:58:29 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:58:29 +0700 Subject: labial against velar consonants Message-ID: At the moment I am writing an article on how much different poets use labial consonants against velar consonants and how much fricative consonants against occlusive consonants and so on. The Nobel Prize Winner Josif Brodskiy does not use as many vowels and sonorants as Alexander Pushkin or Sergey Esenin. Why so? That is the question. From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 31 11:55:20 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:55:20 +0600 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages Message-ID: Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 31 12:24:47 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:24:47 -0700 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages In-Reply-To: <91724379E7D24C92A7911F05562B0B82@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in monogenesis or not. If language arose only once, then it had a certain phonetic inventory at that time. Then historical processes set in. My guess is that guttural sounds and clicks and pharyngeals were part of the phonetic inventory of the original language (or languages), but that they tend to disappear with time. In less urban settings, where there is less commerce and less noise, the sounds can survive. But in other places they tend to disappear. Have you ever heard of a click developing from a non-click, a pharyngeal from an oral sound? I think there's some kind of directionality in the process of change. --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk > > From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 31 12:46:46 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:46:46 +0600 Subject: apply exact or objective methods Message-ID: Aya Katz wrote= Yuri, The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in monogenesis or not. = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 31 13:31:13 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:31:13 +0200 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages In-Reply-To: <91724379E7D24C92A7911F05562B0B82@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: In a generally similar vein, Niloofar Haeri has argued convincingly that in sound changes, women are overwhelmingly more likely to lead if the process involves fronting while men are overwhelmingly more likely to lead if the process involves backing. Another mystery of human language... John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial > consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural > consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote > me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg > published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some > Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the > frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the > frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have > calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech > sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, > uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated > in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural > languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural > are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third > speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to > those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most > gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, > Novosibirsk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 31 14:13:51 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:13:51 -0700 Subject: apply exact or objective methods In-Reply-To: <6D60D5328F7B46049CF813D5DD187FE4@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Touche! I misspoke. You are right. I should not have mentioned "belief." What I meant was, have you seen any historical evidence of the development of clicks from non-clicks? Or of oral sounds becoming pharyngeal? Is the development documented to have occurred in either direction? --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Aya Katz wrote= > Yuri, > The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in > monogenesis or not. > = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Oct 31 14:25:22 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:25:22 +0100 Subject: apply exact or objective methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I recall Bernd Heine once arguing in favor of the emergence of at least some clicks from clusters of oral consonants in Khoisan languages (but I have to check that! Bernd: In case you read this, please correct me!). As for "orals sounds becoming pharyngeal": In Udi (East Caucasian), for instances, there is a secured sound law that runs *[t?'] > [q'], as in *ot?- 'ground' > Udi oq' 'ground' (many other examples). Best, Wolfgang Am 31.10.2010 15:13, schrieb A. Katz: > Touche! I misspoke. You are right. I should not have mentioned "belief." > > What I meant was, have you seen any historical evidence of the > development of clicks from non-clicks? Or of oral sounds becoming > pharyngeal? Is the development documented to have occurred in either > direction? > > --Aya > > > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > >> Aya Katz wrote= >> Yuri, >> The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in >> monogenesis or not. >> = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just >> believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective >> methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the >> contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a >> science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should >> a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, >> chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a >> lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to >> yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia >> >> > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Neue Anschrift // New address [!] 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: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistiký Fakultahumanitných vied UniverzitaMateja Béla / Banská Bystrica Tajovského40 SK-97401 Banská Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 rberman at post.tau.ac.il Fri Oct 1 07:00:56 2010 From: rberman at post.tau.ac.il (rberman at post.tau.ac.il) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:00:56 +0200 Subject: researchers on Arabic diglossia Message-ID: Hello funknetters I agree entirely with what John Myhill has to say on the topic, and Mira Ariel is also right of course. Am sending a copy of this message to two colleagues, Elinor Saiegh Haddad, herself a native speaker of Palestinian Arabic,does firstrate empirical research on Arabic dig lossia and its implications for education, Lior Laks is a linguistics graduate student who has also studied the topic Ruth Berman, Tel Aviv University From eep at hum.ku.dk Fri Oct 1 12:05:09 2010 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg - Pedersen) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:05:09 +0200 Subject: SALC III, third call Message-ID: From eep at hum.ku.dk Fri Oct 1 12:08:09 2010 From: eep at hum.ku.dk (Elisabeth Engberg - Pedersen) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:08:09 +0200 Subject: SALC III, third call with text Message-ID: I am sorry about the empty first letter. Funknet apparently does not accept pdfs. [file://localhost/Users/eep/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_image002.png] THIRD CALL FOR PAPERS and CALL FOR THEME SESSIONS for The Third Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition The Third Conference of the Scandinavian Association for Language and Cognition (SALC III) will take place at the University of Copenhagen, June 14-16th (3 days) 2011. Keynote speakers: * Lawrence Barsalou, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia * Per Durst-Andersen, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark * Rachel Giora, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel * Marianne Gullberg, Lund University, Lund, Sweden * Hannes Rakoczy, University of G?ttingen, Germany The conference includes, but is not limited to the following themes: * Cognitive impairment and language use * Language acquisition and cognition * Language and cognitive development and evolution * Language and consciousness * Language and gesture * Language change and cognition * Language structure and cognition * Language use and cognition * Linguistic relativity * Linguistic typology and cognition * Psycholinguistic approaches to language and cognition * Specific language impairment We now invite the submission of abstracts for paper or poster presentations. The deadline is December 1st 2010. Papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for discussion. Posters will stay up for a day and be allocated to dedicated, timetabled sessions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be sent by email as a Word attachment to SALC3 at hum.ku.dk by December 1 2010 (subject: SALC III abstract). The document should contain presentation title, the abstract and preference for paper or poster presentation. Please DO NOT include information identifying the author(s) in the email attachment. Author(s) information including name, affiliation and email address(es) should be detailed in the body of the email. Notification of acceptance decisions will be communicated by February 1st 2011. Proposals for theme sessions must be submitted no later than November 8 2010. Proposals should include a title, a short description of the theme (a maximum of 100 words), and the name and affiliation of the person(s) proposing the session. Conference website: http://salc3.ku.dk/ For details of SALC, see: http://www.salc-sssk.org/ From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 16:16:49 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:16:49 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. Thanks! --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 17:53:39 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:53:39 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: A conflation of typological features partially predicts which languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do the appropriate stats. At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that absorb "second-position clitics"). Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). Best, TG ================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for > why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I > am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary > was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, > marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. > There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in > English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its > rarity crosslinguistically. > > Thanks! > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 18:42:13 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:42:13 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA62023.7020704@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Tom, I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding has basically disappeared. Best, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: > > A conflation of typological features partially predicts which languages do or > don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on other > constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic pathway, but > the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the same. Colette > Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description of this in her Rama > work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands post-positions MASSIVELY on the > verb, but at a prefixal rather than suffixal point. The typological > difference is transparent: Rama is ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO > with post-verbal PPs (see Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both > ex-SOV), the strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a > non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". > > But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo zero-anaphora > of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) generic predictability > (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" > zero,). In Rama, Bonnie Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published > it), and the antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I > suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are so old > and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do the appropriate > stats. > > At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter Hook > showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in Bantu (SOV) at > the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the lexical (extended later > from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you will.) And I can show you massive > stranding of post-positions on Ute verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal > positions (different generations, different mechanisms, and different > word-types that absorb "second-position clitics"). > > Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the > interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded > prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures" > (Benjamins, 2002). > > Best, TG > > ================== > > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was talked >> to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally in >> French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number of >> functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder if >> anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >> >> Thanks! >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > From hartmut at ruc.dk Fri Oct 1 18:50:43 2010 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:50:43 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Just to add to Fritz' point about German: There is some preposition stranding in colloquial German, but the preposition ends up in a funny place. English: What does this have something to do *with*? Danish: Hvad har det noget at g?re *med*? Colloquial German (at least from where I am from): Was hat das was *mit* zu tun? Standard German: Wo*mit* hat das (et)was zu tun? and English: Who does this have something to do *with*? Danish: Hvem har det noget at g?re *med*? Colloquial German: Wem hat das was *mit* zu tun? Standard German: *Mit* wem hat das etwas zu tun? Your turn. Hartmut On 01-10-2010 20:42, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Tom, > > I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a > bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why > P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you > tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it > should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other > languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in > modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and > with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean > when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic > (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there > stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, > the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. > > Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg > with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As > English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments > (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of > P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. > But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though > German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding > has basically disappeared. > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: >> >> A conflation of typological features partially predicts which >> languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on >> other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic >> pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the >> same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description >> of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands >> post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than >> suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is >> ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see >> Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the >> strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a >> non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". >> >> But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo >> zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) >> generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric >> predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie >> Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the >> antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I >> suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are >> so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do >> the appropriate stats. >> >> At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter >> Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in >> Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the >> lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you >> will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute >> verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different >> generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that >> absorb "second-position clitics"). >> >> Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the >> interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded >> prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara >> Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================== >> >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for >>> why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? >>> (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', >>> 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in >>> Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >> > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 19:03:42 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:03:42 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, in-strtuct, de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page of those in my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly talking about the metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a lot of hay off this, claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get reified in some lexical Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us do, maybe) about the diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such 'stranding', & how it connect to the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later WO, zero-anaphora of both types, the availability of other clitic-trapping word-types, ets. All that is needed is widening our typological--and diachronic, really the same thing--horizons just a little bit and what seems to you so exceptional reveals itself to be rather massive. Best, TG ======================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Tom, > > I'll check out the references that you cite, but your posting has me a > bit confused. It is not clear to me from what you wrote why > P-stranding is so rare. Or are you saying that it is not rare? Are you > tying the rise of P-stranding to the shift from SOV to SVO? If so, it > should be much more common than it is in Indo-European and in other > languages that have undergone the same word order change. But in > modern SVO Indo-European languages, it occurs only in Germanic and > with one or two prepositions in French. So I'm not sure what you mean > when you write that stranding occurs MASSIVELY in Romance and Germanic > (and in I-E in general). Surely that is not true. Where is there > stranding in Romance at all outside of French? In general in Romance, > the preposition and its object have to be fronted together. > > Furthermore, we had stranding in some environments in Old English (eg > with topicalization), even though that language was still SOV. As > English developed, there arose more and more stranding environments > (eg with wh-movement and passive). I'm not sure why this extension of > P-stranding would follow from what you wrote about word order change. > But in German, I believe that the exact opposite happened. Even though > German is 'less SOV/more SVO' than it was 1000 years ago, stranding > has basically disappeared. > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> re. STRANDED AD-POSITIONS: >> >> A conflation of typological features partially predicts which >> languages do or don't strand ad-positions on the verb (as well as on >> other constituents/words). These features predict various diachronic >> pathway, but the synchronic endpoint products don't always look the >> same. Colette Craig/Grinevald (with Ken Hal;e) has a nice description >> of this in her Rama work. Like Romance & Germanic, Rama strands >> post-positions MASSIVELY on the verb, but at a prefixal rather than >> suffixal point. The typological difference is transparent: Rama is >> ex-SOV with pre-verbal PPs. English is SVO with post-verbal PPs (see >> Givon 1971, CLS #7). In Romance & Germanic (both ex-SOV), the >> strnaded pre-positions are already so fused (old stuff) that a >> non-etymologists may not count them as "the real thing". >> >> But--the diachronic process is remarkably similar: PPs undergo >> zero-anaphora of their core noun, for one of two major reasons: (a) >> generic predictability (antipassive); and (b) anaphoric >> predictability ("traditional" "pro-drop" zero,). In Rama, Bonnie >> Tibbitts & I did the statistics (tho never published it), and the >> antipassive zero clearly showed up as the main driving force. I >> suspect Romance & Germanic data may have been the same, but they are >> so old and I'm not sure you can find texts going that far back to do >> the appropriate stats. >> >> At any rate, In Indo-European this has been a MASSIVE process. Peter >> Hook showed similar stuff in Indic. Then of course it is massive in >> Bantu (SOV) at the grammatical level (fairly recent), and even the >> lexical (extended later from the grammatical; lexicalized, if you >> will.) And I can show you massive stranding of post-positions on Ute >> verbs in both the suffixal AND prefixal positions (different >> generations, different mechanisms, and different word-types that >> absorb "second-position clitics"). >> >> Finally, there is some discussion of the mechanism in English (the >> interaction between unstressed pronouns, zero anaphora & stranded >> prepositions) in ch. 3 of my "Bio-Linguistics: The Santa Barbara >> Lectures" (Benjamins, 2002). >> >> Best, TG >> >> ================== >> >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for >>> why preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? >>> (I am referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', >>> 'Mary was talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in >>> Germanic, marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >> > From fjn at u.washington.edu Fri Oct 1 19:13:13 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:13:13 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA6308E.5010507@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it > there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a > sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, > su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; > re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, in-strtuct, > de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page of those in > my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly talking about the > metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a lot of hay off this, > claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get reified in some lexical > Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us do, maybe) about the > diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such 'stranding', & how it connect to > the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later WO, zero-anaphora of both types, > the availability of other clitic-trapping word-types, ets. All that is needed > is widening our typological--and diachronic, really the same thing--horizons > just a little bit and what seems to you so exceptional reveals itself to be > rather massive. Best, TG I see. Then we mean something very different by 'preposition stranding'. Let me rephrase my question: Does anybody have an explanation for why constructions of the following form are so rare crosslinguistically: question-word (did) subject V P? ...where 'question-word' is a free morpheme and understood as the object of P. Such constructions are extremely rare in I-E and crosslinguistically, as far as I know. --fritz From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Oct 1 21:04:16 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:04:16 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why > preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am > referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was > talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally > in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number > of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder > if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology text somewhere? I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? 1) Who are you going with? 2) Are you coming with? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From eitan.eg at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 21:11:05 2010 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 23:11:05 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, First to add another language, which does it very sporadically: Modern Hebrew, in phrases like 'lalexet im ve-lehargiS bli' (to_go with and-to_feel without'), taruc im targiS bli (run with feel without), the latter said about running shoes that allegedly make the user feel barefoot. However, it's pretty restricted, and you wouldn't normally say anything equivalent to "Who did you talk to?" A big problem, it seems to me, is that 'adposition' isn't a very well defined term. In fact, a lot of books gloss over the definition, saying things like 'a preposition is the head of a PP,' which is tautological (or wrong, depending on your point of view). If you look at descriptive grammars, you'll find the same element described as an adposition, a case marker, a 'class three clitic,' a 'rank 4 suffix' and so on. This terminological problem seems to be especially acute with respect to elements that are sometimes called postpositions. There's a good discussion of the problems in Pietro Bortone's "Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present" (Oxford, 2010) ?? in fact, a very useful typological study. It is worth noting that there are a lot of descriptive categories one could set up between lexical item and case-affix, and elements somewhere between the two could often be called adpositions. Bortone notes colloquial Turkish comitative -le/-la, which is usually described as a postposition but seems to act more like a case ending. This terminological and conceptual vagueness leads to a situation in which phenomena similar to the one you describe would not be called preposition stranding, as the 'free morpheme' might be called a 'resumptive adverb' or something else. This is the case for Ancient Egyptian, in which one can find a. bw nty Hm=f im=f (place REL majesty=3sg.m in=3sg.m) 'the place in which His Majesty is' (lit. place that his Majesty in it) b. bw nty Hm=f im=? (place REL majesty=3sg.m in) 'the place in which his majesty is' (lit. place that his Majesty is in) In the second example, im is considered to be a resumptive adverb by traditional grammars, although it would probably answer to the notion of a stranded preposition. So the point to be made here is that the phenomenon might be better attested than it seems but obscured by the diversity of descriptive grammatical terminology. Probably a language won't have been considered as having 'preposition stranding' unless it's been described in a generative framework. Another point is that for early Indo-European languages, it's not so obvious that Prof. Newmeyer's question is the right one to ask. For example, I would have a look at Silvia Luraghi's very interesting "On the meaning of prepositions and cases" (John Benjamins, 2003). She discusses Homeric Greek, in which the 'proper' prepositions can occur as 1. preposition, 2. free adverbs, and 3. preverbs (which is what Prof. Giv?n was alluding to, if I'm not mistaken). She considers the problem of categorial assignment ('are these elements adverbs or prepositions?') to be a pseudo-problem. Bortone adduces examples like en used adverbially meaning 'inside' -- but to a generative perspective, wouldn't this look like stranding, e.g., "in (it")? I haven't had a chance to read Claude Hag?ge's "Adpositions" (Oxford, 2010) properly yet, but it seems that he considers stranding to be the result of the non-tonicity of adpositions. In any event, since adpositions aren't well-defined as a concept for cross-linguistic comparison, i.e., not well distinguished from other kinds of elements, and the descriptive terminology used for relators in different languages ? and often for the same language ? tends to vary extensively, it is hard to know whether this observation about the rarity of adposition stranding is even right. Best wishes, Eitan On 1 October 2010 21:13, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Well, I DID mean massive. I'm not as well-versed in Germanic, tho I see it >> there too (Bernd Heine could tell you aplenty). So just think Latin for a >> sec: Pre-tend, ex-tend, in-tend, con-tend; per-tain; con-tain, re-tain, >> su(b)-stain, main-tain, ob-tain; re-pulse, ex-pulse, im-pulse, com-pulse; >> re-ject, e(x)-ject, in-ject, ob-ject; con-ject(ure); con-struct, >> in-strtuct, de-struct, re-struct(ure); etc. ect. ect. There's a whole page >> of those in my Syntax vol. I (2001), one of the early chapters, mostly >> talking about the metaphoric etymology, which we know well. (George made a >> lot of hay off this, claiming that metaphors never die, they just go & get >> reified in some lexical Heave...). But we also know a lot (well, some of us >> do, maybe) about the diachronic-syntax pathways that lead to such >> 'stranding', & how it connect to the type of ad-position, earlier vs. later >> WO, zero-anaphora of both types, the availability of other clitic-trapping >> word-types, ets. All that is needed is widening our typological--and >> diachronic, really the same thing--horizons just a little bit and what seems >> to you so exceptional reveals itself to be rather massive. Best, TG >> > > I see. Then we mean something very different by 'preposition stranding'. > Let me rephrase my question: > > Does anybody have an explanation for why constructions of the following > form are so rare crosslinguistically: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > ...where 'question-word' is a free morpheme and understood as the object of > P. > > Such constructions are extremely rare in I-E and crosslinguistically, as > far as I know. > > --fritz > > -- Eitan Grossman Martin Buber Society of Fellows Hebrew University of Jerusalem From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 1 21:40:20 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:40:20 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Copy of note to Fritz: From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound verbs. In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG ====================== Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, marginally >> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There are a number >> of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in English, but I wonder >> if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity crosslinguistically. >> > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So > the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with > preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of > languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch > of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology > text somewhere? > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of > preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? > > 1) Who are you going with? > 2) Are you coming with? > > From dryer at buffalo.edu Fri Oct 1 21:59:28 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (dryer at buffalo.edu) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:59:28 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think Fritz is probably as interested in stranded postpositions as stranded prepositions. For a page with buttons that open up to lists of 1074 languages with adpositions, see Matthew --On Friday, October 1, 2010 5:04 PM -0400 "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" wrote: > > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Does anybody know of a functional explanation (published or not) for why >> preposition stranding is so rare in the languages of the world? (I am >> referring to constructions such as 'Who did you talk to?', 'Mary was >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it exists only in Germanic, >> marginally in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo languages. There >> are a number of functionally-oriented accounts of P-stranding in >> English, but I wonder if anybody has taken on the question of its rarity >> crosslinguistically. > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need prepositions, right? So > the only way we can answer the question of how rare languages with > preposition stranding are is by getting a rough sense of the proportion of > languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. Givon mentioned a bunch > of languages with them, but is there a comprehensive list in some typology > text somewhere? > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: your category of > preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), right? > > 1) Who are you going with? > 2) Are you coming with? > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > From dryer at buffalo.edu Fri Oct 1 23:42:55 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew S. Dryer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 19:42:55 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often better understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding of more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that sheds any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how any of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on this question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth Fritz looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. Matthew On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: > > Copy of note to Fritz: > > From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar > pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). > There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original > 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some > cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the > exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier > stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In > Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the > variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In > Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound > verbs. > In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can > still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin > they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology > is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the > verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or > 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go > down/under'. > > But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, > it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. > And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in > set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how > are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of > zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent > inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar > of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in > REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), > but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did > my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, > said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole > grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. > > You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. > Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations > of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG > > ====================== > > > Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > > On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J > Newmeyer wrote:> > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> Does anybody know of a functional > explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare in the > languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who did > you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it > exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo > languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of > P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the question of its > rarity crosslinguistically.>> > > > > In order to have preposition stranding, you need > prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how > rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough > sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. > Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a > comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? > > > > I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: > your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), > right?> > > 1) Who are you going with? > > 2) Are you coming with? > > > > > > > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 2 00:16:44 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:16:44 -0600 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <8452.1285976575@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG ============== Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often better > understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding of > more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that sheds > any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how any > of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on this > question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth Fritz > looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. > > Matthew > > On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: > >> Copy of note to Fritz: >> >> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). >> There are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier >> stage, so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the >> variational steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In >> Rama you can see just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >> verbs. >> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can >> still see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology >> is not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the >> verb 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or >> 'sur' or 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go >> down/under'. >> >> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in >> set-phrases (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent >> inside the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), >> but only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, >> said "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >> >> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations >> of typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >> >> ====================== >> >> >> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >> >>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>> >> Newmeyer wrote:> >> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>> >> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare in the >> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who did >> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some Niger-Congo >> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the question of its >> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >> >>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>> >> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. Mr. >> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >> >>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>> >> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >> right?> >> >>> 1) Who are you going with? >>> 2) Are you coming with? >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 2 12:12:00 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:12:00 -0600 Subject: ps Message-ID: PS: Speaking of extreme typological cases, how about Southern Arawak (Machiguenga, Asheninka), where ALL SR's ('thematic relations') are coded on the verb even in MAIN clauses (except for one skinny, bleached locative preposition)? So you can ONLY say the equivalent 'I talked-to the-woman', 'I worked-with the-knife', 'I ran-from the-house', etc. Never on the noun, only on the verb. Does it fit the zero-anaphora pattern? Well, if you think for a minute, it does too. S.A. does have pronouns, but 'discourse' zero-anaphora is most prevalent. So when you say high-frequency things like 'I talked to her' or 'I worked with it', schematically you have, in context, ['I talked-to 0'] or ['I worked-with 0']. In other words, in these high-frequency anaphoric expressions there is no place to hang the adposition BUT on the verb. And the diachronic process of cliticization is driven by these frequencies (and adjacencies, and word-order). The upshot of this is that we can classify atomic facts and quit there. Or we can try to classify them within broader patterns( of facts!) that show wider, interesting commonalities, and then look for some explanatory principles. The second mode of classification is admittedly more ambitious, so if it doesn't turn you on, sorry. (There is an offensive expression in Hebrew I won't cite here, straight out of Ecclesiastes. Eitan Grossman would identify it, I'm sure). But maybe ambitious stuff is too much, maybe it's not your stuff. See, this second mode of 'classification' is highly theory-dependent, it is not as theory-neutral as some people might prefer. It strives, in science in general, not only to describe but --at the same time--explain, through the constant interplay between data & theory. Yes, we've had this discussion many times before. We seem to be hung up on an impoverished brand philosophy of science. Cheers, TG From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Oct 2 17:08:47 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 10:08:47 -0700 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA679EC.5080302@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: question-word (did) subject V P? Best, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of > argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In > the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case > of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it > 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' > again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position > is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we > do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information > about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of > predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). > > In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written > English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already > appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as > 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, > incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as > 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is > fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English > REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such > hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped > up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with > /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are > extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in > the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it > takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start > reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, > with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of > emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't > only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He > also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, > dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY > question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG > > ============== > > > Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >> better >> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >> of >> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >> sheds >> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >> any >> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >> this >> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >> Fritz >> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >> >> Matthew >> >> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >> >>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>> >>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>> verbs. >>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>> >>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>> >>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>> >>> ====================== >>> >>> >>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>> >>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>> >>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>> >>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>> in the >>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>> did >>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>> Niger-Congo >>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>> question of its >>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>> >>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>> Mr. >>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>> >>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>> >>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>> right?> >>> >>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Sat Oct 2 17:12:39 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:12:39 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Tom, > > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >> >> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>> better >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>> of >>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>> >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>> >>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>> verbs. >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>> >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>> >>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>> >>>> ====================== >>>> >>>> >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>> >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>> >>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>> >>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>> >>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>> >>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>> right?> >>>> >>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > From dan at daneverett.org Sat Oct 2 17:27:06 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:27:06 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <9F50A1AD-02AC-4FEB-9466-4812E87E12C6@daneverett.org> Message-ID: I might add a bit of clarification. I understand what motivates Fritz's question. There is a scientific appeal to it. For example, it's possible that some solutions are easier and some are harder, so - one might ask - why are they harder? Or maybe it's just that some spread and some didn't. Or it's just that the failure of this or that one to spread is an accident. If someone can come up with a convincing story, I will happily jump on the bandwagon. But I don't find the question all that interesting relative to other things we might ask. Here is a recent discussion I had on philosophy bites where I explain my evolving position. http://philosophybites.com/2010/09/daniel-everett-on-the-nature-of-language.html Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:12, Daniel Everett wrote: > One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. > > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. > > Dan > > > On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). >> >> Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: >> >> question-word (did) subject V P? >> >> Best, >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >>> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >>> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >>> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >>> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >>> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >>> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >>> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >>> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >>> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >>> >>> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >>> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >>> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >>> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >>> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >>> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >>> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >>> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >>> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >>> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >>> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >>> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >>> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >>> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >>> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >>> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >>> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >>> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >>> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >>> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >>> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >>> >>> ============== >>> >>> >>> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>>> better >>>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>>> of >>>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>>> sheds >>>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>>> any >>>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>>> this >>>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>>> Fritz >>>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>>> >>>> Matthew >>>> >>>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>>> >>>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>>> >>>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>>> verbs. >>>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>>> >>>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>>> >>>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>>> >>>>> ====================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>>> >>>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>>> >>>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>>> in the >>>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>>> did >>>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>>> Niger-Congo >>>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>>> question of its >>>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>>> >>>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>>> Mr. >>>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>>> >>>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>>> >>>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>>> right?> >>>>> >>>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Oct 2 17:28:48 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:28:48 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). All you need to explain that is analogical extension. On 10/2/2010 1:12 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. I thought you knew to always double-check your data! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9450072 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Sun Oct 3 16:09:58 2010 From: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Lesley-Neuman, D.F.) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 18:09:58 +0200 Subject: A Poet slips, etc. Message-ID: Would all discussants on Funknet please take care in not attaching all of the previous messages to their posts? Use the title and the text of the intervention to refer what you are answering to. Those of us who are already very busy spend a great deal of time scrolling through repeated communications, which is both annoying and discouraging. I will do my part in carrying this out. Thank you, DLN From dryer at buffalo.edu Mon Oct 4 01:25:51 2010 From: dryer at buffalo.edu (Matthew S. Dryer) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:25:51 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Dan, Fritz actually asked two questions and it's not clear which of them you are referring to. One was "Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?" The other was "If it's so rare, why is it so productive in English?" If your comment relates to the second of these questions, then you may be right. For example, another relatively unusual feature of English (though not quite so unusual) is having a glide r. While it makes sense to ask why it is uncommon, it's not so obvious that there is any interesting answer to the question why English has a glide r when it is uncommon crosslinguistically. On the other hand, sometimes, there are interesting answers to these questions. Some -though not many - languages have roughly equal amounts of prepositions and postpositions and there is often a clear answer to why this has happened: the language is VO with Genitive-Noun order and the prepositions arose from verbs while the postpositions arose from nouns in genitive-noun constructions. It's not clear to me whether or not there is any interesting answer to the question why English allows preposition stranding (although I shared some speculations separately with Fritz), whether it is like glide r in English, or the example discussed in the preceding paragraph. However, if your comment was about the first question ("Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?"), then I am more puzzled, since this question is no different in its logic from any question of the sort "Why do most languages have such-and-such a property?" Saying that adposition stranding is rare is equivalent to saying that most languages don't allow adposition stranding. Perhaps you aren't interested in explanations for universals (absolute or statistical), which is fine with me: I personally devote far more time to finding out what IS typical in language than in attempting to explain such generalizations. (I don't have access right now to a way to hearing things on the internet, so no way at the moment to listen to what you say at the link you provided.) Matthew On Sat 10/02/10 1:12 PM , Daniel Everett dan at daneverett.org sent: > One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why > wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish > and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that > the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it > isn't found more places. > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. > > Dan > > > On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Tom, > > > > Even if you are right that it is correct to > class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing > that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern > ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after > all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its > typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has > steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the > centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to > wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked > to').> > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the > notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and > 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the > crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern:> > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > > > Best, > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of > Washington> Adjunct Professor, University of British > Columbia and Simon Fraser University> [for my postal address, please contact me by > e-mail]> > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very > general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either > by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to > see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the > case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO > (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the > noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' > (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? > It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it > (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less > predictable).>> > >> In the case of English WH-question, you go > back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to > the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) > with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', > 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded > referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', > 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the > 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier > use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is > extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke > German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken > Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily > available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 > & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So > just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of > complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some > clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface > patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I > think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit > for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is > decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking > it. TG>> > >> ============== > >> > >> > >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true > in principle that one can often >>> better > >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare > by getting a better understanding >>> of > >>> more common related phenomenon. But I > see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds > >>> any light on why the English-type of > adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any > >>> of the literature on the related > phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this > >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see > no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz > >>> looking at these related phenomena, to > help answer his question.>>> > >>> Matthew > >>> > >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uor > egon.edu sent:>>> > >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: > >>>> > >>>> From where I sit, it is all > connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically > (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that > act as context for the original>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various > next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in > Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE > exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' > process a bit more clearly. In>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already > too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely > already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of > lexicalization, a few compound>>>> verbs. > >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much > more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology > of the ad-positions. In Latin>>>> they LOOK like they should be > de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time > has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder > to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is > still a verb meaning 'go down/under'.>>>> > >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process > is much more advanced that in Rama,>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, > passives, and other derivatives from them.>>>> And there's a considerable amount of > lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as > 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how>>>> are you' & more. In all these > cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing > AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised > African dissertation, a grammar>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. > 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the > promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main > clauses. I flashed on this when I did>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). > Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it > already, I don't want to read a whole>>>> grammar". So eventually I > dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit.>>>> > >>>> You gotta open up your > classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz.>>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the > real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually > in plain site. TG>>>> > >>>> ====================== > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith > wrote:>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 > pm, Frederick J>>>>> > >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> > >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Does anybody know of a > functional>>>>>> > >>>> explanation (published or not) for > why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the > >>>> languages of the world? (I > am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did > >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> > talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it>>>> exists only in Germanic, > marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo > >>>> languages. There are a > number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of>>>> P-stranding in English, but I > wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its > >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> > >>>>> In order to have preposition > stranding, you need>>>>> > >>>> prepositions, right? So> the > only way we can answer the question of how>>>> rare languages with> preposition > stranding are is by getting a rough>>>> sense of the proportion of> > languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. > >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of > languages with them, but is there a>>>> comprehensive list in some > typology> text somewhere?>>>> > >>>>> I also wanted a clarification > from Mr. Newmeyer:>>>>> > >>>> your category of> preposition > stranding includes (1) but not (2),>>>> right?> > >>>> > >>>>> 1) Who are you going > with?>>>>> 2) Are you coming > with?>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Oct 4 02:03:35 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. Here is my guess, and I'd love to hear what other people think: complexity of verb morphology. It's not that the prepositions have become separable root morphemes, it's that they've been reanalyzed as potential verbal suffixes, or maybe enclitics. (At least in the early stages; it's only later that you get things like "I want to know where you go and who with.") This is a general schema formed on the basis of a number of high-frequency collocations like "talk-to" and "go-with." In languages like Spanish, just in the present tense you have "hablo con" "hablas con," "hablamos con," (in historical data) "habla?s con," (in South America) "habl?s con" and "hablan con." But in German you have only three: "sprache mit," "sprachst mit" and "sprachen mit." In English you just have "talk to" and "talks to," and in spoken colloquial French you also have two: /parlav?k/ and /parleav?k/. Each of these are more frequent than any of the 4-5 Spanish forms. Brazilian Portuguese may be a problem for this explanation, since it has only three forms ("falo com," "fala com" and "falam com") and it is not showing any signs of stranding. Is the "falo com" form enough to dilute the frequency enough so that none of them is stored as a unit? Are the "a gente" and "voc?" forms too recent to permit this formation, and will we see stranding in another generation? Would we see a different story if we looked at all possible tenses and moods? I also don't know anything about the other languages where stranding has been attested (in the Scandinavian and Niger-Congo groups); if they have multiple verb forms it would not fit this generalization. Again, this is just armchair speculation on my part. Is there a functional account of preposition stranding published anywhere? -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From tthornes at uca.edu Mon Oct 4 02:32:49 2010 From: tthornes at uca.edu (Tim Thornes) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 21:32:49 -0500 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding Message-ID: Can an explanation lie in the simple fact that it's not just verbs that license arguments, and that, if we were to consider the frequency by which non-verbs license arguments cross-linguistically, there may therein lie both a reason for the infrequency of stranding (argument-licenser discontinuity) and its various diachronic manifestations (like English-via-Latin 'contend' or Klamath /ksewa/ 'living object-be/move/be moved into water' or Northern Paiute /tsaka'a/ 'grasp-sever'). Diid I miss something about complex predicates in this discussion? Best, Tim Tim Thornes, PhD Assistant Professor of Linguistics Department of Writing University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Avenue Conway, Arkansas 72035 USA (501)450-5613 tthornes at uca.edu "All grammars leak." Edward Sapir >>> Angus Grieve-Smith 10/02/10 12:29 PM >>> On 10/2/2010 1:08 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). All you need to explain that is analogical extension. On 10/2/2010 1:12 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. I thought you knew to always double-check your data! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9450072 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon Oct 4 07:48:40 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:48:40 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <9F50A1AD-02AC-4FEB-9466-4812E87E12C6@daneverett.org> Message-ID: What seems missing in this debate is the lexicalisation of meaning that takes place in the English verbs (and nouns) rather than just the stranding of a preposition. Take the following examples: He handed over the documents. I was present at the handover. In this case there seems nothing even very prepositional about 'over', as there is in the following: I talked to him about it. I gave him a good talking-to about it. But notice in the above example that the noun 'talking-to' has a specific meaning that is not directly derived from the verb-preposition combo, as may possibly be the case in the following. ?She had her face made over. She had a facial make-over. In the following example the 'stranding' of the preposition does not seem to lead to a lexically distinct noun: He went over it thoroughly with a brush. He gave it a thorough going-over with a brush. In the above example the noun seems to derive its meaning directly from the meaning of the verb-prep combo. Then you also get the obviously 'phrasal verb' construction like to 'chop up' and 'chop down' etc. which do not lead to nouns of the same kind. You might conceivably say: I gave the wood a chopping up. But surely not I gave the wood a chop-up. And certainly not: I gave the tree a chopping down. etc. The point here is that phrasal verbs are lexical verbs in their own right (i.e. with a distinct meaning) and some of them lend themselves to nominalisation, sometimes with slightly different meanings. Thus what is happening is perhaps not only a stranding but a kind of migration of meaning from grammatical to lexical and then possibly from one word class to another? Regards Tahir >>> Daniel Everett 10/2/2010 5:12 pm >>> One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it isn't found more places. But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. Dan On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Tom, > > Even if you are right that it is correct to class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked to'). > > Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern: > > question-word (did) subject V P? > > Best, > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> >> >> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale adposition? It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less predictable). >> >> In the case of English WH-question, you go back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', 'wherefor', 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', 'thereto', 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking it. TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true in principle that one can often >>> better >>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare by getting a better understanding >>> of >>> more common related phenomenon. But I see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>> any light on why the English-type of adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>> of the literature on the related phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>> question. Unless you can do that, I see no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>> looking at these related phenomena, to help answer his question. >>> >>> Matthew >>> >>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uoregon.edu sent: >>> >>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>> >>>> From where I sit, it is all connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical constructions that act as context for the original >>>> 'stranding'; then you have various next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' process a bit more clearly. In >>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of lexicalization, a few compound >>>> verbs. >>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology of the ad-positions. In Latin >>>> they LOOK like they should be de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is still a verb meaning 'go down/under'. >>>> >>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process is much more advanced that in Rama, >>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, passives, and other derivatives from them. >>>> And there's a considerable amount of lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how >>>> are you' & more. In all these cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised African dissertation, a grammar >>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main clauses. I flashed on this when I did >>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it already, I don't want to read a whole >>>> grammar". So eventually I dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit. >>>> >>>> You gotta open up your classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz. >>>> Otherwise you'll keep missing the real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually in plain site. TG >>>> >>>> ====================== >>>> >>>> >>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 pm, Frederick J >>>>> >>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anybody know of a functional >>>>>> >>>> explanation (published or not) for why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>> languages of the world? (I am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it >>>> exists only in Germanic, marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>> languages. There are a number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of >>>> P-stranding in English, but I wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>> In order to have preposition stranding, you need >>>>> >>>> prepositions, right? So> the only way we can answer the question of how >>>> rare languages with> preposition stranding are is by getting a rough >>>> sense of the proportion of> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of languages with them, but is there a >>>> comprehensive list in some typology> text somewhere? >>>> >>>>> I also wanted a clarification from Mr. Newmeyer: >>>>> >>>> your category of> preposition stranding includes (1) but not (2), >>>> right?> >>>> >>>>> 1) Who are you going with? >>>>> 2) Are you coming with? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From vanvalin at buffalo.edu Mon Oct 4 07:57:53 2010 From: vanvalin at buffalo.edu (Robert Van Valin) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:57:53 +0200 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <4CA935F7.2040901@panix.com> Message-ID: On Oct 4, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Again, this is just armchair speculation on my part. Is there a functional account of preposition stranding published anywhere? > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com There is a brief discussion of preposition stranding in my 2005 book, Exploring the syntax-semantics interface (?5.4.3), along with references to other functional accounts. Robert Van Valin From dan at daneverett.org Mon Oct 4 09:40:56 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 05:40:56 -0400 Subject: rarity of preposition stranding In-Reply-To: <35773.1286155551@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Matthew, I was responding to both questions. It isn't that there couldn't be an interesting answer to these questions. But there are two reasons why I am not particularly keen to invest my own time in answering them. First, questions and answers about rarity can lead to circularity. Second, I'd rather look for phenomena relating language and culture, rather than simply structural questions. Rarity could be a coincidence. Out of all the languages that do, did, or will exist, is this construction really rare? Country music today is a very simple musical form (not disparaging the masters like Hank Williams, George Jones, and so on). 4/4 beat, with pretty constant melodies, and largely predictable lyrics. It is an outgrowth of a number of different forms fused by American cultural values. But it is so simple, why is it so rare, indeed unique among the world's musical forms? The answer it seems to me is the combination of culture and form. But maybe it will be borrowed and begin to be adapted in and to other musical traditions/grammars - because they have adapted it to their values - and then it will be less rare. I am not saying that all grammar has a cultural explanation, though such explanations might be found more commonly than we realize. Why do we say 'red, white, and blue' in America and not 'blue, red, and white', for example? Cultural reasons perhaps. I think that Tom Givon's larger account of adpositional, ad-affixal phenomena, plus just preference could account for the rarity of this structure. In fact, if we take Tom's suggestions, then English preposition stranding is a language-specific adaptation of a common process. It is a single off-shoot from a big tree. Language forms could perhaps spread or not spread for the same reason that jokes do or don't. But the real reason that rarity worries me as an explanans or explanandum is that in the history of linguistics many discussions of it go like this: 1. A is rare. 2. (Therefore) A is marked in some way. 3. A is marked because it is rare and rare because it is marked. I talked about these things in my keynote address to the Rara and Rarissima conference a few years ago in Leipzig and mention them again in Cognitive Fire. Differences, especially rare ones, are exciting to study, whether coincidental or not, especially rara and rarissima, because they are what make each language distinctive. And, just as importantly, because they might show that no theory can account for all of human language. Peter Ladefoged and I made a similar point in our Language paper in the 90s, the Problem of Phonetic Rarities. Dan On 3 Oct 2010, at 21:25, Matthew S. Dryer wrote: > > Dan, > > Fritz actually asked two questions and it's not clear which of them you are > referring to. > > One was "Why is preposition stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English > sort so rare?" > > The other was "If it's so rare, why is it so productive in English?" > > If your comment relates to the second of these questions, then you may be right. > For example, another relatively unusual feature of English (though not quite so > unusual) is having a glide r. While it makes sense to ask why it is uncommon, > it's not so obvious that there is any interesting answer to the question why > English has a glide r when it is uncommon crosslinguistically. > > On the other hand, sometimes, there are interesting answers to these questions. > Some -though not many - languages have roughly equal amounts of prepositions and > postpositions and there is often a clear answer to why this has happened: the > language is VO with Genitive-Noun order and the prepositions arose from verbs > while the postpositions arose from nouns in genitive-noun constructions. > > It's not clear to me whether or not there is any interesting answer to the > question why English allows preposition stranding (although I shared some > speculations separately with Fritz), whether it is like glide r in English, or > the example discussed in the preceding paragraph. > > However, if your comment was about the first question ("Why is preposition > stranding (or adposition stranding) of the English sort so rare?"), then I am > more puzzled, since this question is no different in its logic from any question > of the sort "Why do most languages have such-and-such a property?" Saying that > adposition stranding is rare is equivalent to saying that most languages don't > allow adposition stranding. Perhaps you aren't interested in explanations for > universals (absolute or statistical), which is fine with me: I personally devote > far more time to finding out what IS typical in language than in attempting to > explain such generalizations. > > (I don't have access right now to a way to hearing things on the internet, so no > way at the moment to listen to what you say at the link you provided.) > > Matthew > > On Sat 10/02/10 1:12 PM , Daniel Everett dan at daneverett.org sent: >> One could approach the question, Fritz, from a different angle, i.e. why >> wouldn't English's pattern be rare? There are various things to accomplish >> and different peoples accomplish them in different ways. If you assume that >> the grammatical structure is basic, then, sure, we might wonder why it >> isn't found more places. >> But one could also ask why country music isn't found in Africa. >> >> Dan >> >> >> On 2 Oct 2010, at 13:08, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> Even if you are right that it is correct to >> class together the phenomena that you call attention to, there is nothing >> that you wrote that begins to explain why the English/Scandinavian pattern >> ('Who did you talk to?') is so rare crosslinguistically. And that, after >> all, was my question. And nothing (I think) that explains why, despite its >> typological rarity and therefore possible 'nonfunctionality', English has >> steadily expanded its stranded preposition possibilities over the >> centuries, from topicalizations ('John, I would never talk to') to >> wh-questions ('Who did you talk to') to passives ('John was talked >> to').> >>> Its fine, I suppose, if you want to expand the >> notion 'preposition stranding' to deal with words like 'intend' and >> 'whereof', but that does not move us forward on explaining the >> crosslinguistic rarity of the pattern:> >>> question-word (did) subject V P? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of >> Washington> Adjunct Professor, University of British >> Columbia and Simon Fraser University> [for my postal address, please contact me by >> e-mail]> >>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Au contraire, cher ami. There IS a very >> general mechanism of zeoing of >> argument; in the 1960's terminology either >> by 'movement' or by 'deletion. In >> the case of embedded REL-clauses, we tend to >> see it as 'deletion. In the case >> of AGT-deletion passives, too, maybe. In the >> case of WH-questions, we call it >> 'movement'. In the case of promotion to DO >> (as in Rwanda), maybe 'movement' >> again. The common denominator is that the >> noun that carried the ad-position >> is now missing from its 'normal' >> (high-frequency) position, and what shall we >> do with the poor beached-whale > adposition? >> It carries vital information >> about GRs or SR's, so we can just pitch it >> (we pitch the noun because of >> predictability, but the adposition is less >> predictable).>> >>>> In the case of English WH-question, you go >> back to 18th Century written >> English, you find preposition migrating to >> the WH-word. And this already >> appears at the same period (& earlier) >> with REL-clause subordinators such as >> 'whereof', 'whereas', 'whereat', > 'wherefor', >> 'whereto', 'wherein' etc. Also, >> incidentally, in non-embedded >> referring/anaphoric expressions such as >> 'thereof', 'thereby', 'thereat', > 'thereto', >> 'therein', 'therefor', etc. It is >> fairly clear, further, that the use of the >> 'where-PREP' pattern in English >> REL-clauses hitched a ride on the earlier >> use in WH-questions. Such >> hitchiking, precisely in this direction, is >> extremely common, and has cropped >> up later on in English again (in spoke >> German 'with /wo/, in Greek with >> /pou/, in Kriop with /w(h)e(re)', in spoken >> Hebrew, etc.) These are >> extremely mundane facts, Matt, readily >> available, both in old texts and in >> the lit. (Bern Heine wrote about it in 2007 >> & 20089, inter alia). All it >> takes is looking, and I suppose seeing. So >> just buy some old books & start >> reading them. Sure, there's a lot of >> complexity in those pathways. But still, >> with all this diversity, there are some >> clear central MECHANISMS of >> emergence, not only a collection of surface >> patterns. After all, Fritz didn't >> only ask if the patterns are rare (he, I >> think naively, assumed that). He >> also wanted to know--or so I gave him credit >> for (stranded PREP again, >> dammit!)--why. A collection of facts is >> decidedly not an answer to a WHY >> question, but qat best the reason for asking >> it. TG>> >>>> ============== >>>> >>>> >>>> Matthew S. Dryer wrote: >>>>> Not so fast, Tom. It is certainly true >> in principle that one can often >>> better >>>>> understand why a rare phenomenon is rare >> by getting a better understanding >>> of >>>>> more common related phenomenon. But I >> see nothing in your two emails that >>> sheds >>>>> any light on why the English-type of >> adposition stranding is so rare or how >>> any >>>>> of the literature on the related >> phenomena you discuss sheds any light on >>> this >>>>> question. Unless you can do that, I see >> no reason why it would be worth >>> Fritz >>>>> looking at these related phenomena, to >> help answer his question.>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> On Fri 10/01/10 5:40 PM , Tom Givon tgivon at uor >> egon.edu sent:>>> >>>>>> Copy of note to Fritz: >>>>>> >>>>>> From where I sit, it is all >> connected, both synchronically (similar >>>> pattern) and diachronically >> (patterns mutating into other patterns). There >>>> are grammatical > constructions that >> act as context for the original>>>> 'stranding'; then you have various >> next-steps, eventually to (in some >>>> cases) full lexicalization (as in >> Latin or Germanic). So in Rama, the >>>> exact same configuration as in IE >> exists, but it is a much earlier stage, >>>> so I can see the early 'trapping' >> process a bit more clearly. In>>>> Latin & Old Gothic it's already >> too advanced, hard to see the variational >>>> steps any longer, it is largely >> already lexicalized. In Rama you can see >>>> just the beginning of >> lexicalization, a few compound>>>> verbs. >>>>>> In Klamath or Numic you can see much >> more, a host of it, tho you can still >>>> see the nominal or verbal etymology >> of the ad-positions. In Latin>>>> they LOOK like they should be >> de-verbal, as in Rama, but the etymology is >>>> not quite as clean, too much time >> has pass. So you still have the verb >>>> 'ex-it' on 'en-ter', but it's harder >> to find the verb 'con' or 'sur' or >>>> 'per'; tho in Spanish 'sub-ir' is >> still a verb meaning 'go down/under'.>>>> >>>>>> But In Bantu the grammatical process >> is much more advanced that in Rama,>>>> it gotten into REL clsauses, >> passives, and other derivatives from them.>>>> And there's a considerable amount of >> lexicalization, mostly in set-phrases >>>> (typical early stage) such as >> 'excuse me', 'thank you' 'how>>>> are you' & more. In all these >> cases, you can see the role of >>>> zero-arguments right there (missing >> AGT-of-passive, zero coreferent inside >>>> the REL-clause. My las supervised >> African dissertation, a grammar>>>> of Lunda (Boniface Kawasha, ca. >> 2002, U. Oregon) has tons of that in >>>> REL-clauses, it is like the >> promotion-to-DO in Rwanda (Kimenyi 1976), but >>>> only in REL clauses, not main >> clauses. I flashed on this when I did>>>> my dissertation on Bemba (1969). >> Then, my supervisor, Paul Schachter, said >>>> "you've got too much in it >> already, I don't want to read a whole>>>> grammar". So eventually I >> dumped two boxes of data. Sic transit.>>>> >>>>>> You gotta open up your >> classification schemata just a little bit, Fritz.>>>> Otherwise you'll keep > missing the >> real goodies, where the explanations of >>>> typological differences lie--usually >> in plain site. TG>>>> >>>>>> ====================== >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Angus B. Grieve-Smith >> wrote:>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, October 1, 2010 12:16 >> pm, Frederick J>>>>> >>>>>> Newmeyer wrote:> >>>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anybody know of a >> functional>>>>>> >>>>>> explanation (published or not) for >> why>> preposition stranding is so rare >>>> in the >>>>>> languages of the world? (I >> am>> referring to constructions such as 'Who >>>> did >>>>>> you talk to?', 'Mary was>> >> talked to', etc.) As far as I know, it>>>> exists only in Germanic, >> marginally>> in French, and possibly in some >>>> Niger-Congo >>>>>> languages. There are a >> number>> of functionally-oriented accounts of>>>> P-stranding in English, but I >> wonder>> if anybody has taken on the >>>> question of its >>>>>> rarity crosslinguistically.>> >>>>>>> In order to have preposition >> stranding, you need>>>>> >>>>>> prepositions, right? So> the >> only way we can answer the question of how>>>> rare languages with> preposition >> stranding are is by getting a rough>>>> sense of the proportion of> >> languages with prepositions they represent. >>>> Mr. >>>>>> Givon mentioned a bunch> of >> languages with them, but is there a>>>> comprehensive list in some >> typology> text somewhere?>>>> >>>>>>> I also wanted a clarification >> from Mr. Newmeyer:>>>>> >>>>>> your category of> preposition >> stranding includes (1) but not (2),>>>> right?> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Who are you going >> with?>>>>> 2) Are you coming >> with?>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > From khildeb at siue.edu Mon Oct 4 12:38:00 2010 From: khildeb at siue.edu (Kristine Hildebrandt) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:38:00 -0500 Subject: Call for Submissions & Extended Deadline Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS: Special Issue in Memory of Michael Noonan and David Watters Himalayan Linguistics 10.1 (June 2011) Guest Editors: Yogendra Yadava, Karen Grunow-Harsta, Kristine Hildebrandt, Stephen Watters Himalayan Linguistics, a free peer-reviewed web journal and archive devoted to the study of the languages of the Himalayas, is now accepting submissions to a special issue in memory of our late colleagues, HL Associate Editors Michael (Mickey) Noonan and David Watters. Articles on all languages of the Himalayan region are welcome, as are those that significantly draw on work by Noonan or Watters on Himalayan languages. *Extended Deadline for submissions: 15 November 2010* Address inquiries to Guest Editor Yogendra Yadava (ypyadava at gmail.com) or HL Editor Carol Genetti (cgenetti at linguistics.ucsb.edu) http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/HimalayanLinguistics/ -- *Kristine A. Hildebrandt* *Assistant Professor, Department of English Language & Literature Southern Illinois University Edwardsville* *Box 1431 Edwardsville, IL 62026 U.S.A. 618-650-3380 (office)* *khildeb at siue.edu http://www.siue.edu/~khildeb* From bickel at uni-leipzig.de Tue Oct 5 10:07:34 2010 From: bickel at uni-leipzig.de (Balthasar Bickel) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:07:34 +0200 Subject: plain text version of CfP: new special section in Studies in Language Message-ID: Dear all I just realize that attachments may not go through the mailing list system, so I append the CfP in plain text below. best, Balthasar Bickel Studies in Language introduces a new special section that will appear at irregular intervals: News from the field: We invite short contributions that report on new discoveries in little-known and/or endangered languages, emphasizing description over theory. Contributions will typically derive from original fieldwork and are expected to provide concise and well-substantiated analyses of linguistic phenomena that have not been noticed much in general or in the relevant family or area, but for which the wider theoretical and comparative implications cannot be established yet. Submissions will be refereed like regular articles. ___________________________________________________________ Balthasar Bickel, Co-Editor Studies in Language http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=SL http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel From n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Oct 5 10:35:23 2010 From: n.m.stukker at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Stukker, N.M.) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:35:23 +0200 Subject: 2nd call for papers: Stylistics Across Disciplines Message-ID: 2nd Call for papers 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 Oct 8 20:39:53 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 03:39:53 +0700 Subject: I am still constructing phono-typological distances Message-ID: Dear Funknet colleagues, I am still constructing phono-typological distances the total of the speech sound chains gives us the sound picture of dialects and languages. We measure the distances with the help of the chi-square values. However, in the Internet or journals I never found such distances. Does it mean that only I measure them? Of course the linguistic distances may be based on the data of lexico-statistics or other features. Why not phonetic pictures? Am I correct? Hope you can share your opinions by writing me to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From joaomdasilva at hotmail.com Sun Oct 10 13:03:54 2010 From: joaomdasilva at hotmail.com (joao silva) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:03:54 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 6 Message-ID: funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu 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. I am still constructing phono-typological distances > (Yuri Tambovtsev) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 03:39:53 +0700 >From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" >Subject: [FUNKNET] I am still constructing phono-typological distances >To: >Message-ID: <54AFFE1CEA884B8B850EDC08777577BC at ngufa28a6c2639> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Dear Funknet colleagues, >I am still constructing phono-typological distances > > the total of the speech sound chains gives us the sound picture of dialects and languages. We measure the distances with the help of the chi-square values. However, in the Internet or journals I never found such distances. Does it mean that only I measure them? Of course the linguistic distances may be based on the data of lexico-statistics or other features. Why not phonetic pictures? Am I correct? Hope you can share your opinions by writing me to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > >End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 6 >************************************** > From degand at lige.ucl.ac.be Tue Oct 12 07:23:46 2010 From: degand at lige.ucl.ac.be (Elisabeth Degand) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:23:46 +0200 Subject: last-minute opportunity post-doc Message-ID: Last minute opportunity! Post-doc position: ?Grammaticalization and Intersubjectification of discourse markers? Within the framework of the ongoing IUAP-project ?Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification? (http://webh01.ua.ac.be/gramis/) funded by the Belgian federal government, the Institute for Language and Communication (IL&C) from the University of Louvain (UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) invites applications for one post-doc position. The position is available for one year as of November 1st 2010 and not later than January 1st 2011. Shorter periods are possible too. Description of the project: The project aims to contribute to current research efforts dealing with (the interaction between) the processes of grammaticalization (in the structural domain) and (inter)subjectification (in the semantic domain) in language change. It focuses on three major issues: 1) The precise nature of the semantic changes in subjectification and in intersubjectification, and their relationship with the structural developments in grammaticalization. 2) The teleology of the processes: are grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification unidirectional or not? 3) The ?scope? of these processes: how do grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification relate to other mechanisms of language change, notably, to analogy? In collaboration with research groups from the universities of Antwerp, Leuven, Ghent, and Hannover (Germany), and the Department of Cultural Anthropology at the Royal Museum of Central Africa, these foci are implemented in terms of work packages, dealing with different semantic and/or grammatical domains in which these issues can be raised and investigated from different angles. The task of the group in Louvain-la-Neuve is to work out the package on discourse markers (together with colleagues from Ghent and Hannover) (see work package description on http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/valibel/documents/workpackage4-web.pdf). The specific research area concerns the grammaticalization of (Dutch, French and English) discourse markers (where possible, in contrast to other languages). Essential requirements The position is reserved for international candidates or Belgian citizens who have not been employed in Belgium for more than two years during the 2008-2010 period. Applicants should have been awarded their doctorate within the last six years. Candidates must hold a PhD in the field of linguistics (pref. Dutch and/or French), with a primary specialization in discourse analysis. They should have experience of corpus linguistics, and ideally, have already published in the area of grammaticalization and/or typological language description. Expertise in the area of diachronic linguistics or willingness to gain such expertise is also required. Good knowledge of Dutch and French is an asset (with near-native command of one of the two languages). We especially welcome applications from candidates who share the research group?s interest in approaching language from a usage-based perspective with solid empirical grounding in primary data, especially approaches of a cognitive, social-interactional, and/or functional nature. Starting date: A soon as possible from November 1st Duration of the project: 1 year, monthly allowance: +/- 2000 EUR (tax-free including social security) Application Applications including letter, curriculum vitae, brief research proposal (max. 3 pages), copies of any relevant publications, and two academic references can be sent to the address below or by e-mail to: liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be Address for Applications: Prof. Liesbeth Degand Insitute for Language and Communication Universit? catholique de Louvain Place B. Pascal 1 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium Application Deadline: 1 November 2010 (Open until filled) From sepkit at utu.fi Fri Oct 15 10:01:01 2010 From: sepkit at utu.fi (=?iso-8859-1?B?IlNlcHBvIEtpdHRpbOQi?=) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:01:01 +0300 Subject: Second call for papers: Role complexes (Zurich, Switzerland, April 4-5, 2011) Message-ID: (apologies for multiple postings) Second call for papers Role complexes: (new) approaches to defining semantic roles Since one of the important functions of many communicative acts is to make clear ?who is doing what to whom? when portraying a particular state of affairs, it is hardly surprising that semantic roles, thematic roles or thematic relations constitute the topic of countless studies in linguistics and are also always discussed, either explicitly or implicitly, in reference grammars. Numerous studies have dealt with agents and patients within and across languages since the 1970s, and there are several comparatively recent studies that address other roles as well (e.g., Stolz et al 2006 for comitatives, N?ss 2007 for transitivity in general, Kittil? 2008 for recipients and goals, Z??iga & Kittil? 2010 for benefactives among numerous others). Among the many interesting characteristics of accounts of semantic roles, it is noteworthy that semantic relationships between predicates and their arguments are treated in different ways. On the one hand, the explicit formal distinction made in natural languages between agents and patients is typically reflected in their analytical status: the volitionally acting instigator of an event (agent) and the inactive, thoroughly affected target of the event (patient) are invariably regarded as two separate roles. On the other hand, different kinds of beneficiaries (e.g., the first person in John tossed me a salad and John mowed the lawn instead of me) are usually considered instances of one and the same role despite their different meanings. Similarly, different subtypes of agents have tended to be treated as different roles while different kinds of experiencers have not. Against this background, the goal of this workshop is to explore approaches to the notion of semantic role in terms of ROLE COMPLEXES, i.e., of clusters of several related sub-roles that might be distinguished by some constructions in certain languages but are otherwise subsumed under a general umbrella notion. For example, different instances of goals differ according to the exact nature of motion (e.g., he threw the ball to the box / behind the box / on the box). The basic definition of the goal role remains unchanged: we are dealing with an endpoint of motion in all cases. Nevertheless, the potential differences between the roles are thus determined by features not typically considered in studies of semantic roles; features usually used for distinguishing between semantic roles, such as instigation, volitionality and affectedness (cf. e.g.. N?ss 2007), can explain neither the semantic nor the formal differences between these three subtypes of goals, or the different codin g of goals and beneficiaries. We welcome all abstracts dealing with role complexes within and across languages. Possible topics for papers include (but, as always, are not restricted to) the following: - When should we speak of distinct roles, and when are two slightly different (potentially differently coded) roles rather manifestations of one basic role? Are, e.g., inanimate goals and animate goals manifestations of a single role or should they rather be treated separately? - What consequences does role synonymy have for our understanding of semantic roles? What are the features that any adequate theory of semantic roles should consider, what is the ?correct? number of semantic roles, etc.? - How should we treat partial formal mismatches between roles? - How do we deal with semantically/pragmatically determined differences in the coding of roles (e.g., marking conditioned by definiteness, referentiality, specificity, topicality, focality)? - Corpus-based studies of role synonymy: What determines the use of different (yet semantically similar) manifestations of a role in actual language use? - How do we best treat the diachronic development of multifunctional coding devices (syncretisms, polysemies, homonymies, etc.)? - Formal manifestation of semantic role synonymy: case marking, verbal marking, lexical differences, etc. - Role synonymy of core and peripheral roles: Are there any differences, is synonymy more common for one of these? Organizers of the workshop Fernando Z??iga (Zurich) and Seppo Kittil? (Helsinki) Venue University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Dates April 4-5, 2011 Abstract submission Please send your (maximally) 500-word abstract (excluding data and references) to both fernando.zuniga at spw.uzh.ch and kittila at mappi.helsinki.fi no later than November 14, 2010. The letters of acceptance will be sent by December 12, 2010. Abstracts must be anonymous, but the body of the e-mail should include the following information: Name of the author(s) Title of the paper Affiliation(s) E-mail In case you have any questions about the workshop, please don?t hesitate to contact us. We are looking forward to welcoming you all to Zurich. Fernando and Seppo From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Oct 15 13:48:16 2010 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:48:16 +0800 Subject: ICLC 11, Xi'an theme session proposals deadline extended Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The deadline for theme session organizers to submit their proposals to the Organizing Committee has been extended to November 5, 2010. While the procedures for theme sessions are found on the conference website, www.iclc11.org, we remind prospective theme session organizers and theme session presenters that the abstracts for theme sessions will go through the same anonymous peer review process as abstracts for the general session. Dafu Yang Executive Co-Chair ICLC 11, Xi'an Organizing Committee www.iclc11.org From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 17:21:54 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:21:54 -0400 Subject: LSA 2011 Message-ID: Hi all, I just wanted to let everyone know that there will be a symposium at this years LSA during the Sunday sessions entitled *Functions, Functionalism, and Linguistics. *The relevant info is pasted below (the actual times will be changed and Tom Givon will be presenting last at 11). Unfortunately Martin won't be able to attend, but Suzanne Kemmer has been kind enough to step in and take his place. This panel actually came about as a result of a series of discussions on this listserv...so thanks to the host for making it possible. Hope we see some of you there. Cheers, Shannon Shannon 59 Symposium: Functions, Functionalism, and Linguistics Room: Grand Ballroom 3 Organizers: Shannon T. Bischoff (Indiana University Purdue University, Fort Wayne) Craig Hancock (University at Albany) Carmen Jany (California State University, San Bernardino) 9:00: Tom Giv?n (University of Oregon): The intellectual roots of functionalism in linguistics 9:30: Daniel Everett (Bentley University): Language as a cultural-cognitive tool 10:00: Martin Haspelmath (Max Planck Insitute for Evolutionary Anthropology): Moving beyond restrictivism: Why cross-linguistic patterns are best explained functionally 10:30: Brian MacWhinney (Carnegie Mellon University): Where do linguistic forms come from? 11:00: Craig Hancock (University at Albany), William Greaves (York University, Emeritus): Systemic functional linguistics: Basic principles and application to teaching 11:30: General discussion 12:00: Session ends From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 16 19:00:06 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 02:00:06 +0700 Subject: Etrusk texts Message-ID: Dear Funknet colleagues, I wonder if you know some Etrusk texts? The Etrusk people used to live in Italy before the Romans killed or assimilated them. Etrusk civilisation was more developed than Roman. This is why, I guess there should be some texts in Etrusk. I think a developed civilisation as that cannot just disappear without texts. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to yutamb at mail.ru yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Oct 16 20:10:07 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:10:07 +0200 Subject: Etrusk texts In-Reply-To: <15791D1F86414F0EB28C20BD7130AE6A@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_language - it's so easy to retrieve information on Etruscan. By the way: The link mentioned by Wikipedia concerning text collections (ETP: Etruscan Texts Project A searchable database of Etruscan texts) seems not to be on-line for the moment. But there are many other possibilities to see some texts (just google "Etruscan texts" or so...) Best Wolfgang Am 16.10.2010 21:00, schrieb Yuri Tambovtsev: > Dear Funknet colleagues, I wonder if you know some Etrusk texts? The Etrusk people used to live in Italy before the Romans killed or assimilated them. Etrusk civilisation was more developed than Roman. This is why, I guess there should be some texts in Etrusk. I think a developed civilisation as that cannot just disappear without texts. Looking forward to hearing from you soon to yutamb at mail.ru yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Neue Anschrift // New address [!] Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / Katedra Germanistik? Fakulta humanitn?ch vied Univerzita Mateja B?la / Bansk? Bystrica Tajovsk?ho 40 SK-97401 Bansk? Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich 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 Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 17 19:42:41 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:42:41 +0700 Subject: data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I wonder if any data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek have been published? Do you know any publications of that kind? Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at mail.ru Yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 17 19:45:49 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:45:49 +0700 Subject: frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek speech sounds Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I wonder if any data on the frequency of occurrence of Ancient Greek speech sounds have been published? Do you know any publications of that kind? Looking forward to hearing from you to yutamb at mail.ru Yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Mon Oct 18 09:42:36 2010 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:42:36 +0200 Subject: International Spring School - Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles - Italy, April 2011 Message-ID: ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** ------------------------- INTERNATIONAL SPRING SCHOOL 2011 "Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles" LETiSS - Center for Postgraduate Education and Research Pavia, 18-22 April 2011 ------------------------- Dear list members, the Center for Postgraduate Education and Research on ?Languages of Europe: Typology, History and Sociolinguistics? (LETiSS) ANNOUNCES its 2nd International Spring School on "Europe beyond Europe: new horizons on pidgins and creoles", to be held in Pavia (Italy), 18-22 April 2011. The LETISS Center has been the first center in Italy (and in Europe) specifically dedicated to the linguistic situation of Europe, approached from a variety of perspectives. More information on the aims, the research topics and the activities of the Center can be found at the following URL: www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS The aim of the spring school is to enhance dialogue among young linguists interested in the topics announced in the title, under the guide of leading specialists. This is why the number of participants has been limited (see below), in order to facilitate interactions among them. WHEN AND WHERE: The Spring School will last one week, from Monday 18 until Friday 22 April 2011, at the IUSS Institute in Pavia (viale Lungo Ticino Sforza 56, 27100 Pavia, Italy ? www.iusspavia.it). WHO AND WHAT: TEACHERS AND COURSES The everyday schedule, from Monday to Friday, will be as follows: 9-10.45: 1st course 11.15-13.00: 2nd course 15-16.45: 3rd course 17.15-19.00: 4th course Friday evening there will be a farewell dinner at 20.00 1st course ? Margot van den Berg (Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen): Creoles at birth? The role of nativization ------- 2nd course ? Barbara Turchetta (Universit? della Tuscia): The contribution of Pidgin and Creole studies to the general theory of language change ------- 3rd course ? Susanne Michaelis (University of Gie?en/Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig): Grammatical structures in creole language. First results from APiCS ------- 4th course ? Bettina Migge (University College Dublin): The Sociolinguistics and Pragmatics of Creole languages THE STUDENTS: 20 advanced students in linguistics and related fields will be selected by the Scientific Committee of the School. The main criterion will be the degree of relatedness/pertinence of their research interests with the topics of the School. In particular: ? applicants must have achieved at least the B.A. + M.A. level (= a five years cycle); therefore the students may be Ph.D. students, Post- docs, and young researchers; ? in the CV applicants should indicate any research activities and publications that may be relevant for the admission; ? applicants should also attach a short description of their past, ongoing and future research projects (up to three pages). APPLICATION GUIDELINES: Please send an e-mail to emanuele.miola at unipv.it with the following information: ? Name ? Contact info ? Position and affiliation ? CV (as a separate attachment) ? Brief description of past, ongoing and future research projects (as a separate attachment). NO TUITION FEE IS REQUIRED!! LETiSS will even cover attendants? accommodation expenses. IMPORTANT DATES 15th November: application deadline. 15th December: applicants who have been accepted will receive a communication with all relevant information. ORGANIZERS: Caterina Mauri, Emanuele Miola, Paolo Ramat, Andrea Sans?. Please send your application and any questions to: emanuele.miola at unipv.it LETiSS website: www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS LETiSS Spring School 2011 website: http://www.iusspavia.it/eng/LETiSS.springschool Caterina Mauri, Emanuele Miola, Andrea Sans?, Paolo Ramat From kemmer at rice.edu Mon Oct 18 13:44:58 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 08:44:58 -0500 Subject: Fellowships: Exploring the Mind through Music workshop Message-ID: [Application deadline is Nov. 1, 2010. There are many musician applicants; but more in cognitive sciences are desired to round out the group of fellows. --S.K. ] FELLOWSHIPS: Exploring the Mind through Music The Shepherd School of Music is proud to announce "Exploring the Mind through Music 2011." Twenty fellows-ten musicians and ten scientists-will be invited to Rice University campus in Houston for innovative cross-disciplinary seminars and public lectures by distinguished visiting and resident faculty. Musicians and scientists at any stage in their professional career are encouraged to apply. The goal of the Conference is to promote collaboration between musicians and scientists and spur research. In the mornings, in-depth seminars will introduce the scientific fellows to musical structure and history and the musician fellows to brain morphology, music perception and experimental design. In the afternoons and evenings, the fellows will join together for lectures related to current research. The Conference concludes with a joint session with all participants. The morning seminars are open to the Rice and Baylor College of Medicine community. The afternoon and evening lectures are free and open to the public. The Visiting Faculty includes: David Huron, Ohio State University Fred Lerdahl, Columbia University Aniruddh Patel, The Neurosciences Institute Bob Slevc, University of Maryland, College Park Robert Zatorre, McGill University The Resident Faculty includes: Gregory Barnett, Musicology Anthony Brandt, Music Composition and Theory David Eagleman, Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine Norman Fischer, Cello Suzanne Kemmer, Cognitive Sciences and Linguistics Christine Neugebauer, Music Therapy, Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital Casey O'Callaghan, Philosophy C. Richard Stasney, Otalyngology, The Methodist Hospital Fellowships cover all Conference expenses, including lodging and meals. Fellows are only required to pay their travel to Houston. For more information, including application instructions and event schedule, please visit the Conference website: www.rice.edu/mindandmusic . The Conference Director, Anthony Brandt, may be reached by email at abrandt at rice.edu or by phone at (713) 348-2192. The assistant to Dr. Brandt, Molly Gebrian, can be reached atmgebrian at yahoo.com. "Exploring the Mind through Music 2011" is generously underwritten by Rice University's Shepherd School of Music and Humanities Research Center and the Methodist Hospital's Center for Performing Arts Medicine. From fg-fgw at uva.nl Mon Oct 18 14:13:26 2010 From: fg-fgw at uva.nl (fg-fgw) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:13:26 +0200 Subject: First call FDG Workshop Barcelona 2011 Message-ID: Workshop on Functional Discourse Grammar The Interaction between the Grammatical Component and the Contextual Component Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain September 8-9, 2011 For detailed information please see www.FunctionalDiscourseGrammar.info go to --> Events, go to --> Workshop 2011 or mail to fg-fgw at uva.nl and you will receive the first call as a word.doc +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Functional Grammar Foundation International Secretary Universiteit van Amsterdam Department of Theoretical Linguistics Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam The Netherlands e-mail: fg-fgw at uva.nl P Before printing, think about the environment +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Tue Oct 19 16:22:25 2010 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:22:25 +0200 Subject: Call for papers - Pavia, May 2011 - Workshop on "GRADUALNESS IN CHANGE AND ITS RELATION TO SYNCHRONIC VARIATION AND USE" Message-ID: ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** ------------------------ International workshop on: "GRADUALNESS IN CHANGE AND ITS RELATION TO SYNCHRONIC VARIATION AND USE" Pavia (Italy), 30-31 May 2011 Workshop URL: https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/ ------------------------ DESCRIPTION: The workshop aims to contribute to the discussion on the factors at play in diachronic change and to investigate the relationship between diachronic gradualness and synchronic variation, integrating the current views on linguistic variation and language use. Special attention will be devoted to theoretical and methodological issues concerning i) how the study of language change can benefit from the most recent achievements in linguistic theories and ii) how the explanations of synchronic variation may be found in diachronic processes, discussing whether diachronic gradualness and synchronic variation may be analyzed through the same lenses and by means of the same theoretical instruments. Furthermore, the workshop also wants to address the question of the impact of contact on linguistic change. Language contact may indeed be seen as a special type of synchronic phenomenon that may last in time and may gradually lead to diachronic change, triggering or influencing the development of particular constructions in neighbouring languages. INVITED SPEAKERS: Olga Fischer (University of Amsterdam): ---- Topic: On the role of analogy in processes of language change B?atrice Lamiroy (University of Leuven): ---- Topic: The pace of grammaticalization in Romance languages Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh): ---- Topic: Diachronic construction grammar and gradualness in language change Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp): ----- Topic: On diachronic semantic maps The workshop will also accommodate four contributions from the project members (t.b.a) on the effects of contact and interference within the macro-geographic-area of the Mediterranean. CALL FOR PAPERS: Authors are invited to submit a one-page abstract, keeping in mind that the slot for their communication will last 40 min. including discussion. Abstracts should be anonymous and should be sent as attachments in PDF format to: gradualness.workshop at gmail.com. Author(s) name(s) and affiliation should be indicated in the corpus of the e-mail. The abstracts will be anonimously reviewed by two members of the Scientific Committee. Besides theoretical issues, the exam of specific examples and the description of general patterns will also be welcome. Topics of interest include: ? what kind of factors trigger the grammaticalization processes ? the relation of grammaticalization to other mechanisms of language change such as reanalysis and analogy ? the relationship between synchronic variation and grammatical change ? the interaction between frequency, entrenchment and use ? the possibility of multiple source constructions in language change ? the role of language contact in grammatical change ? how particular diachronic phenomena may be analyzed in the light of the most recent linguistic theories (e.g. construction grammar) ? diachronic explanations for synchronic patterns of variation ? ?.. IMPORTANT DATES: Deadline for submission: 10 February 2010 Notification of acceptance 10 March 2010 ORGANIZERS AND CONTACT: Anna Giacalone Ramat - annaram (at) unipv.it Caterina Mauri - caterina.mauri (at) unipv.it Piera Molinelli - piera.molinelli (at) unibg.it For any questions and for submissions, please write to gradualness.workshop at gmail.com SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE: Pierluigi Cuzzolin (University of Bergamo), Chiara Fedriani (University of Pavia), Chiara Ghezzi (University of Pavia), Anna Giacalone Ramat (University of Pavia), Gianguido Manzelli (University of Pavia), Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia), Piera Molinelli (University of Bergamo), Paolo Ramat (IUSS Institute), Andrea Sans? (Insubria University - Como), Federica Venier (University of Bergamo) From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Wed Oct 20 10:59:00 2010 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:59:00 +0200 Subject: JOB: 2 positions in English Linguistics, Lille, France Message-ID: Two tenure track positions in English Linguistics, Universit? Lille3, France http://www.univ-lille3.fr !!! URGENT JOB NOTICE !!! Answer needed before Oct. 28, 2010 (see below)!!! The University of Lille 3, France, will have two tenure track positions available track position in English Linguistics, with the following profile: 1) Corpus linguistics, syntax 2) didactics (ESL) and/or language acquisition REQUIREMENTS The candidate must hold a PhD, or be sure to have a PhD in hand by December 1, 2010 at the latest, in the field of English Linguistics (or comparable, with good command of English) and have demonstrated expertise in this domain, through quality publication and solid teaching experience. The ideal candidate will engage in the further expansion of the corpus linguistics group (position 1) or the ESL teaching and research group (position 2) with the STL research center at the Universit? Lille 3 (http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/). Normal teaching load is about 7 hours per week (2 terms of 13 weeks) and concerns English linguistics classes, or possibly also English for non-specialists (ESP) (mostly undergraduate level). Hiring will be done at the level of "Ma?tre de Conf?rences" (MCF) with a monthly salary scale ranging from 2,058 to 3,722 (before taxes and withholdings), depending on the number of years of experience at MCF level (i.e. most positions for which a PhD is required). Initially, there is no requirement that candidates speak French fluently, but it is preferred that they at least have a sufficient working knowledge to understand the procedures. The successful candidate must be authorized to work legally in France by Sept. 1, 2011, the start date of the position. PROCEDURE Candidates who are interested in this position should contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; please send along your CV too. Moreover, the first official step for candidates is to register on-line for the QUALIFICATION by *October 28, 2011, 16:00* (Parisian time) on the official site of the Minist?re de l'Enseignement sup?rieur et de la Recherche; https://www.galaxie.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/ensup/candidats.html (on the right, you'll also see a link to the "calendrier" with important dates for the qualification MCF) The idea is that you need to get the qualification MCF before you can apply for a job as an MCF. People who hold a position of rank similar to MCF could apply without the qualification, but it is safer to follow the usual official procedure, which is open to all nationalities anyway. Do not hesitate to contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) should you have any questions on this position or on the official procedure. -- Den b?sta taktiken ?r inte alltid att h?lla sig uppr?tt, utan att l?ra sig falla mjukt" (Kajsa Ingemarsson, "Sm? citroner gula", p. 292) -- Maarten (=Martin) Lemmens Professeur en linguistique et didactique des langues (Sp?cialit?s: linguistique anglaise & linguistique cognitive) Universit? Lille 3, B.P. 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France Bureau B4.138; t?l.: +33 (0)3.20.41.67.18 Membre de l'UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage http://perso.univ-lille3.fr/~mlemmens Editor-in-Chief "CogniTextes" (revue de l'AFLiCo) http://cognitextes.revues.org/ Membre du bureau de l'Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive http://www.aflico.fr/ Board member of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.cogling.org/ -- From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Oct 20 17:12:44 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:12:44 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: Hello, For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. Thanks. I'll summarize. Best wishes, --fritz fjn at u.washington.edu Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From olga at humnet.ucla.edu Wed Oct 20 17:43:28 2010 From: olga at humnet.ucla.edu (Yokoyama, Olga) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:43:28 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. Olga Olga T. Yokoyama Professor and Chair Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL University of California, Los Angeles Tel. (310) 825-4631 Fax (310) 206-4118 http://www.appling.ucla.edu -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM To: Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Hello, For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. Thanks. I'll summarize. Best wishes, --fritz fjn at u.washington.edu Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From harald at bombo.se Wed Oct 20 17:48:56 2010 From: harald at bombo.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Harald_Hammarstr=F6m?=) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:48:56 +0800 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD2402F9@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: I don't think the Jelinek quote was ever in a publication. In the keynote speech for his ACL lifetime achievement award in Singapore 2006, Fred described the situation (I think it was in the early 1970s) as "that is when I supposedly said what I supposedly said ..." referring to the infamous quote. Perhaps there's a video recording of the speech of maybe someone else knows the story better and can verify that the quote was actually in a publication?! all the best, H 2010/10/21 Yokoyama, Olga > Fritz, > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the > lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines > of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing linguistics and > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > are. > > Olga > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor and Chair > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Hello, > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a > linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > --fritz > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > From cdcox at ualberta.ca Wed Oct 20 18:09:28 2010 From: cdcox at ualberta.ca (Christopher Cox) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:09:28 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: For his part, Jelinek (2004) appears to cite his 1988 paper, "Applying Information Theoretic Methods: Evaluation of Grammar Quality", as the source of this quote. Whether or not that source paper was ever published is another question, but it would seem that he acknowledges the quote, albeit with some qualifications given in his 2004 LREC presentation. Slides from that presentation are available online: http://www.lrec-conf.org/lrec2004/doc/jelinek.pdf Hope this helps, -- Christopher Cox christopher.cox at ualberta.ca From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Oct 20 19:25:28 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:25:28 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There is a current lead article in the ON THE HUMAN forum (you may google it), also co-published by the NY Times. The topic is the evolution of morality and religion, and the author is the celebrated primatologist and evolutionary thinker Frans de Waal. Somewhere in there, he expresses his profound disappointment at the Cartesian Exceptionalism pursued by 'some linguists'. De Waal is too gentle to name names, but for those of us who know the evolutionary discussion (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002), the reference is rather transparent. And it expresses the recurrent mystification of scientists I know (biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuro-scientists) about linguistics. A fairly recent conference convened four discussion groups (evolutionary biologists, neuro-scientists, computer modelers, linguists) to talk about the biology and evolution of grammar. Members of the non-linguist groups dropped in periodically to sit on the linguists' discussion. Their uniform private reaction to me was bafflement--at the supreme irrelevance of the linguists' discussion to the topic at hand. I told them 'welcome to the club'. Cheers, TG ========================== Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ???re a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 20 21:19:23 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:19:23 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBF4228.4060707@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Here is a recent talk that author Tom Wolfe gave on the subject of The Human Beast at Bentley University (Friday October 15, 2010). He argues that humans should be referred to as Homo loquax. It is an interesting take, partially based on my work. A similar lecture was given as the Jefferson lecture, sponsored by the NEH/US Government. Dan http://academics.bentley.edu/tom-wolfe On 20 Oct 2010, at 15:25, Tom Givon wrote: > > > There is a current lead article in the ON THE HUMAN forum (you may google it), also co-published by the NY Times. The topic is the evolution of morality and religion, and the author is the celebrated primatologist and evolutionary thinker Frans de Waal. Somewhere in there, he expresses his profound disappointment at the Cartesian Exceptionalism pursued by 'some linguists'. De Waal is too gentle to name names, but for those of us who know the evolutionary discussion (Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch 2002), the reference is rather transparent. And it expresses the recurrent mystification of scientists I know (biologists, evolutionary psychologists, cognitive neuro-scientists) about linguistics. > > A fairly recent conference convened four discussion groups (evolutionary biologists, neuro-scientists, computer modelers, linguists) to talk about the biology and evolution of grammar. Members of the non-linguist groups dropped in periodically to sit on the linguists' discussion. Their uniform private reaction to me was bafflement--at the supreme irrelevance of the linguists' discussion to the topic at hand. I told them 'welcome to the club'. > > Cheers, > > TG > > ========================== > > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: >> Hello, >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> --fritz >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > From matti.miestamo at helsinki.fi Thu Oct 21 08:26:19 2010 From: matti.miestamo at helsinki.fi (Matti Miestamo) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:26:19 +0300 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, what about Greenberg & al. (1978: v) quoting a comment by psychologist Charles Osgood: "... while linguistics had an admirable and well worked out method, it was being applied merely to the description of individual languages. Could the linguists present tell him anything about **all** languages? That would be of the highest interest to psychologists.? Reference: Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik. 1978. Preface. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 1, Method and Theory, v?xi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Best wishes, Matti -- Matti Miestamo http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/ On Oct 20, 2010, at 20:12 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Thu Oct 21 08:34:31 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:34:31 +0100 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD2402F9@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Dear Fritz, I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) Dick (Hudson) Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > Fritz, > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. > > Olga > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor and Chair > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Hello, > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > --fritz > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Oct 21 08:47:35 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:47:35 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBFFB17.2050208@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in general. English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes will produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > Fritz, > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > practitioners in one room > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics and > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > are. > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > To: Funknet > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ???re > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From timo.honkela at tkk.fi Thu Oct 21 09:31:18 2010 From: timo.honkela at tkk.fi (Timo Honkela) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:31:18 +0300 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, Matti and all, This is a very interesting question and as a person standing on both sides (outside and inside linguistics), I would like to comment on some matters. In computational linguistics and especially in natural language processing research as an application orinted area of artificial intelligence, it has been commonplace to think that linguists ("proper") often focus on too specific phenomena that do not help in increasing the overall performance of a system. This may been seen as the background for Jelinek's comment. In addition to this lack of coverage issue, the representation of linguistic knowledge and its use in building natural language processing computational systems is a complex issue. The relationship between implicit linguistic skills and explicit representations are not at all as straightforward as some rule-based representation oriented scholars such as Noam Chomsky have tried to suggest (for discussion on the methodology of implicit and explicit representation, please see "Modeling communities of experts: Conceptual grounding of expertise", www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/TKK-ICS-R24.pdf - suggestions for journals that would be interested in this multidisciplinary topic are also welcome). Charles Osgood's comment reflects a distinction that can also be seen between (autonomous) general linguistics and cognitive linguistics. We who try to create models of (real or artificial) systems that learn and use language need to think basically of all languages: What are the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to the ability to learn and use language? One needs to be able to model systems that learn language from the input. A central research question then is what needs to be there in a cognitive system for the learning to be possible. Proponents of the poverty of stimulus argument etc. have suggested that not so much can be learned but there is also a lot of opposing evident. In our field, an interesting recent example is the development of Morfessor system that models certain aspects of morphology of basically any language through unsupervised learning and information theoretical principles (see http://www.cis.hut.fi/projects/morpho/ for details). Another, older result is the experiment in which we were able to exhibit emergence of linguistically motivated categories through the use of the self-organizing map method (the most popular computational model of cortical organization). (http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/honkela_pulkki_kohonen_icann95_grimm.pdf) Some potentially interesting issues related to computational modeling of human and social sciences are covered in a keynote paper presented last June (http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/online-papers/honkela_mashs10_final.pdf). One quote from the paper that might be interesting from the point of view of Fritz' original question: "Computational linguistics is an area in which computers have been used for a relatively long time as a research tool. Linguistics can be considered to particularly interesting from the point of view of scientific practice and scientific representation because language is a central means for representing and communicating scientific results." Summa summarum, research on language is extremely important in its all flavors. Research on chemisty and biology is important for the health. Research on language (in its widest sense including functional linguistic, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, etc.) is of crucial imporance on how we are able deal with any aspect or problem in the world. We all are so immersed in language that especially those who are not inside this field do not necessarily appreciate the importance of this field of inquiry. Best regards, Timo On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Matti Miestamo wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > what about Greenberg & al. (1978: v) quoting a comment by psychologist Charles Osgood: > > "... while linguistics had an admirable and well worked out method, > it was being applied merely to the description of individual > languages. Could the linguists present tell him anything about > **all** languages? That would be of the highest interest to > psychologists.? > > Reference: > Greenberg, Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik. 1978. Preface. > In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 1, > Method and Theory, v?xi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. > > Best wishes, > Matti > > -- > Matti Miestamo > http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/ > > > > On Oct 20, 2010, at 20:12 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> --fritz >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > -- Timo Honkela, Chief Research Scientist, PhD, Docent Adaptive Informatics Research Center Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O.Box 5400, FI-02015 TKK, Finland timo.honkela at tkk.fi, http://www.cis.hut.fi/tho/ From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Thu Oct 21 09:47:17 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:47:17 +0100 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CBFFB17.2050208@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > language at university, so academic research on language isn't > relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, > where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum > and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm > sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by > its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical > source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written > quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> >> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how >> many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast >> and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it >> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented English in a public conference, which combined international >> scholars and practitioners in one room >> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at >> large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for >> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >> ignorance about what language studies are. >> >> Olga >> >> >> >> Olga T. Yokoyama >> >> Professor and Chair >> >> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >> >> University of California, Los Angeles >> >> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >> >> Fax (310) 206-4118 >> >> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like >> to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Oct 21 09:55:46 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:55:46 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC00C25.8070900@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: It would be very interesting to know how useful the Hallidayan paradigm is to these teachers, whether they are expected to conform entirely to its use of terminology (some of which is rather counter-intuitive) and whether there is any resulting confusion, for example for those steeped in traditional grammar. If any of the latter still exist of course! Tahir >>> Richard Hudson 10/21/2010 9:47 am >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz, > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > language at university, so academic research on language isn't > relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, > where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum > and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm > sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by > its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical > source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written > quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > such as Spain - see > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > Dick (Hudson) > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >> Fritz, >> >> >> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how >> many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast >> and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it >> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented English in a public conference, which combined international >> scholars and practitioners in one room >> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at >> large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for >> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >> ignorance about what language studies are. >> >> Olga >> >> >> >> Olga T. Yokoyama >> >> Professor and Chair >> >> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >> >> University of California, Los Angeles >> >> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >> >> Fax (310) 206-4118 >> >> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like >> to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >> >> >> >> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >> >> >> >> Thanks. I'll summarize. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> fjn at u.washington.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From dcyr at yorku.ca Thu Oct 21 14:46:09 2010 From: dcyr at yorku.ca (Danielle E. Cyr) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:46:09 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287650855.4cbffe272fc23@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very important both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that chunk of knowledge: INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language re-education; - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class discussions. In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and happiness :) Danielle P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? "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." Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in > general. > English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking > countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes will > produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're > supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is > taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. > When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock > answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > John > > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > Dear Fritz, > > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > > value of linguistics for education (see > > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > > such as Spain - see > > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > > > Dick (Hudson) > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > > Fritz, > > > > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > important > > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially > in > > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. > We > > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're > a > > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there > > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did > it > > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented > > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > > practitioners in one room > > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > > sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics and > > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies > > are. > > > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > > To: Funknet > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published > > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ???re > > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > "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 john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Oct 21 15:03:08 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:03:08 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287672369.4cc05231ac736@mymail.yorku.ca> Message-ID: Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. John Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > important > both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my > French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > intention > to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to > linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At > the > introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that > chunk of knowledge: > > INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear > implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching > materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > re-education; > - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, > intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social > understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, > intercultural studies, etc. > - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of > international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. > - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better > understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the > making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of > nationhoods, etc. > > They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, > for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in > their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in > all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge > in > their other class discussions. > > In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes > them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that > their > studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, > diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, > merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > > Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > linguist, I > count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no > problem > explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and > also > a source of pleasure and happiness :) > > Danielle > > P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I > liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the > author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without > acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > > "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." > Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > > > It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in > > general. > > English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking > > countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes > will > > produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're > > supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is > > taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. > > When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock > > answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > > > Dear Fritz, > > > I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > > > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > > > school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language > > > at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > > > education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar > > > teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > > > teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country > > > like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to > > > education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > > > anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > > > value of linguistics for education (see > > > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do > > > much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have > > > evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries > > > such as Spain - see > > > http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > > > > > > Dick (Hudson) > > > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > > > On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > > > > Fritz, > > > > > > > > > > > > I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes > > > towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > > important > > > for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially > > in > > > public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. > > We > > > all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > you're > > a > > > linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > there > > > are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did > > it > > > this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > accented > > > English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and > > > practitioners in one room > > > (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > > > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > > > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and > make > > > sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics and > > > language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget > > > considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies > > > are. > > > > > > > > Olga > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > > > > > > > Professor and Chair > > > > > > > > Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > > > > > > > > University of California, Los Angeles > > > > > > > > Tel. (310) 825-4631 > > > > > > > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > > > > > > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > > > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > Newmeyer > > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > > > > To: Funknet > > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > > > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > > > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > > published > > > quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on > > > their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular > > > concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by > > > pointing me to relevant quotes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > > > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > > ???re > > > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > "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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 21 15:32:21 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:32:21 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287673388.4cc0562c6ccb1@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. --Aya On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for > linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > John > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >> important >> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my >> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >> intention >> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course to >> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At >> the >> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to that >> chunk of knowledge: >> >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, cochlear >> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching >> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >> re-education; >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, history, >> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and social >> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, >> intercultural studies, etc. >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of >> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better >> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of the >> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building of >> nationhoods, etc. >> >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French and, >> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them in >> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them in >> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic knowledge >> in >> their other class discussions. >> >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics makes >> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that >> their >> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, >> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, >> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >> >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >> linguist, I >> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no >> problem >> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and >> also >> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >> >> Danielle >> >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation somewhere. I >> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who the >> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without >> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >> >> "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." >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >> >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in >>> general. >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking >>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes >> will >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that they're >>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching is >>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first stock >>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias >>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language >>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar >>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country >>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to >>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have >>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries >>>> such as Spain - see >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>> important >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially >>> in >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. >>> We >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >> you're >>> a >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >> there >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did >>> it >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and >>>> practitioners in one room >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's >>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and >> make >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics and >>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget >>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >> studies >>>> are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or >>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>> published >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on >>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular >>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by >>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I >>> ???re >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>> University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >> >> >> "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 >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Oct 21 15:44:15 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:44:15 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current linguistic theory (of whatever variety). --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign > language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the > seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not > have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared > this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need for >> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : >> >>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >>> important >>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. In my >>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >>> intention >>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory course >>> to >>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. >>> At >>> the >>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal >>> and >>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to >>> that >>> chunk of knowledge: >>> >>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >>> cochlear >>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language teaching >>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >>> re-education; >>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >>> history, >>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >>> social >>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, ethics, >>> intercultural studies, etc. >>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the history of >>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a better >>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, of >>> the >>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the building >>> of >>> nationhoods, etc. >>> >>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of French >>> and, >>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps them >>> in >>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps them >>> in >>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic >>> knowledge >>> in >>> their other class discussions. >>> >>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics >>> makes >>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware that >>> their >>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, jurists, >>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, translators, >>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >>> >>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >>> linguist, I >>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have no >>> problem >>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful and >>> also >>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >>> >>> Danielle >>> >>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >>> somewhere. I >>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know who >>> the >>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom without >>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >>> >>> "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." >>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >>> >>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching in >>>> general. >>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in English-speaking >>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language classes >>> will >>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>>> they're >>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language teaching >>>> is >>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to >>>> linguistics. >>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>>> stock >>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>>> >>>>> Dear Fritz, >>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias >>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language >>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar >>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country >>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to >>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have >>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries >>>>> such as Spain - see >>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>>> >>>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>>> >>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes >>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>>> important >>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>>> especially >>>> in >>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay >>>>> society. >>>> We >>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >>> you're >>>> a >>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >>> there >>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department >>>>> did >>>> it >>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >>> accented >>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international scholars >>>>> and >>>>> practitioners in one room >>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>>> Oregon's >>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and >>> make >>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing linguistics >>>>> and >>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget >>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >>> studies >>>>> are. >>>>>> >>>>>> Olga >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>>> >>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>>> >>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>>> >>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>> Newmeyer >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>>> To: Funknet >>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from >>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, >>>>> or >>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>>> published >>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. >>>>> on >>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their >>>>> particular >>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by >>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The >>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I >>>> ???re >>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --fritz >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>> >>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>> >>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>>> University >>>>>> >>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> >>> >>> >>> "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 >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > From hancock at albany.edu Thu Oct 21 17:08:28 2010 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC00C25.8070900@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. Craig On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > has influenced schools in England" > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > official curriculum. > > Dick > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >> Dear Fritz, >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >> >> Dick (Hudson) >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>> Fritz, >>> >>> >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >>> ignorance about what language studies are. >>> >>> Olga >>> >>> >>> >>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>> >>> Professor and Chair >>> >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>> >>> University of California, Los Angeles >>> >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>> >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>> >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>> Newmeyer >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>> To: Funknet >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>> >>> >>> >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >>> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> >>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> >> >> >> > > From yutamb at mail.ru Thu Oct 21 18:51:19 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 Subject: The view of mathematicians is quite negative Message-ID: Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric family. They put Hungarian into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in linguistics to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, Russia. From macw at cmu.edu Thu Oct 21 20:01:28 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <4CC0738C.3020900@albany.edu> Message-ID: Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite article in English or French nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it depends on how linguistics is packaged. OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not preclude the use of others. -- Brian MacWhinney On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. >> >> Dick >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >>> Dear Fritz, >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>> >>> Dick (Hudson) >>> >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>> Fritz, >>>> >>>> >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. >>>> >>>> Olga >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>> >>>> Professor and Chair >>>> >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>> >>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>> >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>> >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>> >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>> To: Funknet >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --fritz >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>>> >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From mark at polymathix.com Fri Oct 22 00:24:22 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about academics." from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Roger Schank comes to mind Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > >> John, >> >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars >> in >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a >> foreign >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend >> the >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did >> not >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently >> spared >> this.) It was a complete farce. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need >>> for >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : >>> >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >>>> important >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. >>>> In my >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere >>>> intention >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory >>>> course >>>> to >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in >>>> linguistics. >>>> At >>>> the >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of >>>> internal >>>> and >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to >>>> that >>>> chunk of knowledge: >>>> >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >>>> cochlear >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language >>>> teaching >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >>>> re-education; >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >>>> history, >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >>>> social >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, >>>> ethics, >>>> intercultural studies, etc. >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the >>>> history of >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, >>>> etc. >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a >>>> better >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, >>>> of >>>> the >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the >>>> building >>>> of >>>> nationhoods, etc. >>>> >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of >>>> French >>>> and, >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps >>>> them >>>> in >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps >>>> them >>>> in >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic >>>> knowledge >>>> in >>>> their other class discussions. >>>> >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics >>>> makes >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware >>>> that >>>> their >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, >>>> jurists, >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, >>>> translators, >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. >>>> >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >>>> linguist, I >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have >>>> no >>>> problem >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful >>>> and >>>> also >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) >>>> >>>> Danielle >>>> >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >>>> somewhere. I >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know >>>> who >>>> the >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom >>>> without >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >>>> >>>> "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." >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >>>> >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching >>>>> in >>>>> general. >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in >>>>> English-speaking >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language >>>>> classes >>>> will >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>>>> they're >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language >>>>> teaching >>>>> is >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to >>>>> linguistics. >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>>>> stock >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Fritz, >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >>>>>> bias >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about >>>>>> language >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where >>>>>> grammar >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a >>>>>> country >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its >>>>>> contribution to >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do >>>>>> have >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in >>>>>> countries >>>>>> such as Spain - see >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>>>> Fritz, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>>>>>> attitudes >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>>>> important >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>>>> especially >>>>> in >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay >>>>>> society. >>>>> We >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, >>>> you're >>>>> a >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out >>>> there >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my >>>>>> department >>>>>> did >>>>> it >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >>>> accented >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international >>>>>> scholars >>>>>> and >>>>>> practitioners in one room >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>>>> Oregon's >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large >>>>>> and >>>> make >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing >>>>>> linguistics >>>>>> and >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on >>>>>> budget >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language >>>> studies >>>>>> are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olga >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >>>> Newmeyer >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>>>> To: Funknet >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>>>>>> from >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>>>>> value, >>>>>> or >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite >>>>> published >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> on >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their >>>>>> particular >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out >>>>>> by >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. >>>>>>> The >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever >>>>>> I >>>>> ???re >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --fritz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>>>> University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>>>> University >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >> > > > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From tpayne at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 22 00:52:38 2010 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory tower" idealists. I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. Tom -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 To: john at research.haifa.ac.il Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics John, I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. --Aya On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > John > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached >> to that chunk of knowledge: >> >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among >> others; >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language >> re-education; >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, etc. >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. >> >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class >> discussions. >> >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, >> etc. etc. etc. >> >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and >> happiness :) >> >> Danielle >> >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? >> >> "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." >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: >> >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching >>> in general. >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that >>> foreign language classes >> will >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to linguistics. >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics >>>> for education (see >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in >>>> countries such as Spain - see >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's >>>>> attitudes >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very >>> important >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made >>>> especially >>> in >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. >>> We >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of >>>> "Oh, >> you're >>> a >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings >>>> out >> there >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my >>>> department did >>> it >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with >> accented >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public >>>> at large and >> make >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring >>>> ignorance about what language >> studies >>>> are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J >> Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes >>>>> from >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would >>>> like to cite >>> published >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking >>>>> for. The >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: >>>> 'Whenever I >>> ???re >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>>> University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >> >> >> "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 >> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > From hancock at albany.edu Fri Oct 22 12:34:38 2010 From: hancock at albany.edu (Craig Hancock) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14@cmu.edu> Message-ID: Brian, You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use it, and that is not a finite goal. What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on both sides. Craig On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite article in English or French nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the states. >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background in language. >> >> Craig >> >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. >>> >>> Dick >>> >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: >>>> Dear Fritz, >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - see http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) >>>> >>>> Dick (Hudson) >>>> >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: >>>>> Fritz, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which combined international scholars and practitioners in one room (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language studies are. >>>>> >>>>> Olga >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama >>>>> >>>>> Professor and Chair >>>>> >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL >>>>> >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles >>>>> >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 >>>>> >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM >>>>> To: Funknet >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --fritz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>>> >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>>> >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>>>> >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 17:31:48 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:31:48 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In his book *Guns, Germs, and Steel* Jerad Dimond makes a reference to glottal chronology to account for human population movement, sorry I don't recall the page. A few years ago there was an article in the New York Times comparing string theory in physics to generative grammar in linguistics and raising the question what role a *charismatic* leader has in a field of study. Linguistics is also invoked by scholars outside linguistics when discussing human migration patterns. PBS did a special on birds "Bird Brains" which shows interviews with a number of biologist, some working with linguists. You should be able to find the link at PBS.org and searching for "bird brains". There are also a number of mathematicians that take Chomskian Generative Grammar to task for flouting mathematical axioms, especially Chomsky 1995. The "Stanford Challenge" was computer scientist and some computational linguists challenging the validity of Chomskian Generative Grammar as computational (see the linguist list). Finally, in 2004(?) Linguistic Review had a special volume on Generative Grammar as Cognitive Science, with Cognitive Scientists weighing in (they said it isn't). cheers, Shannon PS it would be great you could put a list together of what you find and send it to funknet On Fri, Oct 22, 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. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Brian MacWhinney) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC0738C.3020900 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I > co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar > instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in > literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native > language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as > little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's > language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in > literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single > course in language, which may include theories about why teaching > directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the > sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely > independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer > to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little > background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > > has influenced schools in England" > > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > > official curriculum. > > > > Dick > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz, > >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't > >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of > >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school > >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at > >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be > >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see > >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for > >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't > >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from > >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more > >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see > >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >> > >> Dick (Hudson) > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> > >>> > >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but > >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary > >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes > >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the > >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So > >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are > >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department > >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers > >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined > >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room > >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for > >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY > >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>> ignorance about what language studies are. > >>> > >>> Olga > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>> > >>> Professor and Chair > >>> > >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>> > >>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>> > >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>> > >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>> > >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>> Newmeyer > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>> To: Funknet > >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, > >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance > >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance > >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 > From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" > Subject: [FUNKNET] The view of mathematicians is quite negative > To: > Message-ID: <8D347151772C4604A66263301B32B2DD at ngufa28a6c2639> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and > linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics > is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is > that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That > means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I > began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic > journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. > Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other > linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or > that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist > knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, > one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is > applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric > family. They put Hungarian > into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and > Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. > Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. > May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it > into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many > linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should > say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to > this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite > interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. > What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 > languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has > the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is > that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in > linguistics to yutam > b at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, > Russia. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fren > ch nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > > > > Craig > > > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that > linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >> > >> Dick > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> Dear Fritz, > >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon.u > cl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>> > >>> Dick (Hudson) > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>> Fritz, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing lin > guistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>> > >>>> Olga > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>> > >>>> Professor and Chair > >>>> > >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>> > >>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>> > >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>> > >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>> > >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>> To: Funknet > >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --fritz > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>> > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Funknet" > Message-ID: > <529225deab90693320421ae01a944fb7.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your > purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: > > "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about > academics." > > from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > > Roger Schank comes to mind > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> John, > >> > >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars > >> in > >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > >> foreign > >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend > >> the > >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did > >> not > >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently > >> spared > >> this.) It was a complete farce. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > >>> for > >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >>> > >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >>>> important > >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. > >>>> In my > >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > >>>> intention > >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory > >>>> course > >>>> to > >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in > >>>> linguistics. > >>>> At > >>>> the > >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of > >>>> internal > >>>> and > >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to > >>>> that > >>>> chunk of knowledge: > >>>> > >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >>>> cochlear > >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >>>> teaching > >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >>>> re-education; > >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >>>> history, > >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >>>> social > >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, > >>>> ethics, > >>>> intercultural studies, etc. > >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >>>> history of > >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, > >>>> etc. > >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >>>> better > >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, > >>>> of > >>>> the > >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the > >>>> building > >>>> of > >>>> nationhoods, etc. > >>>> > >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >>>> French > >>>> and, > >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic > >>>> knowledge > >>>> in > >>>> their other class discussions. > >>>> > >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics > >>>> makes > >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware > >>>> that > >>>> their > >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, > >>>> jurists, > >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, > >>>> translators, > >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > >>>> > >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >>>> linguist, I > >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have > >>>> no > >>>> problem > >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful > >>>> and > >>>> also > >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) > >>>> > >>>> Danielle > >>>> > >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >>>> somewhere. I > >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know > >>>> who > >>>> the > >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom > >>>> without > >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > >>>> > >>>> "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." > >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >>>> > >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>>>> in > >>>>> general. > >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>>>> English-speaking > >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language > >>>>> classes > >>>> will > >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>>>> they're > >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language > >>>>> teaching > >>>>> is > >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to > >>>>> linguistics. > >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>>>> stock > >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>>>> bias > >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >>>>>> language > >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where > >>>>>> grammar > >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a > >>>>>> country > >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its > >>>>>> contribution to > >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see > >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > do > >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>>>> countries > >>>>>> such as Spain - see > >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>>>> attitudes > >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>>>> important > >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>>>> especially > >>>>> in > >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > >>>>>> society. > >>>>> We > >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > >>>> you're > >>>>> a > >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > >>>> there > >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>>>> department > >>>>>> did > >>>>> it > >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >>>> accented > >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>>>> scholars > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> practitioners in one room > >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>>>> Oregon's > >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large > >>>>>> and > >>>> make > >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>>>> linguistics > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on > >>>>>> budget > >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > >>>> studies > >>>>>> are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>>> Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>>>> value, > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > >>>>> published > >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > >>>>>> particular > >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>>>>>> The > >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever > >>>>>> I > >>>>> ???re > >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 > From: "Thomas E. Payne" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: > Message-ID: <1621CEF7903E473FA6F34D2EC4A664CF at TEPAYNEPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they > are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory > tower" idealists. > > I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry > Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are > bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the > USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School > Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The > people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to > attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught > who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were > apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > > > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general > >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students > >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them > >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more > >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory > >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached > >> to that chunk of knowledge: > >> > >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among > >> others; > >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >> re-education; > >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, > >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, > >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. > >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of > ideas, etc. > >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's > >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of > >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. > >> > >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, > >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon > >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and > >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class > >> discussions. > >> > >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying > >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. > >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them > >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, > >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, > >> etc. etc. etc. > >> > >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such > >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that > >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and > >> happiness :) > >> > >> Danielle > >> > >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, > >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am > >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you > recognize its source? > >> > >> "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." > >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >> > >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>> in general. > >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that > >>> foreign language classes > >> will > >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign > >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the > connection to linguistics. > >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>> > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything > >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language > >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts > >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the > >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding > >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would > >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know > >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love > >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics > >>>> for education (see > >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I > >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>> countries such as Spain - see > >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>> attitudes > >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>> important > >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>> especially > >>> in > >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > society. > >>> We > >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of > >>>> "Oh, > >> you're > >>> a > >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings > >>>> out > >> there > >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>> department did > >>> it > >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >> accented > >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room > >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>>> at large and > >> make > >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany > >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>>> ignorance about what language > >> studies > >>>> are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >> Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>> from > >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>>> like to cite > >>> published > >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for > >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking > >>>>> for. The > >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>>> 'Whenever I > >>> ???re > >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > >> > >> "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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC184DE.7060000 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Brian, > You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified > and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in > that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though > that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think > of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately > address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did > not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed > away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for > composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers > their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that > many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never > achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the > generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win > Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a > resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use > it, and that is not a finite goal. > What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on > both sides. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fr > ench nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >>> > >>> Dick > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon. > ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing li > nguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 > *************************************** > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 19:57:54 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:57:54 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I forgot to add a few Edge articles where folks mention linguistics Here are few off I'm aware of...they make reference to linguistics in different ways...but it may be of interest. Mary Catherine Bateson Cultural Anthropologist http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bateson_crossing/bateson_index.html Murray Gell-Mann Physicist *http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gell-mann03/gell-mann_print.html Colin Renfrew Archeologist http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge24.html * Gloria Origgi Philospher http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/origgi06/origgi06_index.html I suspect there are a good number more. In fact some of the folks on the listserve have participated in interviews and discussions on the Edge with non-linguists if I recall. I think you can do a search on the sight...and of course all types respond to these pieces... Here is a link to the "bird brains" piece on PBS...this segment has Norbert Hornstein in it (if I rember)...which seemed odd in the context of the rest of the piece for some reason. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html and a further pbs blurb about the piece http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/03-brain.html The work is mostly about Erich Jarvis' work (a neuro-biologist I think). Cheers, Shannon On Fri, Oct 22, 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. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Brian MacWhinney) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:28 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC0738C.3020900 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I > co-authored (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar > instruction in the states. > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in > literature. In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native > language takes care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as > little metalanguage as possible) are discrepencies between the child's > language and Standard English. English teachers take many courses in > literature, a course or two in composition, and typically a single > course in language, which may include theories about why teaching > directly about language is unproductive. Much of this dates back to the > sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, largely > independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct transfer > to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little > background in language. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > > As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised > > influence on official policy in the education of England (and maybe > > other bits of the UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics > > has influenced schools in England" > > (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The snag > > is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics > > isn't part of their university curriculum). But the fact is that > > 'knowledge about language' and 'language awareness', both of which are > > derived directly from (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the > > official curriculum. > > > > Dick > > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > > > On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz, > >> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >> language at university, so academic research on language isn't > >> relevant to education. We're very different from many parts of > >> Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the school > >> curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding at > >> university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would be > >> justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > >> any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see > >> it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for > >> education (see www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't > >> been able to do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from > >> gossip. (I do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more > >> grammar in countries such as Spain - see > >> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >> > >> Dick (Hudson) > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>> Fritz, > >>> > >>> > >>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>> attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but > >>> still very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary > >>> decisions made especially in public institutions are attitudes > >>> towards linguistics in the lay society. We all have experienced the > >>> routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So > >>> how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out there are > >>> vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my department > >>> did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers > >>> with accented English in a public conference, which combined > >>> international scholars and practitioners in one room > >>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>> at large and make sure that the future generations don?t vote for > >>> closing linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY > >>> Albany case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>> ignorance about what language studies are. > >>> > >>> Olga > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>> > >>> Professor and Chair > >>> > >>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>> > >>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>> > >>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>> > >>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>> > >>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>> Newmeyer > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>> To: Funknet > >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>> from people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>> like to cite published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, > >>> literary specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance > >>> of linguistics for their particular concerns and its value/relevance > >>> in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>> The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>> 'Whenever I ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Best wishes, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --fritz > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>> > >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>> > >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>> University > >>> > >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:51:19 +0700 > From: "Yuri Tambovtsev" > Subject: [FUNKNET] The view of mathematicians is quite negative > To: > Message-ID: <8D347151772C4604A66263301B32B2DD at ngufa28a6c2639> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear Fred, I attend the joint seminar of mathematicians, philosophers and > linguists. So, I can tell you that the view of mathematicians on linguistics > is quite negative. Half of philosophers support them. What makes them sad is > that there is too much "water" in the articles and report of linguists. That > means that the usual linguistic opus lacks strong definitions and proof. I > began to notice recently it is true. Even if you take the best linguistic > journal "Language" it is true. The usual drawback is there is no proof. > Instead of proving his theory a linguist makes references to other > linguists. It does not matter what is or that linguist said about this or > that. One must prove his point by facts from the language. Every linguist > knows that comparative method does not work. If one takes Romance languages, > one can't reconstruct Latin. Yet, this method has been applied and is > applied to different language families. It is quite vivid with Finno-Ugric > family. They put Hungarian > into the Ugric subgroup of the Finno-Ugric family together with Mansi and > Hanty. However, Hungarian is so different from them that it pricks the eye. > Hungarian is quite different on the phonetic, lexical and grammatical level. > May be, it is better to open for Hungarian a new group, rather than crush it > into the Ugric subgroup. May be, because of its weak fundamental, many > linguistics departments are closed at different universities first. I should > say Prof. Frederick J. Newmeyer meant it when he put his global question to > this list. Nevertheless, though the discussion went astray, it was quite > interesting. I am dealing with phonological statistics for some 40 years. > What I like about it is that it is quite reliable. I have computed about 300 > languages. So, who can prove the reverse if the particular speech sound has > the particular frequency of occurrence in the particular language? That is > that. Looking forward to hearing your comments about the proof in > linguistics to yutam > b at mail.ru Be well, yours sincerely Yuri Tambovtsev, NPU, Novosibirsk, > Russia. > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:01:28 -0400 > From: Brian MacWhinney > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <1A8B71FA-522C-45F5-87A1-E9B2E9630E14 at cmu.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fren > ch nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > > Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > > I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > > > > Craig > > > > On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying that > linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >> > >> Dick > >> > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> Dear Fritz, > >>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon.u > cl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>> > >>> Dick (Hudson) > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>> Fritz, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing lin > guistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>> > >>>> Olga > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>> > >>>> Professor and Chair > >>>> > >>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>> > >>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>> > >>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>> > >>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>> > >>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>> To: Funknet > >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best wishes, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --fritz > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>> > >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>> > >>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>> > >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:24:22 -0500 > From: "Mark P. Line" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Funknet" > Message-ID: > <529225deab90693320421ae01a944fb7.squirrel at sm.webmail.pair.com> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > Though his extended kerfuffle with Chomsky(ans) may be too dated for your > purpose, the cognitive scientist Roger Schank does come to mind: > > "The MIT linguist Noam Chomsky represents everything that's bad about > academics." > > from: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/q-Ch.9.html > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > > Roger Schank comes to mind > > Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The comments so far re language pedagogy, language policy, language > > revitalization, etc. are all very interesting and I thank you for them. > > But what I am really looking for are quotes from cognitive scientists, > > anthropologists, philosophers, and others in research-oriented (rather > > than applied) fields on the great value / great worthlessness of current > > linguistic theory (of whatever variety). > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, A. Katz wrote: > > > >> John, > >> > >> I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars > >> in > >> the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > >> foreign > >> language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The people > >> teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to attend > >> the > >> seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught who did > >> not > >> have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were apparently > >> spared > >> this.) It was a complete farce. > >> > >> --Aya > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > >>> for > >>> linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > >>> > >>>> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >>>> important > >>>> both in English departments, French Studies and general linguistics. > >>>> In my > >>>> French Studies department, for example, students enter with the mere > >>>> intention > >>>> to learn and teach French. All of them have to take an introductory > >>>> course > >>>> to > >>>> linguistics and 18 more credits in more advanced courses in > >>>> linguistics. > >>>> At > >>>> the > >>>> introductory course level I make sure that, for every aspect of > >>>> internal > >>>> and > >>>> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached to > >>>> that > >>>> chunk of knowledge: > >>>> > >>>> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >>>> cochlear > >>>> implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >>>> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >>>> teaching > >>>> materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among others; > >>>> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >>>> re-education; > >>>> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >>>> history, > >>>> intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, diplomacy; > >>>> EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >>>> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >>>> social > >>>> understanding, among others workplace relationships, psychology, > >>>> ethics, > >>>> intercultural studies, etc. > >>>> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >>>> history of > >>>> international contacts through time and space, the history of ideas, > >>>> etc. > >>>> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >>>> better > >>>> understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's history, > >>>> of > >>>> the > >>>> making of ideas and identities, of the role of languages in the > >>>> building > >>>> of > >>>> nationhoods, etc. > >>>> > >>>> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >>>> French > >>>> and, > >>>> for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, that it helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon that linguistics helps > >>>> them > >>>> in > >>>> all areas of their college courses and contribute their linguistic > >>>> knowledge > >>>> in > >>>> their other class discussions. > >>>> > >>>> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying linguistics > >>>> makes > >>>> them more enlightened human beings and citizens. They are also aware > >>>> that > >>>> their > >>>> studies in linguistics can make them better teachers, lawyers, > >>>> jurists, > >>>> diplomats, psychologists, writers, physicians, journalists, > >>>> translators, > >>>> merchants, parents, caregivers, etc. etc. etc. > >>>> > >>>> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >>>> linguist, I > >>>> count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such citizens, I have > >>>> no > >>>> problem > >>>> explaining to the general population that linguistics is really useful > >>>> and > >>>> also > >>>> a source of pleasure and happiness :) > >>>> > >>>> Danielle > >>>> > >>>> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >>>> somewhere. I > >>>> liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, I don't know > >>>> who > >>>> the > >>>> author i and it makes me feel bad that I am using someone's wisdom > >>>> without > >>>> acknowledging him/her. Would any of you recognize its source? > >>>> > >>>> "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." > >>>> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >>>> > >>>>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>>>> in > >>>>> general. > >>>>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>>>> English-speaking > >>>>> countries there is no serious expectation that foreign language > >>>>> classes > >>>> will > >>>>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>>>> they're > >>>>> supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign language > >>>>> teaching > >>>>> is > >>>>> taken seriously, people naturally recognize the connection to > >>>>> linguistics. > >>>>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>>>> stock > >>>>> answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>>>> John > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>>>> bias > >>>>>> away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which > >>>>>> school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about > >>>>>> language > >>>>>> at university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to > >>>>>> education. We're very different from many parts of Europe, where > >>>>>> grammar > >>>>>> teaching is an important part of the school curriculum and trainee > >>>>>> teachers update their understanding at university. I'm sure in a > >>>>>> country > >>>>>> like that, linguistics would be justified in part by its > >>>>>> contribution to > >>>>>> education. I don't know of any bibliographical source for this - if > >>>>>> anyone does, I'd love to see it. I've written quite a bit about the > >>>>>> value of linguistics for education (see > >>>>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > do > >>>>>> much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>>>> countries > >>>>>> such as Spain - see > >>>>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>>>> Fritz, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>>>> attitudes > >>>>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>>>> important > >>>>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>>>> especially > >>>>> in > >>>>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > >>>>>> society. > >>>>> We > >>>>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of "Oh, > >>>> you're > >>>>> a > >>>>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings out > >>>> there > >>>>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>>>> department > >>>>>> did > >>>>> it > >>>>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >>>> accented > >>>>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>>>> scholars > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> practitioners in one room > >>>>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>>>> Oregon's > >>>>>> Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > >>>>>> direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large > >>>>>> and > >>>> make > >>>>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>>>> linguistics > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based on > >>>>>> budget > >>>>>> considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > >>>> studies > >>>>>> are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >>>> Newmeyer > >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>>>> value, > >>>>>> or > >>>>>> lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > >>>>> published > >>>>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>>>> etc. > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > >>>>>> particular > >>>>>> concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out > >>>>>> by > >>>>>> pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > >>>>>>> The > >>>>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever > >>>>>> I > >>>>> ???re > >>>>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> --fritz > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>>>> University > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>>>> University > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:52:38 -0700 > From: "Thomas E. Payne" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: > Message-ID: <1621CEF7903E473FA6F34D2EC4A664CF at TEPAYNEPC> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > If this is teachers' experience with linguists, I can understand why they > are suspicious of us! No one likes to be told how to do their jobs by "ivory > tower" idealists. > > I realize this is off the track from Fritz's original question (sorry > Fritz), but this is something I'm interested in. For any of you who are > bothered by this "disconnect" between linguists and school teachers in the > USA, please consider coming to the meeting of the "Language in the School > Curriculum" committee at the LSA meeting in January. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of A. Katz > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 08:32 > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Richard Hudson; funknet at mailman.rice.edu; Danielle E. Cyr > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > John, > > I have some experience with linguists running language pedagogy seminars in > the United States. The people running the seminars had never taught a > foreign language, and they were mostly monolingual English speakers. The > people teaching the foreign languages who were forced (yes, forced!) to > attend the seminar were mostly native speakers of the languages they taught > who did not have tenure. (The tenured foreign language professors were > apparently spared this.) It was a complete farce. > > --Aya > > > > > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Exactly my point. Where language teaching is taken seriously, the need > > for linguistics is self-evident. In the United States, it's much harder. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting "Danielle E. Cyr" : > > > >> Canada's official bilingualism makes the teaching of linguistics very > >> important both in English departments, French Studies and general > >> linguistics. In my French Studies department, for example, students > >> enter with the mere intention to learn and teach French. All of them > >> have to take an introductory course to linguistics and 18 more > >> credits in more advanced courses in linguistics. At the introductory > >> course level I make sure that, for every aspect of internal and > >> external linguistics, I make my students aware of the jobs attached > >> to that chunk of knowledge: > >> > >> INTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for phonetics/phonology :speech re-education, voice recognition, > >> cochlear implants, digital song editing, and even linguistic spying; > >> - for morphology : speech therapy, language teaching and language > >> teaching materials, lexicography, artificial intelligence, among > >> others; > >> - for syntax : language teaching, artificial intelligence, language > >> re-education; > >> - for semantics : lexicography, literature; philosophy, psychology, > >> history, intercultural studies, political studies, law, commerce, > >> diplomacy; EXTERNAL LINGUISTICS: > >> - for socio- and psycholinguistics: a better access to individual and > >> social understanding, among others workplace relationships, > >> psychology, ethics, intercultural studies, etc. > >> - for historical linguistics: the history of social change, the > >> history of international contacts through time and space, the history of > ideas, etc. > >> - for political linguistics (history of language laws in Canada): a > >> better understanding of Canada's history, ofCanada's populations's > >> history, of the making of ideas and identities, of the role of > >> languages in the building of nationhoods, etc. > >> > >> They also say that linguistics helps them in their acquisition of > >> French and, for those who are in a concurrent program in Education, > >> that it helps them in their teaching practicum. Most of them reckon > >> that linguistics helps them in all areas of their college courses and > >> contribute their linguistic knowledge in their other class > >> discussions. > >> > >> In the end many of my students are convinced that studying > >> linguistics makes them more enlightened human beings and citizens. > >> They are also aware that their studies in linguistics can make them > >> better teachers, lawyers, jurists, diplomats, psychologists, writers, > >> physicians, journalists, translators, merchants, parents, caregivers, > >> etc. etc. etc. > >> > >> Not bad after all. And, when after twenty years in the profession of > >> linguist, I count that I have help producing at least 2,000 such > >> citizens, I have no problem explaining to the general population that > >> linguistics is really useful and also a source of pleasure and > >> happiness :) > >> > >> Danielle > >> > >> P.S. By the way, some years ago I picked the following quotation > >> somewhere. I liked it so much that I use it in my signature. However, > >> I don't know who the author i and it makes me feel bad that I am > >> using someone's wisdom without acknowledging him/her. Would any of you > recognize its source? > >> > >> "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." > >> Quoting john at research.haifa.ac.il: > >> > >>> It isn't just grammar teaching, it's also foreign language teaching > >>> in general. > >>> English speakers tend not even to think of this since in > >>> English-speaking countries there is no serious expectation that > >>> foreign language classes > >> will > >>> produce students who can actually practically use the language that > >>> they're supposedly learning. But in countries in which foreign > >>> language teaching is taken seriously, people naturally recognize the > connection to linguistics. > >>> When people in Israel ask me what being a linguist entails, my first > >>> stock answer is 'we train people to be English teachers.' > >>> John > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : > >>> > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone > >>>> bias away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in > >>>> which school teachers aren't expected to have learned anything > >>>> about language at university, so academic research on language > >>>> isn't relevant to education. We're very different from many parts > >>>> of Europe, where grammar teaching is an important part of the > >>>> school curriculum and trainee teachers update their understanding > >>>> at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics would > >>>> be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know > >>>> of any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love > >>>> to see it. I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics > >>>> for education (see > >>>> www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to > >>>> do much on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I > >>>> do have evidence that school kids know a great deal more grammar in > >>>> countries such as Spain - see > >>>> http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > >>>>> attitudes > >>>> towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still very > >>> important > >>>> for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions made > >>>> especially > >>> in > >>>> public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in the lay > society. > >>> We > >>>> all have experienced the routine questioning along the lines of > >>>> "Oh, > >> you're > >>> a > >>>> linguist? So how many languages do you know?". Misunderstandings > >>>> out > >> there > >>>> are vast and we linguists need to address them. One way my > >>>> department did > >>> it > >>>> this summer was by addressing the Arizona ruling on teachers with > >> accented > >>>> English in a public conference, which combined international > >>>> scholars and practitioners in one room > >>>> (http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. > >>>> Oregon's Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in > >>>> the right direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public > >>>> at large and > >> make > >>>> sure that the future generations don???t vote for closing > >>>> linguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany > >>>> case) based on budget considerations combined with glaring > >>>> ignorance about what language > >> studies > >>>> are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > >>>> [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J > >> Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes > >>>>> from > >>>> people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the > >>>> value, or lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would > >>>> like to cite > >>> published > >>>> quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > >>>> etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for > >>>> their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > >>>> anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking > >>>>> for. The > >>>> late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: > >>>> 'Whenever I > >>> ???re > >>>> a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > >>>> University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> ---- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > >>> University > >>> > >> > >> > >> "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 > >> > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:34:38 -0400 > From: Craig Hancock > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4CC184DE.7060000 at albany.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Brian, > You can think of linguistics as a body of knowledge (hardly unified > and uncontested) that needs to be packaged. And there is a great deal in > that knowledge field that can be thought of as directly useful, though > that would require some sorting out. An alternative approach is to think > of literacy as a public need that linguists have yet to adequately > address. Biology would have little to say about human health if it did > not address it as a top priority, but linguists have pretty much stayed > away. And by this, I mean L1 instruction. It is somewhat commonplace for > composition people to say that you don't need to teach native speakers > their native language, but that pretty much ignores the fact that > many--more than half in some neighborhoods and communities--never > achieve anything like an adequate level of literacy. Given the > generative model, I'm not sure why more eight year olds don't win > Pulitzer Prizes. If language is not simply a system of forms, but a > resource for use, then we haven't acquired it until we know how to use > it, and that is not a finite goal. > What I want to say, in short, is that there is room for blame on > both sides. > > Craig > > On 10/21/2010 4:01 PM, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > > Sorry not to be responsive to Fritz's original question, but the theme of > the role of linguistics within language teaching is itself a great one. As > Craig notes, the crux of the issue is about which theory of grammar is to be > applied. When I write a morphological parser for Spanish, I rely heavily on > cyclical rule application and principles of feeding and bleeding. But, I > don't think for a moment that a second language learner of Spanish sets up > ordered rule application in their head. Instead, irregular forms trump > regular forms because of their frequency, a la Bybee and many others. But, > it is still helpful to teach learners that the Spanish subjunctive derives > from the first singular present. In fact, once you tell this to learners, > they sometimes have a bit of an ah-ha experience. There are hundreds of > cues that can be stated in simple explicit ways to markedly help L2 > learners, whether it is about mountains and deserts taking the definite > article in English or Fr > ench nouns ending in -age being masculine. Of course, the learner must > eventually proceduralize use of these cues. But if they are stated in > simple ways, then learners can get them. So, yes, linguistics is solidly > relevant here, but only if the patterns are clearly and simply formulated, > as I noted in my SSLA commentary in 1997. Does this amount to "watering > down" linguistics? Sort of "linguistics light"? I am not sure. > > > > I am not saying that this is the only possible input from linguistics to > SLA. There are several more and elaborating each of them would make this a > very long email. The point is basically the one that Craig makes -- it > depends on how linguistics is packaged. > > > > OK. I will add a disclaimer. I have only done a very small amount of > language teaching myself, but I have spent a great deal of time in > curriculum development for cyberlearning. Classroom contact and/or native > speaker contact is crucial, but learners can also benefit from books, > computers, films, dictionaries, and so on. Use of any one method does not > preclude the use of others. > > > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > >> For an international take on this see /Beyond the Grammar Wars,/ > edited by Terry Locke, Routledge, 2010. It includes an article I co-authored > (with Martha Kolln) on the story of English grammar instruction in the > states. > >> Unfortunately, the teachers in the states are still resistant to > direct attention to language outside of minimalist intervention (error > attention) in writing and what they call "literary elements" in literature. > In general, the prevailing idea is that learning a native language takes > care of itself. What needs to be attended to (with as little metalanguage as > possible) are discrepencies between the child's language and Standard > English. English teachers take many courses in literature, a course or two > in composition, and typically a single course in language, which may include > theories about why teaching directly about language is unproductive. Much of > this dates back to the sixties. If grammar is thought of as a formal system, > largely independent of discourse and cognition, then there's no direct > transfer to writing. There's little awareness that alternative approaches to > language are not only possible, but increasingly well developed. > >> I believe the US system is ripe for change, but as Dick points out, > it's hard to have a conversation with people who have very little background > in language. > >> > >> Craig > >> > >> On 10/21/2010 5:47 AM, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>> As a postscript, I can answer your question more directly by saying > that linguistics has had a great deal of explicitly recognised influence on > official policy in the education of England (and maybe other bits of the > UK), which I document in my paper "How linguistics has influenced schools in > England" (http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm#influence). The > snag is, of course, that most teachers don't know enough about language to > apply the official policy (because, as I said before, linguistics isn't part > of their university curriculum). But the fact is that 'knowledge about > language' and 'language awareness', both of which are derived directly from > (Hallidayan) linguistics, are part of the official curriculum. > >>> > >>> Dick > >>> > >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>> > >>> On 21/10/2010 09:34, Richard Hudson wrote: > >>>> Dear Fritz, > >>>> I agree entirely with Olga. The discussion has a very anglo-phone bias > away from education - the UK, USA etc all have a tradition in which school > teachers aren't expected to have learned anything about language at > university, so academic research on language isn't relevant to education. > We're very different from many parts of Europe, where grammar teaching is an > important part of the school curriculum and trainee teachers update their > understanding at university. I'm sure in a country like that, linguistics > would be justified in part by its contribution to education. I don't know of > any bibliographical source for this - if anyone does, I'd love to see it. > I've written quite a bit about the value of linguistics for education (see > www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/papers.htm) but haven't been able to do much > on that line except pick up odds and ends from gossip. (I do have evidence > that school kids know a great deal more grammar in countries such as Spain - > see http://www.phon. > ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/ec/ba-kal/ba-kal.htm.) > >>>> > >>>> Dick (Hudson) > >>>> > >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >>>> > >>>> On 20/10/2010 18:43, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > >>>>> Fritz, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I take it that your article is about the academic community's > attitudes towards linguistics. Although not part of your topic but still > very important for the status of linguistics and the budgetary decisions > made especially in public institutions are attitudes towards linguistics in > the lay society. We all have experienced the routine questioning along the > lines of "Oh, you're a linguist? So how many languages do you know?". > Misunderstandings out there are vast and we linguists need to address them. > One way my department did it this summer was by addressing the Arizona > ruling on teachers with accented English in a public conference, which > combined international scholars and practitioners in one room ( > http://sites.google.com/site/uclalinguisticdiversconf2010/). U. Oregon's > Olympiad for secondary school students is another step in the right > direction. Linguists need to start talking to the public at large and make > sure that the future generations don?t vote for closing li > nguistics and language departments (cf. the latest SUNY Albany case) based > on budget considerations combined with glaring ignorance about what language > studies are. > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Olga T. Yokoyama > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor and Chair > >>>>> > >>>>> Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL > >>>>> > >>>>> University of California, Los Angeles > >>>>> > >>>>> Tel. (310) 825-4631 > >>>>> > >>>>> Fax (310) 206-4118 > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.appling.ucla.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:13 AM > >>>>> To: Funknet > >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, > etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their > particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me > out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. > The late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I > ?re a linguist our system performance improves'. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. I'll summarize. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best wishes, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --fritz > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> fjn at u.washington.edu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >>>>> > >>>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >>>>> > >>>>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >>>>> > >>>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 16 > *************************************** > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Oct 22 21:33:52 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:33:52 -0600 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona Message-ID: Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: ==================== Dear All, I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing neuroimaging work. I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how research is conducted. This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no interest. And, if linguists are interested in data: -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. -Dianne From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 23 04:55:42 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 00:55:42 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: Well, here's my contribution or two to this discussion. As you'll see from what follows, I don't believe I qualify as an outsider to this field at all, though others may disagree. Anyway, I might just squeeze in as a "literary specialist" under your categories, Dr. Newmeyer. First, a confession: I've never been at a loss when asked how many languages I speak, the answer is five fluently (six, including British English) plus large or small pieces of a dozen others. Brief version of what follows: You're not really a linguist unless you can speak, translate from, more or less translate into, make at least half-way clever puns, read, understand local street signs and ads, grasp the political and social undertones, comprehend cultural & religious factors, experience the climatic & topographical realities, write at least first-drafts of articles, and know some of the popular songs in all of your languages. Not to mention publish non-academic articles, poetry, or fiction in your primary language. So-called "mainstream linguistics" ends up being on about the same level of credibility as all those TV ads for "Rosetta Stone." Just as they claim you can "learn a language," without bothering to mention whether by "learn" they mean read, speak, understand what is spoken back to you, translate in either direction, or simply pick up the general sense, so "mainstream linguistics" stakes out vast fields of competence but never comes remotely near actually achieving them. Just theorizing about languages simply doesn't cut it, however elaborate your theory may be. Not all the data in the world will save you. All you've been doing is stamp collecting. Really knowing a language or languages entails knowing how to design, mint, print, and even circulate the stamps yourself and watch the locals accept them as genuine. Here's a more extended view--it comes straight from my recently published book "THE UNTOLD SIXTIES: When Hope Was Born," subtitled "An Insider's Sixties on an International Scale." You'll find this passage in the final chapter, where I discuss how the Sixties succeeded, and where they failed. Linguistics definitely ends up in the latter category. ------------------------------------ One field that truly did not surge ahead during the Sixties was the study of language, rather it would mutate in just a few decades from a remarkably liberal outlook to an almost completely reactionary stance. The Forties and Fifties saw the growth and development of two forces that could have led to enhanced communication between all peoples everywhere. First, the descriptivist school, championed by Whorf and Sapir, which sought to bring about more accurate cross-cultural understanding between remarkably diverse societies. And second, the once quite powerful semanticist movement, which established broad principles for helping people to understand each other within our own society. Unfortunately both were sidetracked before they could fully realize their goals, leaving behind today little more than the words semantics and semantic. This turnaround was engineered by a small clique of doctrinaire linguists, who launched a pseudoscientific campaign against these earlier movements. It was organized around the dubious notion that peoples of all nations are basically saying the same thing, if only we can figure out the principles that unite the world's languages. Culture was demoted as a linguistic force in favor of converting language into mathematical terms as computer code. This ancient and provably false idea--in itself no more profound than the still widely believed notion that anyone can master a language in a month, a week, a weekend, perhaps no more than a few hours--has largely taken over almost all current linguistic research. Those who do not follow it are often caught up in a wasteful struggle to resist it. Advocates of these ideas were able to accomplish this feat thanks to vast funding from the US government and its Department of Defense, itself desperate to believe that an easy way of translating all languages into all other languages could be found, if only to expedite waging war and occupying foreign lands. Key to this objective was something called computer or "machine" translation, which as anyone who has ever seen it in action can testify, does not work, can not work, and will not ever work for any but the most rudimentary translation tasks. The same point can be phrased somewhat differently. While most people in our culture believe they live and deal with something they call reality, to a fair extent this "reality" has always been at least partially a linguistic construct, determined by the culture itself. Other people in other cultures live and deal with what are often significantly different "realities," grounded in their own languages. In other words, the true mission facing linguists during the Sixties was not an abstract or theoretical one, it was rather practical and utilitarian in nature. Ironically, had it been accomplished, it might have solved some theoretical problems and suggested answers for others. Over the last fifty years our professional linguists ought to have been busy describing and demarcating precisely how and where these "realities" differ from one another. It would have been of enormous benefit to both individuals and entire societies if our linguists had in fact been working on this task. But instead almost an entire generation of linguists has in fact missed this point altogether. Instead of helping to identify and bridge the many gaps between various culturally determined "realities," they have themselves fallen into the very trap they ought to have been saving the rest of us from. They too have set up their own private version of "linguistic reality," which they cling to just as tenaciously as non-linguists do. This leaves them in no position to seek out solutions to linguistic and cultural problems, for they have themselves become such a problem. Worst of all, their totally mistaken view of language attempts to completely ignore the basic problem by claiming that on some exotic level all languages are truly alike. They invoke all manner of linguistic and computational logic to prove how totally right they are, while languages remain impervious to their arguments and simply go on their own quite divergent ways. Some of the leaders of this movement affect an independent leftwing outlook, but they rarely took part in the Sixties causes described in these pages--rather, they have most often been content to embrace dated, warmed-over cold-war rhetoric. Overlooked through all these decades has been the unavoidable truth that the primary purpose of language has never been communication. Rather, that purpose has been and remains even today to persuade ourselves against all odds that we understand the world and what is happening around us. To reassure ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. Languages can improvise structures and grammars to serve this purpose, a crucial concept totally overlooked by mainstream linguistic theory, transforming the search for a universal structure or grammar into a purely quixotic one. The study of linguistics, above all others, ought to have been deeply rooted in this principle, and if practicing linguists could have based their study on this truth, they could have provided us with useful insights into all aspects of our lives. Instead, they themselves have merely fallen into the same trap, that they believe they know what they are talking about when often they do not. Fifty years of study have been largely wasted by those promoting and/or debating theories of little worth. My many published papers, articles, and conference presentations on these themes can be found on my website. ---------------- A footnote from an earlier version of this section reads: More information under the linguistics menu at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm but also under the translation and language menus at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/trandex.htm and http://language.home.sprynet.com/langdex.htm ----------- You can find out more about the book at: www.untoldsixties.net With very best wishes to everyone! Alex Gross ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" To: "Funknet" Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:12 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from > people outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or > lack of value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite > published quotes from psychologists, anthropologists, literary > specialists, etc. on their views about the value/relevance of linguistics > for their particular concerns and its value/relevance in general. Can > anybody help me out by pointing me to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The > late computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re > a linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From ebabaii at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 07:46:00 2010 From: ebabaii at gmail.com (Esmat Babaii) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:16:00 +0330 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Fritz, I want to share what I witnessed in a conference on (theoretical) Linguistics held at an Iranian university years ago, but I don?t know if this incidence is relevant to what you are after. A famous neurologist, who was and is also doing neurolinguistic research, at the beginning of his lecture on ?brain and language? addresses the conference manager, a famous linguist, thanking him (a bit ironically) as follows (in Persian): ?Thanks for letting a ?sack maker? to the circle of ?silk weavers?! Well, I can?t shape language like linguists. So please excuse me if my speech lacks the expected delicacy and linguistic sophistication. I speak with facts and figures and I think they can speak for themselves?. I guess, he wanted to say that talk and only talk is what linguists do. I should add that this kind of attitude towards linguists (and other social science scholars) can be found among most scholars in pure sciences. Best Esmat Babaii Tarbiat Moallem University Tehran On 10/20/10, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Hello, > > For a survey article that I'm writing, I plan to assemble quotes from people > outside the field of linguistics on what they see as the value, or lack of > value, of work done in linguistics. So I would like to cite published quotes > from psychologists, anthropologists, literary specialists, etc. on their > views about the value/relevance of linguistics for their particular concerns > and its value/relevance in general. Can anybody help me out by pointing me > to relevant quotes? > > Let me give one example of the sort of thing that I am looking for. The late > computational linguist Fred Jelinek reportedly wrote: 'Whenever I ?re a > linguist our system performance improves'. > > Thanks. I'll summarize. > > Best wishes, > > --fritz > > fjn at u.washington.edu > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 23 08:21:39 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:21:39 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or is it your own idea? Best wishes, John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sat Oct 23 10:46:46 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:46:46 +0100 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC20340.2020902@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Dear Fritz and everyone else, All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about them. If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous strengths as well. Best wishes, Dick Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: > > ==================== > > > Dear All, > I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I > second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a > Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. > I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done > fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years > doing neuroimaging work. > > I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology > and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School > Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of > touch with how research is conducted. > > This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists > might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more > willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of > people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a > trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in > their approach: > > -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that > humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT > a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it > obvious) > > -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and > never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer > (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). > > -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no > interest. > And, if linguists are interested in data: > > -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great > expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who > has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free > ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) > > -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm > Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab > rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) > I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with > that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just > avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some > unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists > give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. > > -Dianne > > > From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 23 12:34:51 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 05:34:51 -0700 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC2BD16.7040506@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language in question. While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the field, because their contributions were not accepted. Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting value as Grimm's Law. Best, --Aya On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz and everyone else, > > All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which is > a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, partly > thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you > want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his > work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other > disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' > better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the > extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define > a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have > plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics > or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative > analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about > them. > > If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative > clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do > better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of the > world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may > wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've been > at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. > Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our subject > matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, > incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex systems, > all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more or > less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from > philosophy to neuroscience. > > I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love it. > I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous strengths > as well. > > Best wishes, Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >> >> >> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >> >> ==================== >> >> >> Dear All, >> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done fieldwork >> in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing >> neuroimaging work. >> >> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School Chomskian >> perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how >> research is conducted. >> >> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists might >> be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more willing to >> appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these >> fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended >> scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: >> >> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans are >> "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a scientific >> hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >> >> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and never >> bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., well >> vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >> >> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >> interest. >> And, if linguists are interested in data: >> >> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense to >> acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has contributed >> nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good way >> to ingratiate yourself) >> >> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique problem >> solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more >> reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >> >> -Dianne >> >> >> > > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Oct 23 17:40:18 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <1287822099.4cc29b13a36bf@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. --fritz ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or > is it your own idea? > Best wishes, > John > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 23 18:51:31 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, contradicting the premise of the article? I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which aren't consistent with what's really going on. Best wishes, John Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, > I'd > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is > this? > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article > or > > is it your own idea? > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Oct 23 19:52:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, First, Shannon is a he, not a she. Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' side of the field either. Best, TG ========================= john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >>> >> I'd >> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >>> >> this? >> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >>> >> or >> >>> is it your own idea? >>> Best wishes, >>> John >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>> >>> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Oct 24 04:23:42 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz: The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. Lise Menn > >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (Brian MacWhinney) >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au Sun Oct 24 04:33:30 2010 From: andrew.pawley at anu.edu.au (Andrew Pawley) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 Subject: A question for Fritz Message-ID: Dear Fritz > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? Regards Andy Pawley _______ > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, I'd > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > people in > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > article is this? > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > the article or > >is it your own idea? > >Best wishes, > >John > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University> > From language at sprynet.com Sun Oct 24 06:06:47 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists. Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first came out fifteen years ago at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can be found at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and gained the impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. Very best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lise Menn" To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > Fritz: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > Lise Menn >> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 24 07:44:46 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. John Quoting alex gross : > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Fritz: > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > Lise Menn > >> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dan at daneverett.org Sun Oct 24 14:52:40 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Andy, This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so on). But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the contributions are perhaps more variable. Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss (though see my obituary of L-S here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' of each language). I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly reminded me of his valuable contributions. -- Dan On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > Dear Fritz > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies. > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. > Regards > Andy Pawley From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Oct 24 16:06:07 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, since the article has not been published yet. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >>> Fritz: >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> Lise Menn >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Oct 24 16:14:26 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, Andrew, We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to find me). I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were cited a day or two ago. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > Dear Fritz > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > generalisations, which brings me to > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > > Regards > > Andy Pawley > > _______ > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > generated, I'd > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > people in > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > article is this? > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > the article or > > >is it your own idea? > > >Best wishes, > > >John > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University> > > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Sun Oct 24 16:52:04 2010 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a later stage. Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical linguistics outside of our field.) Greetings, Martin Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: > Hi, Andrew, > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were > cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >> interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> societies. >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> >> Regards >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> From macw at cmu.edu Sun Oct 24 17:25:27 2010 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:25:27 -0400 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: <4CC46434.6000408@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same experience. 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. -- Brian MacWhinney From kemmer at rice.edu Sun Oct 24 17:27:00 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:27:00 -0500 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Re: "The Human Language" documentary of the early 90s: I have a different take from Alex Gross's on why the Searchinger video presents the nativist story of language put out by generative linguistics. Like Fritz, I don't think there were any particular political aims on the part of Gene Searchinger, although the linguists featured obviously wanted to promote their views in bringing linguistics to the attention of the public. Liz Bates told me back when the program came out that she was interviewed for it and so were various other people she knew who did not take anything like a generative perspective on language. In taped interviews they presented their own views on how language is acquired via learning and generalization of patterns, and massive amounts of experience, and on what the striking and crucial cognitive capacities of humans that make language possible are: Not recursion, but the human cognitive and social capacities involved in meaning construction, interaction, pattern generalization, plus a neural architecture of great plasticity, involving massive numbers of potential neural connections that then develop into actual connections by experience and that allow (via repeated reactivation) massive amounts of memory for language patterns and experiential patterns in general. But only the quotes of the generative linguists made it into the program, probably because the filmmaker was looking for a simple narrative to get across to the general public. From all the interviews he did, he discerned a viewpoint--probably the majority view among the names he got of people to interview-- that made a simple unified and instantly graspable story, and one that seemed 'sanctioned' by the main stream of the field. So he left the rest out. I also remember in the program the pronouncement by an east coast linguist close to Chomsky, "MOST OF LANGUAGE IS INNATE". This was rendered with great emphasis and the air of a major discovery. It was obvious to me that the general public is never going to think about how we could possibly quantify language to make a statement like that make any sense at all. Those who read his work, including the generative professors I studied with, know that for Chomsky, all that counts as "Language" is the "core" of language-- an ever-shrinking set of rules accounting for an ever-shrinking data set. What now remains of the core (in the papers co-authored with Fitch and the recently exposed research cheat Hauser) is what Chomsky terms "the Narrow Capacity of Language" --which basically equates to recursion. Everything that scholars outside this tradition, linguists or not, have considered important to human language, including its function and operation in communication -- has no place in any of his theories. These aspects ("Broad Capacity" stuff) are only mentioned in Chomsky's "evolutionary" papers (aimed at Cognitive Scientists) to dismiss them as being unimportant to his concerns. I don't think the psychologists and other non-linguists taking Chomsky as the reference point for linguistics have ever understood just how bizarrely limited his view of what 'counts' as human language really is. That is, even if they ever read more than small parts of his papers, which are notoriously difficult to read. I venture to suggest than many only read the conclusions, skipping both the 'technical junk' for linguists and all of the qualifying and hedging that you can find in Chomsky's work if you look for it. Many people seem to take such hedges as just 'careful scientist' rhetorical filler, not noticing how centrally these hedges affect whether his theories even apply to what they are interested in about language. My view: The most prominent psychologist writing about language to Cognitive Scientists and the general public, Steve Pinker, stuck to the Chomskyan line about innate structures for a long while, explaining the story in the _Language Instinct_ essentially in the form of an early model of generative linguistics, without all the but then had his spectacular blow-up with Chomsky when the latter in the Fitch and Hauser co-authored papers started talking about evolution and language (a subject he had famously dismissed before, because in his view "Language" didn't evolve. ) Pinker, in his reaction paper co-authored with Jackendoff, said that Chomsky had done a big turnabout on that subject, but Chomsky replied in another paper saying his view was consistent all along. No wonder psychologists in general couldn't follow all this. Suzanne On Oct 24, 2010, at 1:06 AM, alex gross wrote: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) >>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:32:57 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:32:57 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello Dr. Newmeyer, all, Attached is a talk given by Geoffrey K. Pullum that mentions some of the mathematical problems of generative grammar (there may be further references within). Also attached is Nancy Ritter's introduction to the special volume of the Linguistic Review on the status to generative linguistics as cognitive science. Cheers, Shannon On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > ? 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > ? 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) > ? 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) > ? 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) > ? 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) > ? 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > ? ? ?(john at research.haifa.ac.il) > ? 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) > ? 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > ? ? ?(Frederick J Newmeyer) > ?10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > ?11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, I'd >> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is this? >> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article or >> is it your own idea? >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >> I'd >> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >> this? >> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >> or >> > is it your own idea? >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , > ? ? ? ?"Bickerton, Derek" > Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Dear John, > > First, Shannon is a ?he, not a she. > > Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about > linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with > Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). > > Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY > Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" ?(= Chomsky) are > explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. > > One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose > of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. ?In 1992 Walter Kintch, a > well-known ?psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following > quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for > being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated > discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians > gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most > psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him > totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical ?predictions"), they are > reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who > was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The > entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his > tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him > was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational > types, and ?Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This > has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The > best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) > altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef > Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had > some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). > > All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And > it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing > "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and > disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from > my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines > (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, > primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some > substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' > side of the field either. > > Best, ?TG > > ========================= > > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Fritz, >> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously >> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the >> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? Have >> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> contradicting the premise of the article? >> >> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't enjoyed >> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a little >> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while there >> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan >> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, that >> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of admiration >> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a >> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social sciences >> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the latest >> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think that >> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a >> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> >> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific linguistics >> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be >> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be either >> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, or >> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of their >> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises which >> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> >> >>> John, >>> >>> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a target >>> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >>> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >>> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether linguistics >>> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. And >>> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >>> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >>>> >>> I'd >>> >>>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in >>>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >>>> >>> this? >>> >>>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the article >>>> >>> or >>> >>>> is it your own idea? >>>> Best wishes, >>>> John >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Fritz: > ? ? ? ?The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The > Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics > and linguists. ?And 'The Linguists', of course. > > ? ? ? ?Lise Menn >> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> ?1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> ?2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> ?3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> ? ? (Brian MacWhinney) >>> ?4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> ?5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> ?6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 > From: Andrew Pawley > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Fritz > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > Regards > Andy Pawley > _______ >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, I'd >> >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> people in >> >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> article is this? >> >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> the article or >> >is it your own idea? >> >Best wishes, >> >John >> > >> >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> -------- >> >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Lise Menn" , ? ? ? "Frederick J Newmeyer" > ? ? ? ? > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > ? ? ? ?reply-type=response > >> The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! ?And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. ?You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The ?Writing >> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics ?and >> linguists. ?And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>>> Today's Topics: >>>> >>>> ?1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> ?2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>> ?3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>> ? ? (Brian MacWhinney) >>>> ?4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>> ?5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. ?Payne) >>>> ?6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: alex gross > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > ? ? ? ?Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > >> > The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise! ?And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >> being done. ?You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> > Fritz: >> > The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The ?Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics ?and >> > linguists. ?And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > >> > Lise Menn >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Today's Topics: >> >>> >> >>> ?1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> ?2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>> ?3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>> ? ? (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>> ?4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>> ?5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. ?Payne) >> >>> ?6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, > ? ? ? ?Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Andy, > > This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in numerous popular books, leading to ?the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so on). > > But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' contributions to world knowledge. ?It is possible that interactions between linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the contributions are perhaps more variable. > > Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss (though see my obituary of L-S here: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' of each language). > > I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly reminded me of his valuable contributions. > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. ?I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> (i) Historical linguistics. ?In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. ?Word lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. ?In modern times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of theories of language change. ?What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). ?Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western intellectual history. ?Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research. ?Of course, scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, ?especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates. ?In social anthropology key concepts such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies. >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> Regards >> Andy Pawley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something >> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to >> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy to >> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't necessarily >> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply assumed >> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, (2) >> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting alex gross : >> >>>> The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >>>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>>> linguists. >>> >>> Thanks, Lise! ?And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >>> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >>> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >>> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >>> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >>> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was >>> being done. ?You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >>> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >>> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >>> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >>> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can >>> be found at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >>> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers and >>> gained the >>> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. >>> >>> Very best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Lise Menn" >>> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>>> Fritz: >>>> The Gene Searchinger ?films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The ?Writing >>>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics ?and >>>> linguists. ?And 'The Linguists', of course. >>>> >>>> Lise Menn >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Today's Topics: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>>> ?2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>>>>> ?3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>>>>> ? ? (Brian MacWhinney) >>>>>> ?4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>>>>> ?5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. ?Payne) >>>>>> ?6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > ? ? ? ? > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, Andrew, > > We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to find me). > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and societies.? >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> >> Regards >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------- >> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > University> >> > >> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 > From: Martin Haspelmath > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed > > To Andy Pawley's list of ?highly regarded achievements of linguistics, > one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last > 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and > quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. > > Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and > dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts > and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a > later stage. > > Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least > in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of > Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). > > While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with > long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the > conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also > recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out > about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the > Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that > generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, > probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical > linguistics outside of our field.) > > Greetings, > Martin > > Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >> Hi, Andrew, >> >> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >> historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >> fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >> Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >> historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, >> etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >> cited a day or two ago. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >>> Dear Fritz >>> >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. ?I?m thinking in >>> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> >>> (i) Historical linguistics. ?In the 18th century, and especially >>> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >>> Pacific. ?Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> evidence then available. ?In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> interest >>> in the fine points of theories of language change. ?What they care >>> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> >>> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >>> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). ?Work on the history of >>> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >>> intellectual history. ?Darwin was among the first to comment on close >>> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> >>> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. ?Of course, >>> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >>> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> generalisations, which brings me to >>> >>> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >>> associates. ?In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> societies. >>> >>> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Andy Pawley >>> >>> _______ >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > Fraser University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > generated, I'd >>> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > people in >>> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > article is this? >>> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > the article or >>> > >is it your own idea? >>> > >Best wishes, >>> > >John >>> > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 > *************************************** > From kemmer at rice.edu Sun Oct 24 18:09:49 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:09:49 -0500 Subject: left out a phrase Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics Message-ID: oops, I left out the phrase 'complications of later versions' in the later part of my posting -- the text should read: ...Steve Pinker[,] stuck to the Chomskyan line about innate structures for a long while, explaining the story in the _Language Instinct_ essentially in the form of an early model of generative linguistics, without all the COMPLICATIONS OF LATER VERSIONS, but then had his spectacular blow-up with Chomsky ... --------------------- I just saw Brian's message, which confirms what Liz told me. I took the single-view perspective in the program to be the result of just a filmmaker looking for a story and, as journalists do, finding some people willing to tell the simple story. Suzanne From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 24 18:18:49 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:18:49 +0200 Subject: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, What you've written here certainly doesn't seem at all inconsistent with the interpretation I had. As you describe it, it seems difficult to ascribe any intention to the issue other than self-congratulations and self-promotion. It's difficult for me to imagine a journal in any other academic field being devoted to discussion of the question 'why is our line of research so prestigious among other academic disciplines?' In physics? In sociology? In psychology? In literature? In chemistry? In history? That generativists could even think that this is a topic to be discussed in a journal suggests that something pretty weird is going on with regards to substance vs. image. Best wishes, John Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one of > a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a > generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, given > that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys so much > prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't say more, > since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy > to > > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. > >> > >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > >> > >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > >> came out fifteen years ago at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > >> > >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > >> > >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > >> be found at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > >> > >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > >> gained the > >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > >> > >> Very best to everyone! > >> > >> alex > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Lise Menn" > >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> > >> > >>> Fritz: > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > >>> > >>> Lise Menn > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Today's Topics: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Sun Oct 24 19:04:21 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:04:21 +0100 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz: Just in case you haven't seen this already. Dick Ferreira, Fernanda (2005). Psycholinguistics, formal grammars, and cognitive science. /The Linguistic Review/ *22*. 365-380. ABSTRACT: In the 1980s, Charles Clifton referred to a "psycholinguistic renaissance" in cognitive science. During that time, there was almost unanimous agreement that any self-respecting psycholinguist would make sure to keep abreast of major developments in generative grammar, because a competence model was essential, and the linguistic theory was the proper description of that competence. But today, many psycholinguists are disenchanted with generative grammar. One reason is that the Minimalist Program is difficult to adapt to processing models. Another is that generative theories appear to rest on a weak empirical foundation, due to the reliance on informally gathered grammaticality judgments. What can be done to remedy the situation? First, formal linguists might follow Ray Jackendoff's recent suggestion that they connect their work more closely to research in the rest of cognitive science. Second, syntactic theory should develop a better methodology for collecting data about whether a sentence is good or bad. A set of standards for creating examples, testing them on individuals, analyzing the results, and reporting findings in published work should be established. If these two ideas were considered, linguistic developments might once again be relevant to the psycholinguistic enterprise. Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm On 24/10/2010 18:25, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. > > 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. > > 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same experience. > > 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. > > 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. > > 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. > > -- Brian MacWhinney > > > From slobin at berkeley.edu Sun Oct 24 19:25:41 2010 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:25:41 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since I did appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions about language, thought, and culture. As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and gave him the first list of people to contact. And though Gene used some of my material, he juxtaposed me with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't there. But Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, leaving a rather muddled and spotty collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the films, you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but other directions too: Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, Lila Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, Alvin Liberman, Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Golinkoff, Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, Ursula Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, Morris Halle, Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca Eilers, Jane Robinson, Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene Dan Slobin At 10:25 AM 10/24/2010, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief >commentary. Everything mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, >according to my knowledge, but let me add a few more wrinkles. > >1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in >Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence >on the development of both Structural Anthropology and the >subsequent Cognitive Anthropology. The influence on structuralism >was through views such as Goodenough and others who likened kinship >systems to the distinctive feature systems of Prague School >phonology. Systems of binary distinctions were at the heart of Herb >Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both Jakobson and Simon >thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital computer and so >binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of >transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of >grammar as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of >this was in the 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted >earlier. Personally, I thought this stuff was fascinating. My >understanding is that the demise of this linguistics cum psychology >in cultural anthropology was due not to failures in linguistics, but >to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. > >2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on >the phone about my interests and I explained that I focused on >language learning and emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was >not what he was trying to develop in this series. Liz Bates and >Catherine Snow had the same experience. > >3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit >complex. Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky >speaks for linguistics and use his framework for testing of their >ideas about system functioning. I often get such papers for review >and they do not show any lack of respect for linguistics, just a >tendency to not understand the range of variation of analyses within >linguistics. Often the analyses they offer in applying ideas from >genetic diffusion or statistical physics (Nicolaidis et al.) are >more compatible with these alternative views. > >4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my >mind is the potentially most important is computation. Here, there >is the famous claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they >improve their grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of >respect. On the other hand, the basic linkage of generative theory >to formal grammars back in the 1950s was a big deal. In automata >theory classes and textbooks, students still learn about the Chomsky >hierarchy, although much recent work suggests that other >characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in grammar >induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web as >a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are >showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic >analysis. And there is the issue of computational resources for >endangered and under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori >Levin and colleagues are finding that computational linguists >trained only in the use of HMM and SVM are unable to understand the >challenges of real linguistic structure. So, there are important >areas here involving a beginning of interest in reintroducing linguistics. > >5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a >part of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, >although personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot >of interest and respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, >sociology, politics, aphasiology, and so on. > >-- Brian MacWhinney ****************************************************************************************************************************************** Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley address: email: slobin at berkeley.edu 2323 Rose St. phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 Berkeley, CA 94708, USA http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html ****************************************************************************************************************************************** From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 24 19:31:23 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:31:23 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sid Caesar? On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since I did > appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions about language, > thought, and culture. > As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and gave him the > first list of people to contact. And though Gene used some of my material, > he juxtaposed me > with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't there. But > Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, leaving a rather > muddled and spotty > collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the films, > you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but other directions too: > Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, Lila > Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, Alvin Liberman, > Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. > Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry > Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, > Roberta Golinkoff, Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, > Ursula Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah > Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, Morris Halle, > Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca Eilers, Jane Robinson, > Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene > > Dan Slobin > > At 10:25 AM 10/24/2010, Brian MacWhinney wrote: >> By now, Fritz clearly has enough for his brief commentary. Everything >> mentioned on this issue so far is accurate, according to my knowledge, but >> let me add a few more wrinkles. >> >> 1. Regarding cultural anthropology, I always teach my students in >> Crosscultural Psychology that Linguistics had an enormous influence on the >> development of both Structural Anthropology and the subsequent Cognitive >> Anthropology. The influence on structuralism was through views such as >> Goodenough and others who likened kinship systems to the distinctive >> feature systems of Prague School phonology. Systems of binary distinctions >> were at the heart of Herb Simon's EPAM model of thinking and memory. Both >> Jakobson and Simon thought that the mind could be viewed as a digital >> computer and so binary features were crucial. Later, with the rise of >> transformation generative grammar, the emphasis shifted to rules of grammar >> as models for rules of culture. The major flourishing of this was in the >> 1970s, a bit later than the 1960s noted earlier. Personally, I thought >> this stuff was fascinating. My understanding is that the demise of this >> linguistics cum psychology in cultural anthropology was due not to failures >> in linguistics, but to the rise of deconstructivism in ethnography. >> >> 2. Alex is roughly right about Searchinger. Gene spoke to me on the phone >> about my interests and I explained that I focused on language learning and >> emergence. He said "thanks" but that this was not what he was trying to >> develop in this series. Liz Bates and Catherine Snow had the same >> experience. >> >> 3. The situation with regard to physics and biology is a bit complex. >> Often, people in those areas simply assume that Chomsky speaks for >> linguistics and use his framework for testing of their ideas about system >> functioning. I often get such papers for review and they do not show any >> lack of respect for linguistics, just a tendency to not understand the >> range of variation of analyses within linguistics. Often the analyses they >> offer in applying ideas from genetic diffusion or statistical physics >> (Nicolaidis et al.) are more compatible with these alternative views. >> >> 4. The major area that has been left undiscussed and which in my mind is >> the potentially most important is computation. Here, there is the famous >> claim by IBM that every time they fire a linguist they improve their >> grammar checker. I guess that counts as lack of respect. On the other >> hand, the basic linkage of generative theory to formal grammars back in the >> 1950s was a big deal. In automata theory classes and textbooks, students >> still learn about the Chomsky hierarchy, although much recent work suggests >> that other characterizations are more effective for resolving issues in >> grammar induction. More recently, the emphasis on data-mining of the web >> as a bag of words seems to have hit a bit of a wall and researchers are >> showing increasing interest in and respect for linguistic analysis. And >> there is the issue of computational resources for endangered and >> under-documented languages. Here, people like Lori Levin and colleagues >> are finding that computational linguists trained only in the use of HMM and >> SVM are unable to understand the challenges of real linguistic structure. >> So, there are important areas here involving a beginning of interest in >> reintroducing linguistics. >> >> 5. Finally, I wish that I could refer to Conversation Analysis as a part >> of linguistics. I know that I can't really get away with this, although >> personally I think it is a part. In any case, I see a lot of interest and >> respect for CA from areas as diverse as marketing, sociology, politics, >> aphasiology, and so on. >> >> -- Brian MacWhinney > > > ****************************************************************************************************************************************** > Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, University > of California, Berkeley > address: email: > slobin at berkeley.edu > 2323 Rose St. phone (home): 1-510-848-1769 > Berkeley, CA 94708, USA > http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html > ****************************************************************************************************************************************** > > From mark at polymathix.com Sun Oct 24 21:19:09 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:19:09 -0500 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: <4CC2BD16.7040506@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: With apologies for extracting a parenthetical and turning it into an actual point: Dick wrote: "(OK, you can all throw your bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.)" I think that if Chomsky had been doing science -- i.e. grounding his work in scientific method -- then we could ask the question about how much of Chomsky's work produced scientifically valid statements about human language. That's the question about "right" and "wrong" I'd like to be able to ask. Sadly, Chomsky eschewed scientific method, and explicitly so (to the point of ridiculing his critics for expecting him to follow what he called "naive falsificationism"). So if Chomsky did produce any statements about human language that can now be held to be scientifically valid, it's because he thought long and hard enough about language that he was occasionally able to make statements that could be interpreted (by others) as proper hypotheses. But it's not because Chomsky did the science. The same would be true of, say, Wittgenstein, or of any other philosopher of language. So the question about Chomsky's work being "right" or "wrong" has the same import as if we were asking about Wittgenstein or Kierkegaard. Work in philosophy is seldom considered "right" unless a successful stream of scientific discovery can be related back to it. Work in philosophy is seldom considered "wrong" unless it is shown to be internally inconsistent or else grossly incompatible with current scientific thinking. So was all of Chomsky's work "wrong"? No, probably not -- any intelligent philosopher of language is bound to be able to throw enough Jell-O at the wall that something will eventually stick when seen through the lens of scientific method. But did Chomsky advance the science of human language? Well, if he did, it was by accident. So, as a recovering Chomsky-basher, I'd like to put him on a pedestal right up there with all the great philosophers of language. Then I'd like to see academic linguistics become self-aware about the way it does, or should be doing, science. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Richard Hudson wrote: > Dear Fritz and everyone else, > > All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? > Which is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 > years, partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your > bricks at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would > be extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question > to ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but > whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is > a particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in > linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept > 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of > colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or > field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative > analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know > about them. > > If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative > clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can > do better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest > of the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, > and may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but > we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are > trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of > insight into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet > achieved? And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 > completely different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be > reconciled with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch > of neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. > > I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I > love it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has > enormous strengths as well. > > Best wishes, Dick > > > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > > On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >> >> >> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >> >> ==================== >> >> >> Dear All, >> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >> fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years >> doing neuroimaging work. >> >> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology >> and Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >> Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of >> touch with how research is conducted. >> >> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >> might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >> willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of >> people in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a >> trail of offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in >> their approach: >> >> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that >> humans are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT >> a scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it >> obvious) >> >> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >> never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer >> (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >> >> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >> interest. >> And, if linguists are interested in data: >> >> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great >> expense to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who >> has contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free >> ride is not a good way to ingratiate yourself) >> >> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with >> that training can change, because otherwise other academics will just >> avoid linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some >> unique problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists >> give the more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >> >> -Dianne >> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From mark at polymathix.com Sun Oct 24 21:33:01 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:33:01 -0500 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm in violent agreement with Aya here. A. Katz wrote: > If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb > paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language > in question. And if the world wants to know about language typology, they'll want to consult a linguist, who may or may not be fluent in any L2 at all. It turns out that you don't have to be fluent in lots of languages in order to study similarities and differences among languages. If you're studying hundreds or thousands of languages, then fluency in your subject languages is not even practical. > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. *raises hand* > Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest > impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual > ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. > > There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate > ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask > ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting > value as Grimm's Law. There are plenty of academic linguists who have been able to walk that fine line between bucking Chomskyan orthodoxy and staying on a tenure track. That was easier to do outside the States, but some of us failed even there. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz and everyone else, >> >> All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? >> Which is >> a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, >> partly >> thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks at me >> if you >> want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be extraordinary if >> his >> work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to ask isn't how good >> other >> disciplines think linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our >> job' >> better than us. Maybe our job is a particularly hard one? And maybe the >> extreme divisions we find in linguistics make it hard for outsiders to >> define >> a helpful concept 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we >> have >> plenty of colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based >> sociolinguistics >> or field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative >> analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know >> about >> them. >> >> If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative >> clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can >> do >> better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of >> the >> world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and may >> wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but we've >> been >> at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are trying hard. >> Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight into our >> subject >> matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? And none of them, >> incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely different complex >> systems, >> all of which somehow have to be reconciled with theories developed more >> or >> less independently in a bunch of neighbouring disciplines ranging from >> philosophy to neuroscience. >> >> I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I >> love it. >> I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous >> strengths >> as well. >> >> Best wishes, Dick >> >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >>> >>> ==================== >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >>> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >>> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >>> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >>> fieldwork >>> in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years doing >>> neuroimaging work. >>> >>> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >>> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >>> Chomskian >>> perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch with how >>> research is conducted. >>> >>> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >>> might >>> be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >>> willing to >>> appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people in these >>> fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of offended >>> scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their approach: >>> >>> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans >>> are >>> "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a >>> scientific >>> hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >>> >>> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >>> never >>> bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer (e.g., >>> well >>> vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >>> >>> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >>> interest. >>> And, if linguists are interested in data: >>> >>> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great >>> expense to >>> acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has >>> contributed >>> nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is not a good >>> way >>> to ingratiate yourself) >>> >>> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >>> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >>> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >>> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >>> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >>> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique >>> problem >>> solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the more >>> reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >>> >>> -Dianne >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From slobin at berkeley.edu Sun Oct 24 21:35:13 2010 From: slobin at berkeley.edu (Dan I. Slobin) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:35:13 -0700 Subject: A question for Fritz In-Reply-To: Message-ID: yup - from his Show of Show clips, speaking meaninglessly in what sounded like various languages - another side of linguistics in the popular imagination? At 12:31 PM 10/24/2010, A. Katz wrote: >Sid Caesar? > >On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Dan I. Slobin wrote: > >>Well, the Gene Searchinger story isn't quite that clear cut, since >>I did appear in the series and Gene and I had good discussions >>about language, thought, and culture. >>As I recall, it was George Miller who put Gene onto the task and >>gave him the first list of people to contact. And though Gene used >>some of my material, he juxtaposed me >>with Jerry Fodor in a way that suggested a continuity that wasn't >>there. But Gene was also interested in anthropology and neurology, >>leaving a rather muddled and spotty >>collection of vignettes. If you look at the list of people in the >>films, you'll certainly see a slant towards Chomsky et al, but >>other directions too: >>Noam Chomsky, Frederick Newmeyer, Howard Lasnik, George Carlin, >>Lila Gleitman, George A. Miller, Mark Aronoff, Judith Klavans, >>Alvin Liberman, Lewis Thomas, Jeff Leer, Roy Byrd, Suzette Haden >>Elgin, Russell Baker, Dan I. Slobin, Stephen Jay Gould, Jerry >>Fodor, David McNeill, Michael Carter, Henry Kucera, Thomas Sebeok, >>Steven Pinker, Peter Sells, Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, Roberta Golinkoff, >>Jill de Villiers, Susan Carey, Ellen Markman, John Lynch, Ursula >>Bellugi, Terence Langendoen, Michael Robinson, Bobby Dews, Deborah >>Tannen, Paul Ekman, Peter Marler, Ivan Sag, Philip Lieberman, >>Morris Halle, Peter Ladefoged, Sid Caesar, Kim Oller, Rebecca >>Eilers, Jane Robinson, Darlene Orr, Nomonde Ngubo, Mazisi Kunene >> >>Dan Slobin > > >****************************************************************************************************************************************** >Dan I. Slobin, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics, >University of California, Berkeley >address: email: >slobin at berkeley.edu >2323 Rose St. phone (home): >1-510-848-1769 >Berkeley, CA 94708, >USA >http://psychology.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/dslobin.html >****************************************************************************************************************************************** From language at sprynet.com Mon Oct 25 01:03:20 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:03:20 -0400 Subject: post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona Message-ID: Thanks to Richard Hudson and Aya Katz for your thoughts! > I just think it would be extraordinary if his [Chomsky's] work had been > ALL wrong. Oddly enough, I have no problem at all with this notion. Would it really be helpful if his work turned out to be only 90% or 95% wrong? If you have not already seen it, you just might want to take a look at "44 Reasons Why the Chomskyans Are Mistaken" by myself and Sergio Navega. It comes in both a longish, full-text format and a small-chunk, easy-reading hypertext version, they're down at the bottom of the Linguistics menu at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex.htm > But maybe the question to ask isn't how good other disciplines think > linguistics is, but whether anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. To this question, I would juxtapose Aya Katz' point: > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. How could anyone else be doing your job better, when you have not even allowed them to begin trying to do so? When for at least three decades the whole field was steeped with so high a level of monomania and triumphalism that perhaps even its chief exponent might have noted with a certain sense of irony a similarity to Stalinism? When you have heaped so much ridicule on opposing theories that even more recent & relatively moderate observers like Pinker & Deutscher have also found it necessary to devalue the Whorf-Sapir approach? Precisely why have culture and local beliefs no place in the formation and hence also the analysis of language? I challenge any of you to answer this question without falling back into generative dogma and generative jargon. Also, why was it de rigueur over several decades for mainstreamers to pillory Whorf for his claim that the Inuit have a number of words for "snow," yet it suddenly became okay and primely Chomskyan for Searchinger in his film "The Human Language" to show that Arabic can have many words for "camel," replete with scenes of numerous snorting camels? I would love to hear a non-terminological, non-obfuscative answer to this question. All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Katz" To: "Richard Hudson" Cc: Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2010 8:34 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] post from Dianne Patterson, U.Arizona > If the rest of the world wants to know about relative clauses or verb > paradigms, they consult a grammarian, hopefully one fluent in the language > in question. > > While many of our colleagues who are established in the academic world do > good and useful work of an applied nature, many more are in exile from the > field, because their contributions were not accepted. > > Philologists and grammarians are the ones whose work had the biggest > impact on the field in the past. We claim them as our intellectual > ancestors, but they did not call themselves linguists. > > There is a real problem in this field, and rather than simply congratulate > ourselves on how great the past fifty years have been, we should ask > ourselves if any of us have contributed anything with as much lasting > value as Grimm's Law. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Richard Hudson wrote: > >> Dear Fritz and everyone else, >> >> All this is rather negative and depressing for linguists, isn't it? Which >> is a shame, because we've actually come a long way in the last 50 years, >> partly thanks to Chomsky's insights. (OK, you can all throw your bricks >> at me if you want, but I'm not a Chomskyan; I just think it would be >> extraordinary if his work had been ALL wrong.) But maybe the question to >> ask isn't how good other disciplines think linguistics is, but whether >> anyone else is doing 'our job' better than us. Maybe our job is a >> particularly hard one? And maybe the extreme divisions we find in >> linguistics make it hard for outsiders to define a helpful concept >> 'linguist' on which they can pass judgements? E.g. we have plenty of >> colleagues who do corpus linguistics, text-based sociolinguistics or >> field linguistics, with a great deal of hard data and quantitative >> analysis, but psychologists and neuroscientists probably don't know about >> them. >> >> If the rest of the world wants to know about verb paradigms and relative >> clauses, they need a linguist. (Non-linguists sometimes think they can do >> better, but the examples that I've seen don't convince me.) The rest of >> the world may get frustrated by our attempts to analyse such things, and >> may wonder why we're taking such a long time to reach agreement; but >> we've been at it for (probably) four thousand years, and we really are >> trying hard. Maybe all that work has actually given us a depth of insight >> into our subject matter that younger disciplines haven't yet achieved? >> And none of them, incidentally, has to cope with 7,000 completely >> different complex systems, all of which somehow have to be reconciled >> with theories developed more or less independently in a bunch of >> neighbouring disciplines ranging from philosophy to neuroscience. >> >> I still think that linguistics is a fantastic area to work in, and I love >> it. I know its weaknesses as well as anyone does, but it has enormous >> strengths as well. >> >> Best wishes, Dick >> >> >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> On 22/10/2010 22:33, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dianne Patterson has asked me to post this for her: >>> >>> ==================== >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> I'm afraid I can't quote anything of interest in the literature, but I >>> second Tom Givon's private experiences. I have a BA in Philosophy, a >>> Masters in Linguistics, and a PhD in Psychology. >>> I've worked on language acquisition, animal-language issues, done >>> fieldwork in a remote region of Mexico, and spent the last 10 years >>> doing neuroimaging work. >>> >>> I have found that academics in Psychology, Speech Sciences, Biology and >>> Anthropology think many linguists associated with the old School >>> Chomskian perspectives are out of touch with real data and out of touch >>> with how research is conducted. >>> >>> This cultural divide is too bad, since I honestly believe linguists >>> might be able to contribute to these fields if they were a little more >>> willing to appreciate the perspectives, methods and hard work of people >>> in these fields. Instead, linguists often leave behind them a trail of >>> offended scientists by making a variety of poor choices in their >>> approach: >>> >>> -Asserting time and again the sort of quasi-religious dogma that humans >>> are "qualitatively different" than other creatures (this is NOT a >>> scientific hypothesis, it is not clear what it means, nor is it obvious) >>> >>> -Assuming that only linguists have any insights into language...and >>> never bothering to learn what other disciplines might have to offer >>> (e.g., well vetted tests in Speech Sciences). >>> >>> -Suggesting time and again that real data from real people is of no >>> interest. >>> And, if linguists are interested in data: >>> >>> -Assuming researchers who have worked long and hard and at great expense >>> to acquire data should just turn it over to the linguist who has >>> contributed nothing and/or offers VERY little (asking for a free ride is >>> not a good way to ingratiate yourself) >>> >>> -Thinking of language disordered populations as resources to confirm >>> Chomsky's latests theories with (sorry, these are real people, not lab >>> rats. If you aren't interested in helping, then rethink your goals.) >>> I hope that training in linguistics and the attitudes that go with that >>> training can change, because otherwise other academics will just avoid >>> linguists, and that's too bad, because linguists have some unique >>> problem solving skills...and I the "True Believer" linguists give the >>> more reasonable linguists a bad reputation. >>> >>> -Dianne >>> >>> >>> >> >> > From dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk Mon Oct 25 08:09:57 2010 From: dick at ling.ucl.ac.uk (Richard Hudson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:09:57 +0100 Subject: Chomsky Message-ID: Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did that were right, and inspired good work. My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between gerunds and nominalisations. - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but not his morpheme-based analysis). - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his conclusions. - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later abandonment of the substance. I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. Dick Hudson -- Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Oct 25 08:44:05 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:44:05 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC53B55.8050508@ling.ucl.ac.uk> Message-ID: Dick, (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all original--Jespersen made the same observations. (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's langue/parole. (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), although I'm not sure that I believe this. John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > that were right, and inspired good work. > > My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > gerunds and nominalisations. > - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > not his morpheme-based analysis). > - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > conclusions. > - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > abandonment of the substance. > I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > > And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > > Dick Hudson > > -- > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From ebabaii at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 09:24:17 2010 From: ebabaii at gmail.com (Esmat Babaii) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:54:17 +0330 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi John, Until a couple of years ago, Chomsky had been idolized in our linguistics departments that it would be a professional suicide if someone criticized his works, something like Andersen?s ?Emperor? New Suits? story! Interesting to read your comments. Esmat On 10/25/10, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> >> -- >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Mon Oct 25 09:22:36 2010 From: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se (Henrik Rosenkvist) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:22:36 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi! Some quotes from Talmy Giv?n, that might be of interest: [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Giv?n 1979:26). "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of the more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects ? constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness and syntactic control ? were matters I took for granted but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Giv?n 2001:xv) "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Giv?n 2001:xv) "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). I think one can see true development here... Henrik R. john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> >> -- >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > -- Henrik Rosenkvist docent, nordiska spr?k Spr?k- och litteraturcentrum Lunds universitet Box 201 221 00 Lund tel: 046-222 87 04 e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se Henrik Rosenkvist Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages Dept. of Languages and Literature Lund University P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Mon Oct 25 10:20:40 2010 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:20:40 +0200 Subject: JOB: 2 positions in English Linguistics, Lille, France [URGENT action needed] Message-ID: This is a re-post of the job announcement sent out last week. People interested should go through the qualification procedure, deadline for this is Oct. 28, 16h00 (Paris time), so *only 2 days left*. The procedure is not all that complicated. Apologies for multiple postings. -------- Original Message -------- Two tenure track positions in English Linguistics, Universit? Lille3, France http://www.univ-lille3.fr !!! URGENT JOB NOTICE !!! Answer needed before Oct. 28, 2010 (see below)!!! The University of Lille 3, France, will have two tenure track positions available track position in English Linguistics, with the following profile: 1) Corpus linguistics, syntax 2) didactics (ESL) and/or language acquisition REQUIREMENTS The candidate must hold a PhD, or be sure to have a PhD in hand by December 1, 2010 at the latest, in the field of English Linguistics (or comparable, with good command of English) and have demonstrated expertise in this domain, through quality publication and solid teaching experience. The ideal candidate will engage in the further expansion of the corpus linguistics group (position 1) or the ESL teaching and research group (position 2) with the STL research center at the Universit? Lille 3 (http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/). Normal teaching load is about 7 hours per week (2 terms of 13 weeks) and concerns English linguistics classes, or possibly also English for non-specialists (ESP) (mostly undergraduate level). Hiring will be done at the level of "Ma?tre de Conf?rences" (MCF) with a monthly salary scale ranging from 2,058 to 3,722 (before taxes and withholdings), depending on the number of years of experience at MCF level (i.e. most positions for which a PhD is required). Initially, there is no requirement that candidates speak French fluently, but it is preferred that they at least have a sufficient working knowledge to understand the procedures. The successful candidate must be authorized to work legally in France by Sept. 1, 2011, the start date of the position. PROCEDURE Candidates who are interested in this position should contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; please send along your CV too, so that he can check whether all's ok. (No need to send a full application to him, just the CV.) Meanwhile you can already start the first official step for candidates which is to register on-line for the QUALIFICATION by *October 28, 2011, 16:00* (Parisian time) on the official site of the Minist?re de l'Enseignement sup?rieur et de la Recherche; https://www.galaxie.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/ensup/candidats.html on the right, click on "acc?s Galaxie/qualification" (you'll also see a link to the "calendrier" with important dates for the qualification MCF) The idea is that you need to get the qualification MCF before you can apply for a job as an MCF. People who hold a position of rank similar to MCF could apply without the qualification, but it is safer to follow the usual official procedure, which is open to all nationalities anyway. Do not hesitate to contact Maarten Lemmens (maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr) should you have any questions on this position or on the official procedure. -- Den b?sta taktiken ?r inte alltid att h?lla sig uppr?tt, utan att l?ra sig falla mjukt" (Kajsa Ingemarsson, "Sm? citroner gula", p. 292) -- Maarten (=Martin) Lemmens Professeur en linguistique et didactique des langues (Sp?cialit?s: linguistique anglaise & linguistique cognitive) Universit? Lille 3, B.P. 60149, 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France Bureau B4.138; t?l.: +33 (0)3.20.41.67.18 Membre de l'UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage http://perso.univ-lille3.fr/~mlemmens Editor-in-Chief "CogniTextes" (revue de l'AFLiCo) http://cognitextes.revues.org/ Membre du bureau de l'Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive http://www.aflico.fr/ Board member of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.cogling.org/ -- From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Oct 25 12:56:56 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:56:56 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC54C5C.3000307@nordlund.lu.se> Message-ID: Yep, you're right, except I'm not sure of the genesis of the A over A constraint. I'm pretty sure that it was Ross who made the observations about the data. Actually for me the one indispensable article of Chomsky's is 'On Wh-movement.' But there is another point in this. Our exchange here has demonstrated that to the extent that Chomsky's work has had lasting value, it's been because he's been a conduit for other people's ideas. Nothing wrong with that, very few of us can claim to have been more than that. But this is NOT the way that Chomsky is popularly understood, and this has been because of the way he has been packaged--neither he nor his acolytes refer at all to Jespersen, Saussure, or Harris, and even Ross has been largely purged from their history. To the extent that generative linguistics really does have cross-disciplinary prestige (and this obviously depends upon one's perspective), it is due to people having ascribed supernatural genius to Chomsky, and a crucial part of this program has been consciously or unconsciously excising history. The major reason that some people believe Chomsky to be a really original thinker is that Chomsky himself has not referred to his own intellectual antecedents and his followers have not thought to read for themselves. This is directly related to the original posting of Fritz's which began this discussion. Apparently, such is the nature of the generative enterprise that its practitioners see fit to devote their energy to demonstrating--at least to themselves-- that their own line of research is highly prestigious. This really is weird, if you think about it, just as it is also weird Chomsky and his acolytes behave as though (and apparently believe that) real linguistics sprung full-grown from Chomsky's head. And these two peculiarities are, I would argue, intimately related to each other--when Chomsky is no longer on the scene, the advertising campaign around him will have to be redirected entirely to his dynasty, so that its practitioners will be able to justify their own positions. And the article which Fritz is commenting is obviously part of this. John Thanks John. But: (1) It was Chomsky who re-introduced Jespersen's contrast into recent linguistics, and argued the case so cogently. (2) It was Chomsky who suggested the first island constraint (A over A) and Haj Ross was just improving on his suggestion. (3) It was Chomsky who introduced the contrast between knowledge and behaviour into USA linguistics, and thereby triggered a lot of psycholinguistic work; whether it's the same as langue/parole we could debate, but as you say, it's similar. (4) It was Chomsky who developed Harris's ideas with the help of formalisms from maths. And it was Chomsky who inspired a host of giants who later rejected some of his main ideas: think of Bresnan, Ross, Fillmore, Lakoff, ... I doubt if any of them would agree that Chomsky's influence has been 100% negative. Dick On 25/10/2010 09:44, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >> that were right, and inspired good work. >> >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >> gerunds and nominalisations. >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >> not his morpheme-based analysis). >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >> conclusions. >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >> abandonment of the substance. >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >> >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >> >> Dick Hudson >> Quoting Henrik Rosenkvist : > Hi! > > Some quotes from Talmy Giv??n, that might be of interest: > > [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, > transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the > notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of > empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a > sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Giv??n 1979:26). > > "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was > possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive > motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of the > more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects ??? > constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness > and syntactic control ??? were matters I took for granted but chose to > defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Giv??n 2001:xv) > > "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Giv??n 2001:xv) > > "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation > to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of > syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). > > I think one can see true development here... > > Henrik R. > On 25/10/2010 09:44, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dick, > (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all > original--Jespersen made the same observations. > (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. > (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's > langue/parole. > (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea > of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), > although I'm not sure that I believe this. > John > > > > > Quoting Richard Hudson : > > > > > >> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > >> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > >> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > >> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > >> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > >> that were right, and inspired good work. > >> > >> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > >> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > >> gerunds and nominalisations. > >> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > >> not his morpheme-based analysis). > >> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > >> conclusions. > >> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > >> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > >> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > >> abandonment of the substance. > >> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > >> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > >> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > >> > >> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > >> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > >> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > >> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > >> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > >> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > >> > >> Dick Hudson > >> > >> -- > >> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > -- > Henrik Rosenkvist > docent, nordiska spr??k > Spr??k- och litteraturcentrum > Lunds universitet > Box 201 > 221 00 Lund > tel: 046-222 87 04 > e-post: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > Henrik Rosenkvist > Associate Professor, Scandinavian Languages > Dept. of Languages and Literature > Lund University > P. O. Box 201, SE-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN > Tel.: +46 46 222 87 04 > E-mail: Henrik.Rosenkvist at nordlund.lu.se > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Mon Oct 25 15:18:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:01 -0600 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC54C5C.3000307@nordlund.lu.se> Message-ID: I think Henrik is trying to jiggle our memory chains. So yes, some people have short memories. One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, my earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) properties of grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them exclusively. The epitome of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation to "function without structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many functionalists' work. The most cursory perusal of the history of biology, beginning with Aristotle's placing the on firm functionalist (= adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, ought to convince us that this is utter logical nonsense. Another one concerns innateness, which for any evolutionist means, quite simply, the acknowledgement that evolution has taken place, and that the cumulative adaptive experience of ancestral generations has found its way into the genome. Just because Chomsky's extreme abuse of this notion in his non-empirical account of language acquisition does not mean that the genetic basis of human language is in any way tainted. No reasonable primatologist or child-language scholar could get away with such a position. Likewise, Chomsky's abuse of the notion 'theory' (=formalism) and 'universals' is a lame excuse for functionalist to reject the profound value of theory (=universals & their explanation). In science, data without theory is missing the whole point. Lastly, I think Chomsky-bashing is a rather unprofitable exercise for functionalist, especially that quite often we are guilty of the very same intellectual insularity as the generativists. For my money, I have learned an incredible amount from Noam. True, a lot of it was via a negative venue, but what the hell, you pick 'em where you find 'em. So perhaps the old Biblical caution ought to apply here: "Remove a beam from your own eye before you take a speck out of the eye of a friend". Cheers, TG ===================== Henrik Rosenkvist wrote: > Hi! > > Some quotes from Talmy Giv??n, that might be of interest: > > [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, > transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the > notion of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of > empirical irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming > a sad caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Giv??n 1979:26). > > "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was > possible to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive > motivation and typological diversity, without an explicit account of > the more formal aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects ??? > constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations, clause-union, > finiteness and syntactic control ??? were matters I took for granted > but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a bad mistake." (Giv??n > 2001:xv) > > "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Giv??n 2001:xv) > > "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation > to seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of > syntactic structures" (2001:xvi). > > I think one can see true development here... > > Henrik R. > > john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: >> Dick, >> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not >> at all >> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' >> thesis. >> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >> langue/parole. >> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >> there), >> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting Richard Hudson : >> >>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, >>> but >>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he >>> did >>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>> >>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction >>> between >>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>> conclusions. >>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>> abandonment of the substance. >>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally >>> non-Chomskyan) >>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>> >>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>> >>> Dick Hudson >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From mark at polymathix.com Mon Oct 25 15:22:53 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:22:53 -0500 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As many of us here know, that was true in many places -- vehemently so in the 70's and early 80's. Hence my comment about needing to walk the fine line in order to do non-Chomskyan work and stay on a tenure track. As Dick Hudson has pointed out, there are indeed some folks here who have done and continue to do non-Chomskyan, even anti-Chomskyan, work and do have tenure. These are the ones who found a way to walk that fine line (or, in a few cases, were doing non-Chomskyan work while Chomsky was writing Aspects...). For each one of them, I'd wager that there are a dozen of us who either didn't figure it out or who were prevented (by financial, family or other factors) from finding greener pastures. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK Esmat Babaii wrote: > Hi John, > > Until a couple of years ago, Chomsky had been idolized in our > linguistics departments that it would be a professional suicide if > someone criticized his works, something like Andersen?s ?Emperor? New > Suits? story! Interesting to read your comments. > > Esmat > > > On 10/25/10, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> Dick, >> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at >> all >> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' >> thesis. >> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >> langue/parole. >> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >> there), >> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >> John >> >> >> >> Quoting Richard Hudson : >> >>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, >>> but >>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he >>> did >>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>> >>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction >>> between >>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>> conclusions. >>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>> abandonment of the substance. >>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally >>> non-Chomskyan) >>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>> >>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>> >>> Dick Hudson >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From faucon at cogsci.ucsd.edu Mon Oct 25 17:14:28 2010 From: faucon at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Gilles Fauconnier) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:14:28 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: The functional linguist is a tragic Oedipian figure, consumed with desire for his mother "la langue," and with hatred for the evil father who keeps her locked up in the ivory tower of MIT ... Gilles From amnfn at well.com Mon Oct 25 17:46:39 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:46:39 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, I agree with the part about function without structure being utter nonsense. I'll have to respectfully disagree on innateness. You write: "No reasonable primatologist or child-language scholar could get away with such a position." I'm a primatologist. I have raised a chimpanzee in a cross-fostering environment with very good results for language acquisition, and though I acknowledge that evolution did happen, and that we are closely related to chimpanzees genetically, I don't believe that the genetic relationship necessarily accounts for the language acquisition. I think the environment had a great deal more to do with it. And I acknowledge that Alex the Parrot, who was less closely related to a human than a chimpanzee, also had some excellent results. I don't think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and chimpanzees. It's possible that Saussure was right and that language is an abstract system of signs, and that genetics has only a very small part to play in all this. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, Tom Givon wrote: > > > I think Henrik is trying to jiggle our memory chains. So yes, some people > have short memories. > > One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, my > earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the > bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) properties of > grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them exclusively. The epitome > of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation to "function without > structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many functionalists' work. The > most cursory perusal of the history of biology, beginning with Aristotle's > placing the on firm functionalist (= adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, > ought to convince us that this is utter logical nonsense. > > Another one concerns innateness, which for any evolutionist means, quite > simply, the acknowledgement that evolution has taken place, and that the > cumulative adaptive experience of ancestral generations has found its way > into the genome. Just because Chomsky's extreme abuse of this notion in his > non-empirical account of language acquisition do No reasonable primatologist or > child-language scholar could get away with such a positiones not mean that the genetic > basis of human language is in any way tainted. No reasonable primatologist or > child-language scholar could get away with such a position. > > Likewise, Chomsky's abuse of the notion 'theory' (=formalism) and > 'universals' is a lame excuse for functionalist to reject the profound value > of theory (=universals & their explanation). In science, data without theory > is missing the whole point. > > Lastly, I think Chomsky-bashing is a rather unprofitable exercise for > functionalist, especially that quite often we are guilty of the very same > intellectual insularity as the generativists. For my money, I have learned an > incredible amount from Noam. True, a lot of it was via a negative venue, but > what the hell, you pick 'em where you find 'em. So perhaps the old Biblical > caution ought to apply here: "Remove a beam from your own eye before you take > a speck out of the eye of a friend". > > Cheers, TG > > ===================== > > Henrik Rosenkvist wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Some quotes from Talmy Giv??n, that might be of interest: >> >> [...] after first trivializing the notions of theory and explanation, >> transformational-generative linguistics proceeded to trivialize the notion >> of data beyond all recognition. What followed was an orgy of empirical >> irresponsibility [...] with linguistics as a whole becoming a sad >> caricature of late medieval scholasticism (Giv??n 1979:26). >> >> "When this volume was written in the early 1980s, I thought it was possible >> to treat grammar responsibly, in terms of both its adaptive motivation and >> typological diversity, without an explicit account of the more formal >> aspects of syntactic structure. These aspects ??? constituency, hierarchy, >> grammatical relations, clause-union, finiteness and syntactic control ??? >> were matters I took for granted but chose to defer. In retrospect, it was a >> bad mistake." (Giv??n 2001:xv) >> >> "[...] functions without structures are downright lame" (Giv??n 2001:xv) >> >> "The research program outlined here pays heed to Chomsky's exhortation to >> seek universal principles, while affirming the mental reality of syntactic >> structures" (2001:xvi). >> >> I think one can see true development here... >> >> Henrik R. >> >> john at research.haifa.ac.il skrev: >>> Dick, >>> (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at >>> all >>> original--Jespersen made the same observations. >>> (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. >>> (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's >>> langue/parole. >>> (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea >>> of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor >>> there), >>> although I'm not sure that I believe this. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Richard Hudson : >>> >>>> Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be >>>> defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but >>>> he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points >>>> and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant >>>> he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did >>>> that were right, and inspired good work. >>>> >>>> My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: >>>> - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between >>>> gerunds and nominalisations. >>>> - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but >>>> not his morpheme-based analysis). >>>> - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his >>>> conclusions. >>>> - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour >>>> (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. >>>> - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later >>>> abandonment of the substance. >>>> I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are >>>> all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) >>>> work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. >>>> >>>> And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines >>>> that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and >>>> articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, >>>> from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to >>>> non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some >>>> people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. >>>> >>>> Dick Hudson >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> > > From jlmendi at unizar.es Mon Oct 25 18:44:45 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:44:45 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "A. Katz" wrote: (...) I don't > think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even > primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans > who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and > chimpanzees. Can you explain what are you referring to? Have you discovered human populations without language, or healthy humans that have not succeed acquiring language? Best regards: Jos?-Luis Mend?vil -- Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 19:47:04 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:47:04 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added the papers on my website at Pullam 2009 http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf Ritter 2005 http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the 1995 flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is believing that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various sections on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon that gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there is no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). Several computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach was of interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they found the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it is just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just make up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has gone by the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. Cheers, Shannon On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) > 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) > 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) > 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) > 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) > 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to > the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey > article. > > --fritz > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and cognitive sciences. > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, > I'd > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people in > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is > this? > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article or > > is it your own idea? > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz, > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You obviously > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet (the > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? > Have > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > contradicting the premise of the article? > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't > enjoyed > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a > little > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while > there > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, > that > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of > admiration > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social > sciences > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the > latest > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think > that > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense a > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific > linguistics > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be > either > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, > or > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of > their > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises > which > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target > > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and > > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true > > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics > > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. > And > > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to > linguistics > > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social > sciences, > > and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, > > I'd > > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people > in > > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article > is > > this? > > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article > > or > > > is it your own idea? > > > Best wishes, > > > John > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , > "Bickerton, Derek" > Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > Dear John, > > First, Shannon is a he, not a she. > > Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about > linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with > Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). > > Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY > Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are > explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. > > One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose > of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a > well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following > quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for > being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated > discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians > gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most > psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him > totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are > reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who > was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The > entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his > tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him > was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational > types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This > has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The > best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) > altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef > Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had > some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). > > All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And > it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing > "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and > disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from > my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines > (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, > primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some > substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' > side of the field either. > > Best, TG > > ========================= > > john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > Fritz, > > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't > > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You > obviously > > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet > (the > > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references > > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? > Have > > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, > > contradicting the premise of the article? > > > > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't > enjoyed > > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a > little > > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while > there > > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan > > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, > that > > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of > admiration > > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was > a > > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that > > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social > sciences > > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the > latest > > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else > > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I > think that > > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense > a > > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. > > > > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific > linguistics > > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be > > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be > either > > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of > affairs, or > > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of > their > > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only > > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises > which > > aren't consistent with what's really going on. > > Best wishes, > > John > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : > > > > > >> John, > >> > >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a > target > >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys > >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, > and > >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been > true > >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether > linguistics > >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. > And > >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with > >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to > linguistics > >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social > sciences, > >> and cognitive sciences. > >> > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > generated, > >>> > >> I'd > >> > >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people > in > >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article > is > >>> > >> this? > >> > >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the > article > >>> > >> or > >> > >>> is it your own idea? > >>> Best wishes, > >>> John > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 > From: Lise Menn > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Fritz: > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The > Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics > and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > Lise Menn > > > >> > >> Today's Topics: > >> > >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> (Brian MacWhinney) > >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > >> Payne) > >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 > From: Andrew Pawley > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Fritz > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several > kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been > influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, > population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, > among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, > (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the > three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence > dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists > showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy > provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the > syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, > Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great > weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members > of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of > theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics > is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions > that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and > historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of > Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the > Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a > place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among > the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of > historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists > today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and > subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular > genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other > disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and > are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes > stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in > cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in > lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary > interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast > literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals > is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and > fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts > such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages > and societies.? > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger > Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > Regards > Andy Pawley > _______ > > John, > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > --fritz > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > Fraser University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > generated, I'd > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > people in > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > article is this? > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > the article or > > >is it your own idea? > > >Best wishes, > > >John > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University> > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 > From: "alex gross" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work was > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > came out fifteen years ago at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, can > be found at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > gained the > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative movement. > > Very best to everyone! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lise Menn" > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > Fritz: > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > Lise Menn > >> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. Payne) > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: alex gross > Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, > Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe something > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked to > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide legitimacy > to > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > > linguists. > > > > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > > > > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists." > > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > > came out fifteen years ago at: > > > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > > > > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The > > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > > > > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > > be found at: > > > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > > > > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > > gained the > > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > > > > Very best to everyone! > > > > alex > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Lise Menn" > > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > > Cc: > > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > > > > > > Fritz: > > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > > > > > > Lise Menn > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Today's Topics: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) > > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > Payne) > > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, > Frederick J Newmeyer > Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Andy, > > This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a > myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced > our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from > my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in > numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon > (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so > on). > > But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds > of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. > There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring > archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of > historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' > contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between > linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the > contributions are perhaps more variable. > > Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss > (though see my obituary of L-S here: > http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me > than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the > in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' > of each language). > > I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward > Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly > reminded me of his valuable contributions. > > -- Dan > > > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > Dear Fritz > > > >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several > kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been > influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, > population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, > among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, > (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after > the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic > evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word > lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and > Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern > times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like > Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all > give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. > Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest > in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in > historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and > lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of > prehistoric communities. > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and > historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of > Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). > Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some > eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to > comment on close parallels between the family models of historical > linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically > do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often > without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular > language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do > this on a grand scale. > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other > disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and > are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes > stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in > cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in > lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary > interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast > literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals > is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and > fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts > such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages > and societies. > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger > Keesing, among other anthropologists. > > Regards > > Andy Pawley > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > To: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > John, > > You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one > of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a > generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, > given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys > so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't > say more, since the article has not been published yet. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe > something > > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked > to > > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative > > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide > legitimacy to > > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't > necessarily > > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply > assumed > > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, > (2) > > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied > > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting alex gross : > > > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. > >> > >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! > >> > >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" > >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > linguists." > >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative > >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields > >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work > was > >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first > >> came out fifteen years ago at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm > >> > >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book > "The > >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. > >> > >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, > can > >> be found at: > >> > >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm > >> > >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers > and > >> gained the > >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative > movement. > >> > >> Very best to everyone! > >> > >> alex > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Lise Menn" > >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM > >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >> > >> > >>> Fritz: > >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing > >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and > >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. > >>> > >>> Lise Menn > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Today's Topics: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) > >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics > >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) > >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) > >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. > Payne) > >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Andrew Pawley > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" > > Hi, Andrew, > > We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted 'Long > Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in order to > find me). > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical > linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else > wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and > they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, > conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann > pieces that were cited a day or two ago. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > Dear Fritz > > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? > > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? > > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? > > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose > languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and > have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular > science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in > > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and dictionaries, > (iii) work on lexical semantics. > > > > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after > the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the > Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between > > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful > evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE > > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, Kirch > and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, > members of other historical disciplines have little interest > > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about > in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture > and environment of prehistoric communities. > > > > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other > regions (though in few places do the stories told by > > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning > the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European > languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close > parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do their > sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades > with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > > > > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most > enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, > > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as > works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar > writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > > generalisations, which brings me to > > > > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? > especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of > cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas > about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his > associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and > societies.? > > > > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? > > > > Regards > > > > Andy Pawley > > > > _______ > > > John, > > > > > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > > > commentary to a separate survey article. > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > > > Fraser University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > > > generated, I'd > > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > > > people in > > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > > > article is this? > > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > > > the article or > > > >is it your own idea? > > > >Best wishes, > > > >John > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------- > > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > > University> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 > From: Martin Haspelmath > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz > To: Funknet > Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed > > To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, > one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last > 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and > quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. > > Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and > dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts > and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a > later stage. > > Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least > in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of > Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). > > While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with > long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the > conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also > recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out > about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the > Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that > generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, > probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical > linguistics outside of our field.) > > Greetings, > Martin > > Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: > > Hi, Andrew, > > > > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that > > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other > > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the > > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream > > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, > > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were > > cited a day or two ago. > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: > > > >> Dear Fritz > >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > >> > >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world > >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island > >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by > >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, > >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of > >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in > >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and > >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. > >> > >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially > >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative > >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the > >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between > >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful > >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE > >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, > >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give > >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. > >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little > >> interest > >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care > >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns > >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the > >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. > >> > >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of > >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by > >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those > >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across > >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of > >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western > >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close > >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics > >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do > >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and > >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic > >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza > >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. > >> > >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the > >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, > >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as > >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in > >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in > >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic > >> generalisations, which brings me to > >> > >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, > >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen > >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of > >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists > >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s > >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work > >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his > >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana > >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and > >> societies. > >> > >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural > >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and > >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Andy Pawley > >> > >> _______ > >> > John, > >> > > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary > >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of > >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the > >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My > >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the > >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the > >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around > >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. > >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my > >> > commentary to a separate survey article. > >> > > >> > --fritz > >> > > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics > >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other > >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among > >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. > >> > > >> > > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon > >> > Fraser University > >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> > > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has > >> > generated, I'd > >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from > >> > people in > >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey > >> > article is this? > >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write > >> > the article or > >> > >is it your own idea? > >> > >Best wishes, > >> > >John > >> > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 > *************************************** > From amnfn at well.com Mon Oct 25 22:39:50 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:39:50 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101025204445.dcs9hsq99wc0owc0@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: I am referring to humans who were not exposed to language and therefore grew up feral, and to other humans who have intact brains but underdeveloped social skills, and who therefore remain non-verbal, despite normal exposure to language. I am also referring to indivduals who experienced sensory deprivation during the early years, and behaved like feral children, until a different way to expose them to language was found. People like Helen Keller. I am not referring to "whole populations." I am talking about individuals and the environmental effect on them of exposure to language. Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is innate. Language is not. Language is learned. --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Language-is-Learned On Mon, 25 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > "A. Katz" wrote: > > (...) I don't >> think that we can predict language acquisition ability solely or even >> primarily on the basis of genetics, as there are many healthy humans >> who do not have comparable results to those of some parrots and >> chimpanzees. > > Can you explain what are you referring to? Have you discovered human > populations without language, or healthy humans that have not succeed > acquiring language? > Best regards: > Jos?-Luis Mend?vil > > > -- > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > From dan at daneverett.org Tue Oct 26 00:02:31 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:02:31 -0400 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism Message-ID: I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations would develop different genotypes over time. It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a prediction. It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of more general cognitive properties. Dan From elc9j at virginia.edu Tue Oct 26 00:36:10 2010 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:36:10 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC59FA9.1010402@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: As to whether function without structure is utter nonsense, that depends on what you mean by "structure". If the "structure" emerges from a theory that does not take functional motivation into account, then a functionalist can justifiably question its validity. I would also hesitate to describe anything Erica Garc?a said as nonsense. For a meticulously worked out and functionally grounded analysis, check out her last work, the Motivated Syntax of Arbitrary Signs (John Benjamins 2009). [Full disclosure: I'm a co-editor of the book series it appears in.] Ellen On 10/25/2010 11:18 AM, Tom Givon wrote: > One could of course say a few more things in retrospect. Functionalist, > my earlier self included, have been prone to throw the baby out with the > bathwater. That is, to ignore or deny the structural (= formal) > properties of grammar just because Chomsky chose to emphasize them > exclusively. The epitome of this was the late Erica Gracia's exhortation > to "function without structure", a sentiment that continue to haunt many > functionalists' work. The most cursory perusal of the history of > biology, beginning with Aristotle's placing the on firm functionalist (= > adaptive) foundations 2,300 years ago, ought to convince us that this is > utter logical nonsense. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Anthropology Department University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 From bischoff.st at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 01:44:29 2010 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:44:29 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, I guess my comments may need a little clarification, as they may have come across as perhaps a bit flippant judged by a few offline comments. First, I think the Pullum article speaks to the issue fairly well, and duly notes that Chomsky has made major contributions in terms of mathematics. The point that I was attempting to make was that in post-GB Chomskian theory Chomsky has seemed to move away from much of the mathematical clarity of his earlier work. This has lead to, I think, a good deal of confusion, in and outside the field, as to what he is referring to in terms of "computationality" and "algorithms". It has also lead many to refer to Chomsky's use of mathematical terminology as pseudo-mathematical in recent years when referring to his later work. Additionally, my own personal experience suggests that like myself, many trained in the generative tradition, lack an understanding of the formal foundations (i.e. discreet mathematics) to fully understand what they are doing and to better understand the goals of contemporary generative theory in terms of what Chomsky has to say especially in Chomsky 1995 or earlier work. Without the grounding in discreet mathematics linguists must take Chomsky's word for it, and even as good a mathematician as Chomsky is, there were a couple of serious errors in Syntactic Structure, which Pullum notes. Chomsky himself when asked about the issue of "no algorithm" replies: * **"Every approach to the computational system of language -- or of bee navigation, or of ... -- seeks to discover the nature of the computation -- by definition. Another term for "computation" is "algorithm." No final answers are known to nontrivial empirical issues in the sciences, here or elsewhere.*" This doesn't inspire computational scientists that I know, because it is not the kind of answer they expect I think. Again, this isn't a comment on Chomsky's understanding of mathematics, but rather a comment on others' understanding of Chomsky and how mathematics is employed in generative linguistics. In terms of my comments regarding OT...of the half-dozen or so OT practitioners I knew in 2005 all have abandoned OT (most before tenure). Some of which had done major work in the area., and are quite bitter now. All have given me the impression that OT is waning. Also, there have been papers published by computational linguists who have implemented OT grammars proposed by others that have shown serious problems in the original work and demonstrated that the human mind can not keep track of all the variables and relevant data required for such grammars. Again, my comments were not meant as flippant., and I am quite certain the Chomsky knows what he is talking about. Rather, I think that (1) Chomsky's own lack of mathematical clarity in recent years (especially in Chomsky 1995) has lead to a lot of criticism and misunderstanding inside and outside the field, and (2) that many students are not getting training in the formal foundations that the generative program has it roots in, and thus many younger linguists (perhaps some older) don't really understand what it is they are doing at a fundamental level. I think Pullum has attempted to speak to these issues in the past as has Lauri Karttunen in different ways. Cheers, Shannon On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added the > papers on my website at > > Pullam 2009 > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf > > Ritter 2005 > http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf > > As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic > principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in > inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the 1995 > flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic > mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and > nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. > > One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is believing > that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more > traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various sections > on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon that > gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there is > no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). Several > computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach was of > interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they found > the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. > > Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are > nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it is > just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just make > up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has gone by > the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. > > Cheers, > Shannon > > > On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >> 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) >> 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) >> 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >> 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) >> 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >> 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >> >> John, >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, and >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been true >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to >> the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey >> article. >> >> --fritz >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to linguistics >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has generated, >> I'd >> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article is >> this? >> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article or >> > is it your own idea? >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> Fritz, >> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >> obviously >> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >> (the >> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? >> Have >> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> contradicting the premise of the article? >> >> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >> enjoyed >> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a >> little >> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while >> there >> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the Chomskyan >> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I think, >> that >> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >> admiration >> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was a >> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >> sciences >> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >> latest >> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I think >> that >> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain sense >> a >> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> >> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >> linguistics >> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not be >> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >> either >> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of affairs, >> or >> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance of >> their >> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >> which >> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> Best wishes, >> John >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target >> > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and >> > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >> true >> > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics >> > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. >> And >> > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >> linguistics >> > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >> sciences, >> > and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, >> > I'd >> > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >> is >> > this? >> > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article >> > or >> > > is it your own idea? >> > > Best wishes, >> > > John >> > > >> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 >> From: Tom Givon >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , >> "Bickerton, Derek" >> Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> >> Dear John, >> >> First, Shannon is a he, not a she. >> >> Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about >> linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with >> Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). >> >> Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY >> Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are >> explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. >> >> One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose >> of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a >> well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the following >> quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for >> being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated >> discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians >> gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most >> psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him >> totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they are >> reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who >> was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The >> entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his >> tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him >> was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational >> types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This >> has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. The >> best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) >> altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef >> Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had >> some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). >> >> All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. And >> it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing >> "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and >> disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from >> my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines >> (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, >> primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some >> substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' >> side of the field either. >> >> Best, TG >> >> ========================= >> >> john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > Fritz, >> > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >> > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >> obviously >> > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >> (the >> > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her references >> > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other sources? >> Have >> > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >> > contradicting the premise of the article? >> > >> > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >> enjoyed >> > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date a >> little >> > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a while >> there >> > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >> Chomskyan >> > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >> think, that >> > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >> admiration >> > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there was >> a >> > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >> > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >> sciences >> > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >> latest >> > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or else >> > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >> think that >> > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >> sense a >> > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >> > >> > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >> linguistics >> > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not >> be >> > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >> either >> > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >> affairs, or >> > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance >> of their >> > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >> > explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >> which >> > aren't consistent with what's really going on. >> > Best wishes, >> > John >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >> > >> > >> >> John, >> >> >> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >> target >> >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >> >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >> and >> >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >> true >> >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >> the >> >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >> linguistics >> >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the List. >> And >> >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> >> >> --fritz >> >> >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >> >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >> linguistics >> >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >> sciences, >> >> and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> generated, >> >>> >> >> I'd >> >> >> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from people >> in >> >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >> is >> >>> >> >> this? >> >> >> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >> article >> >>> >> >> or >> >> >> >>> is it your own idea? >> >>> Best wishes, >> >>> John >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> University >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 >> From: Lise Menn >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >> >> Fritz: >> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics >> and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >> Lise Menn >> > >> >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> >> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> >> Payne) >> >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 >> From: Andrew Pawley >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Message-ID: >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> Dear Fritz >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world whose >> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, several >> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, >> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, >> among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, >> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after the >> three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic evidence >> dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists >> showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy >> provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times the >> syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, >> Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give great >> weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, members >> of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points of >> theories of language change.? What they care about in historical linguistics >> is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions >> that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >> Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a >> place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was among >> the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of >> historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists >> today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and >> subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular >> genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other >> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and >> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes >> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in >> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast >> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals >> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and >> fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key concepts >> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages >> and societies.? >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger >> Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> Regards >> Andy Pawley >> _______ >> > John, >> > >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > Fraser University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > generated, I'd >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > people in >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > article is this? >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > the article or >> > >is it your own idea? >> > >Best wishes, >> > >John >> > > >> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > -------- >> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > University> >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 >> From: "alex gross" >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> >> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >> reply-type=response >> >> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and linguists." >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book "The >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> be found at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers >> and >> gained the >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Lise Menn" >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> Cc: >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> > Fritz: >> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > >> > Lise Menn >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Today's Topics: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: alex gross >> Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, >> Frederick J Newmeyer >> Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 >> >> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >> something >> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked >> to >> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >> legitimacy to >> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >> necessarily >> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >> assumed >> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating anything, >> (2) >> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting alex gross : >> >> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > > linguists. >> > >> > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> > >> > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists." >> > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> > came out fifteen years ago at: >> > >> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> > >> > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >> "The >> > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> > >> > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> > be found at: >> > >> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> > >> > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's producers >> and >> > gained the >> > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> > >> > Very best to everyone! >> > >> > alex >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Lise Menn" >> > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> > Cc: >> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> > >> > >> > > Fritz: >> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing >> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> > > >> > > Lise Menn >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> Today's Topics: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 >> From: Daniel Everett >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Andrew Pawley >> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, >> Frederick J Newmeyer >> Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> Andy, >> >> This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a >> myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow advanced >> our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, from >> my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, propagated in >> numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' phenomenon >> (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and so >> on). >> >> But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the kinds >> of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my experience. >> There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and enduring >> archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of >> historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' >> contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions between >> linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here the >> contributions are perhaps more variable. >> >> Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss >> (though see my obituary of L-S here: >> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me >> than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics being the >> in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the 'genius' >> of each language). >> >> I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward >> Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly >> reminded me of his valuable contributions. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >> > Dear Fritz >> > >> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, >> several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, >> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared Diamond, >> among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical linguistics, >> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially after >> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >> evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. Word >> lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >> Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern >> times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like >> Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all >> give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care about in >> historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and >> lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment of >> prehistoric communities. >> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the Pacific). >> Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some >> eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to >> comment on close parallels between the family models of historical >> linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically >> do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try (often >> without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with particular >> language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying to do >> this on a grand scale. >> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other >> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference and >> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and sometimes >> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest in >> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The vast >> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term universals >> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and >> fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key concepts >> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages >> and societies. >> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and Roger >> Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> > Regards >> > Andy Pawley >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 9 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >> >> John, >> >> You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am one >> of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a >> generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, >> given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it enjoys >> so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I shouldn't >> say more, since the article has not been published yet. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >> something >> > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was asked >> to >> > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >> > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >> legitimacy to >> > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >> necessarily >> > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >> assumed >> > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >> anything, (2) >> > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >> > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >> > John >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting alex gross : >> > >> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The Writing >> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> >>> linguists. >> >> >> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >> >> >> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >> >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> linguists." >> >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >> >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >> >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >> was >> >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >> >> came out fifteen years ago at: >> >> >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >> >> >> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >> "The >> >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >> >> >> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >> can >> >> be found at: >> >> >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >> >> >> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >> producers and >> >> gained the >> >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >> movement. >> >> >> >> Very best to everyone! >> >> >> >> alex >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Lise Menn" >> >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >> >> Cc: >> >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >> >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >> >> >> >> >>> Fritz: >> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >> Writing >> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >> >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >> >>> >> >>> Lise Menn >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Today's Topics: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >> >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >> >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >> >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >> >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >> Payne) >> >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> > >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 10 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Andrew Pawley >> Cc: Funknet >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" >> >> Hi, Andrew, >> >> We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted >> 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in >> order to find me). >> >> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical >> linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody else >> wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and >> they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, >> conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann >> pieces that were cited a day or two ago. >> >> --fritz >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> >> > Dear Fritz >> > >> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > >> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and >> have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of popular >> science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >> > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> > >> > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after >> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >> > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >> > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, >> members of other historical disciplines have little interest >> > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care about >> in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> > >> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >> regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning >> the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European >> languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >> > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades >> with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> > >> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >> > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in grammar >> writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> > generalisations, which brings me to >> > >> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas >> about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> societies.? >> > >> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > Andy Pawley >> > >> > _______ >> > > John, >> > > >> > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> > > commentary to a separate survey article. >> > > >> > > --fritz >> > > >> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> > > >> > > >> > > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> > > Fraser University >> > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > > >> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> > > >> > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> > > generated, I'd >> > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> > > people in >> > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> > > article is this? >> > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> > > the article or >> > > >is it your own idea? >> > > >Best wishes, >> > > >John >> > > > >> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -------- >> > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >> > > University> >> > > >> > >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 11 >> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 >> From: Martin Haspelmath >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >> To: Funknet >> Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed >> >> To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, >> one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last >> 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and >> quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. >> >> Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and >> dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) texts >> and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a >> later stage. >> >> Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least >> in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of >> Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). >> >> While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with >> long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the >> conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also >> recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out >> about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the >> Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that >> generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, >> probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical >> linguistics outside of our field.) >> >> Greetings, >> Martin >> >> Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >> > Hi, Andrew, >> > >> > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >> > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >> > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >> > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >> > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, Eurocentric, >> > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >> > cited a day or two ago. >> > >> > --fritz >> > >> > >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >> > University >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> > >> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Fritz >> >> >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> >> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >> >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >> >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >> >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >> >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >> >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in >> >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >> >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >> >> >> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >> >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >> >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >> >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >> >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >> >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >> >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >> >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >> >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >> >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >> >> interest >> >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >> >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >> >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >> >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >> >> >> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >> >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >> >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >> >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >> >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >> >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in >> Western >> >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on close >> >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >> >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >> >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >> >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >> >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >> >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >> >> >> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >> >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >> >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >> >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >> >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >> >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >> >> generalisations, which brings me to >> >> >> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >> >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >> >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >> >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >> >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >> >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >> >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >> >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >> >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >> >> societies. >> >> >> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >> >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >> >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Andy Pawley >> >> >> >> _______ >> >> > John, >> >> > >> >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >> >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >> >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >> >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >> >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >> >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >> >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >> >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >> >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >> >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >> >> > >> >> > --fritz >> >> > >> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >> >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >> >> > Fraser University >> >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >> >> > generated, I'd >> >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >> >> > people in >> >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >> >> > article is this? >> >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >> >> > the article or >> >> > >is it your own idea? >> >> > >Best wishes, >> >> > >John >> >> >> >> >> >> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 >> *************************************** >> > > From mark at polymathix.com Tue Oct 26 03:59:56 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:59:56 -0500 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: s.t. bischoff wrote: > > [some stuff snipped] > > > Chomsky himself when asked about the issue of "no algorithm" replies: > * > **"Every approach to the computational system of language -- or of bee > navigation, or of ... -- seeks to discover the nature of the computation > -- > by definition. Another term for "computation" is "algorithm." No final > answers are known to nontrivial empirical issues in the sciences, here or > elsewhere.*" > > This doesn't inspire computational scientists that I know, because it is > not the kind of answer they expect I think. Again, this isn't a comment on > Chomsky's understanding of mathematics, but rather a comment on others' > understanding of Chomsky and how mathematics is employed in generative > linguistics. Well, one reason they're not inspired might be that in computer science, "algorithm" is in no way another term for "computation". If a mere mortal had made this statement, any computer scientist would send that person back to CompSci 101. So what I assume is going on here is that some computer scientists or computational linguists criticized one of Chomsky's formalisms either because Chomsky didn't provide any algorithms for processing it or because the critics determined that algorithmic processing is impossible. Either way, Chomsky's answer here would then be that "algorithm" is really just "computation", and as long as you're working with the formalism and computing something, well, then, _sure_ there's an algorithm. > [some other stuff snipped] -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM, s.t. bischoff > wrote: > >> Sorry all...I didn't realize attachments can't go through. I've added >> the >> papers on my website at >> >> Pullam 2009 >> http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/Pullum_EACL2009.pdf >> >> Ritter 2005 >> http://users.ipfw.edu/bischofs/ling/linguisticreview2005.pdf >> >> As a trained Chomskian linguist, I was devastate to learn that basic >> principles of mathematics, set theory for example, where flouted in >> inconsistent ways in order that the "theory work". Minimalism of the >> 1995 >> flavor was quickly abandoned because of the egregious flouting of basic >> mathematical axioms. By 1998 Chomsky was writing about phase theory and >> nobody was referring to "last effort" or "greed" any longer. >> >> One of the traps that many, in and out of the field, fall into is >> believing >> that the pseudo-mathematical jargon is "real" in terms of the more >> traditional usage in mathematics. In Chomsky 1995 you have various >> sections >> on the "Computational Component" and a use of pseudo-mathematic jargon >> that >> gives the impression of real computational science happening...but there >> is >> no "algorithm" what-so-ever (certainly not in the sense of Knuth). >> Several >> computer scientists I have worked with thought the Chomskian approach >> was of >> interest because of the jargon, but quickly avoided it because they >> found >> the jargon inconsistent with their training in mathematics. >> >> Many of my colleagues to this day have no idea what "trees" actually are >> nor what it means in terms of generative grammar to be drawing them...it >> is >> just something they were trained to do...and if it doesn't work...just >> make >> up a parameter. It seems very problematic. It is curious that OT has >> gone by >> the wayside for such reasons but Minimalism is alive and well. >> >> Cheers, >> Shannon >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 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. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 2. Re: A question for Fritz (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >>> 3. Re: A question for Fritz (Tom Givon) >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Lise Menn) >>> 5. Re: A question for Fritz (Andrew Pawley) >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (alex gross) >>> 7. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (john at research.haifa.ac.il) >>> 8. Re: A question for Fritz (Daniel Everett) >>> 9. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 10. Re: A question for Fritz (Frederick J Newmeyer) >>> 11. Re: A question for Fritz (Martin Haspelmath) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:40:18 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >>> >>> John, >>> >>> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >>> target article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics >>> enjoys >>> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and >>> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question >>> to >>> the List. And then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate >>> survey >>> article. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> and cognitive sciences. >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> I'd >>> > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey article >>> is >>> this? >>> > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article or >>> > is it your own idea? >>> > Best wishes, >>> > John >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:51:31 +0200 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: <1287859891.4cc32eb33a6fe at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >>> >>> Fritz, >>> Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you don't >>> agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >>> obviously >>> haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from funknet >>> (the >>> only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her >>> references >>> were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other >>> sources? >>> Have >>> you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >>> contradicting the premise of the article? >>> >>> I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >>> enjoyed >>> great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the date >>> a >>> little >>> later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a >>> while >>> there >>> was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >>> Chomskyan >>> paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >>> think, >>> that >>> whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >>> admiration >>> for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there >>> was a >>> general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and that >>> linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >>> sciences >>> (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >>> latest >>> the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or >>> else >>> managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >>> think >>> that >>> even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >>> sense >>> a >>> continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >>> >>> What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >>> linguistics >>> a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply not >>> be >>> applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to be >>> either >>> not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >>> affairs, >>> or >>> not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general importance >>> of >>> their >>> program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the only >>> explanation for people like the author of this articles making premises >>> which >>> aren't consistent with what's really going on. >>> Best wishes, >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >>> >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on a >>> target >>> > article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> > 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social sciences, >>> and >>> > cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> > since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics >>> > really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the >>> List. >>> And >>> > then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics with >>> > generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> > enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> > and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > > Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> > I'd >>> > > like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> > > theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> article >>> is >>> > this? >>> > > Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article >>> > or >>> > > is it your own idea? >>> > > Best wishes, >>> > > John >>> > > >>> > > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:52:01 -0600 >>> From: Tom Givon >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il, Funknet , >>> "Bickerton, Derek" >>> Message-ID: <4CC33CE1.8030107 at uoregon.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>> >>> >>> Dear John, >>> >>> First, Shannon is a he, not a she. >>> >>> Second, I checked the first three refs he gave, nothing there about >>> linguistics, tho Murray Gell-Man claims to be doing joint work with >>> Mwerritt Ruhlen (I know their work). >>> >>> Third, I did give Fritz the ref. of Frans de Waal's article in the NY >>> Times (and On The Human), in which "some linguists" (= Chomsky) are >>> explicitly criticized for their anti-evolutionary perspective. >>> >>> One could of course go on, tho I must confess I find the stated purpose >>> of Fritz's endeavor somewhat baffling. In 1992 Walter Kintch, a >>> well-known psycho-linguist, wrote an article with roughly the >>> following >>> quote "so now finally we discover that grammar does have a reason for >>> being there". This is after reading my work on grammar as an automated >>> discourse processor. The clear inference was "until now the Chomskians >>> gave us a formal device with no cognitive function whatever". Most >>> psycho-linguists know only of Chomsky, and tho they have found him >>> totally useless ("makes no behavioral/empirical predictions"), they >>> are >>> reluctant to criticize him in print. What happened to Roger Schank (who >>> was neither a psychologist nor a linguist) was a sharp caution. The >>> entire Generative propaganda machinery went after him, crunched his >>> tail, his poor ego never recovered. The reason they bothered with him >>> was that at the time Cog. Sci. was still dominated by computational >>> types, and Roger, a computer guy, was perceived as a real threat. This >>> has radically changed now, with neuro-science dominating the agenda. >>> The >>> best practitioners there either ignore Generativism (= minimalism) >>> altogether, or (as in the case of Angela Friederici, via Yosef >>> Grodzionsky) go back to the Aspects (1965) model, the last one that had >>> some concrete foundations (constructions, morphology). >>> >>> All in all, it is a complex picture with lots of convoluted history. >>> And >>> it is not ameliorated by self-proclaimed functionalists developing >>> "purely linguistic" descriptive models that are "a-theoretical" and >>> disclaim interest in explanation (and are really pure formalisms, from >>> my humble perspective). All this means is that the allied disciplines >>> (cognitive neuro-science, evolutionary anthropology/psychology, >>> primatology, developmental psychology), who desperately need some >>> substantive/empirical input from linguistics, don't get it from 'our' >>> side of the field either. >>> >>> Best, TG >>> >>> ========================= >>> >>> john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > Fritz, >>> > Hmm. So you seem to be in a difficult position, that is, that you >>> don't >>> > agree with the premise but you are perhaps expected to agree? You >>> obviously >>> > haven't had too much luck getting support for the premise from >>> funknet >>> (the >>> > only person who gave you anything was Shannon and none of her >>> references >>> > were about generative grammar)--have you gotten much from other >>> sources? >>> Have >>> > you considered simply going with your immediate reaction, that is, >>> > contradicting the premise of the article? >>> > >>> > I would generally agree with your assessment that linguistics hasn't >>> enjoyed >>> > great prestige in the US for a while, but I think I might put the >>> date a >>> little >>> > later, maybe the mid-to-late-70s. I have the impression that for a >>> while >>> there >>> > was a lot of hope and expectation in other disciplines that the >>> Chomskyan >>> > paradigm would lead to much more than it has. Another factor is, I >>> think, that >>> > whereas during the days of structural linguistics there was a lot of >>> admiration >>> > for linguistics in the other social sciences in the sense that there >>> was >>> a >>> > general feeling that social sciences should be more scientific and >>> that >>> > linguistics was doing a much better job of this than the other social >>> sciences >>> > (with the possible exception of economics), by the early 1980s at the >>> latest >>> > the other social sciences either gave up trying to be scientific or >>> else >>> > managed to do it in ways not modeled on linguistics. In that sense I >>> think that >>> > even the early prestige of the generative paradigm was in a certain >>> sense a >>> > continuation of the earlier admiration for structural linguistics. >>> > >>> > What seems to have happened is that the methodology for scientific >>> linguistics >>> > a la structuralism and generative grammar has turned out to simply >>> not >>> be >>> > applicable to other disciplines. But generative grammarians seem to >>> be >>> either >>> > not aware of this, or to assume that this is a temporary state of >>> affairs, or >>> > not to care, and thus to radically overestimate the general >>> importance >>> of their >>> > program to academic research in general. This would seem to be the >>> only >>> > explanation for people like the author of this articles making >>> premises >>> which >>> > aren't consistent with what's really going on. >>> > Best wishes, >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Quoting Frederick J Newmeyer : >>> > >>> > >>> >> John, >>> >> >>> >> That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary on >>> a >>> target >>> >> article whose basic premise is that the field of linguistics enjoys >>> >> 'tremendous prestige' among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> and >>> >> cognitive sciences. My immediate reaction was that such has not been >>> true >>> >> since the 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from >>> the >>> >> premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around whether >>> linguistics >>> >> really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. Hence my question to the >>> List. >>> And >>> >> then I decided to expand my commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >> >>> >> --fritz >>> >> >>> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> with >>> >> generative grammar, though I am not aware of other approaches to >>> linguistics >>> >> enjoying tremendous prestige among those in the humanities, social >>> sciences, >>> >> and cognitive sciences. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> generated, >>> >>> >>> >> I'd >>> >> >>> >>> like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> people >>> in >>> >>> theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> article >>> is >>> >>> >>> >> this? >>> >> >>> >>> Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write the >>> article >>> >>> >>> >> or >>> >> >>> >>> is it your own idea? >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 4 >>> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:23:42 -0600 >>> From: Lise Menn >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Message-ID: <41B4B434-203F-4670-8939-6B8AF8778068 at colorado.edu> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes >>> >>> Fritz: >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics >>> and linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> Lise Menn >>> > >>> >> >>> >> Today's Topics: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> >> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> >> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> >> Payne) >>> >> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig Hancock) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 5 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:30 +1100 >>> From: Andrew Pawley >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Message-ID: >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >>> >>> Dear Fritz >>> >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >>> whose >>> languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE Asia, >>> several >>> kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have been >>> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural >>> anthropologists, >>> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared >>> Diamond, >>> among others.? I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical >>> linguistics, >>> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially after >>> the >>> three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >>> evidence >>> dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific.? Word lists >>> showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >>> Malagasy >>> provided the most powerful evidence then available.? In modern times >>> the >>> syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like >>> Bellwood, >>> Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> great >>> weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. Unsurprisingly, >>> members >>> of other historical disciplines have little interest in the fine points >>> of >>> theories of language change.? What they care about in historical >>> linguistics >>> is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, and lexical >>> reconstructions >>> that throw light on the culture and environment of prehistoric >>> communities. >>> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >>> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >>> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >>> Pacific).? Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds >>> a >>> place of some eminence in Western intellectual history.? Darwin was >>> among >>> the first to comment on close parallels between the family models of >>> historical linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists >>> today typically do their sampling in terms of language families and >>> subgroups and try (often without much success) to correlate particular >>> genetic clades with particular language groups. We have seen >>> Cavalli-Sforza >>> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, scholars in other >>> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference >>> and >>> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and >>> sometimes >>> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >>> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >>> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest >>> in >>> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >>> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The >>> vast >>> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term >>> universals >>> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora >>> and >>> fauna by Berlin and his associates.? In social anthropology key >>> concepts >>> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island >>> languages >>> and societies.? >>> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger >>> Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >>> Regards >>> Andy Pawley >>> _______ >>> > John, >>> > >>> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > Fraser University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > >>> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > generated, I'd >>> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > people in >>> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > article is this? >>> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > the article or >>> > >is it your own idea? >>> > >Best wishes, >>> > >John >>> > > >>> > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > -------- >>> > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> > University> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 6 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:06:47 -0400 >>> From: "alex gross" >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: "Lise Menn" , "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Message-ID: <33295EBD4D8844379F2732D614A995EB at aa82807a474cf4> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; >>> reply-type=response >>> >>> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > linguists. >>> >>> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >>> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human Language" >>> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of generative >>> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other fields >>> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important work >>> was >>> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it first >>> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >>> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >>> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's film, >>> can >>> be found at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >>> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers >>> and >>> gained the >>> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> >>> Very best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Lise Menn" >>> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> Cc: >>> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> >>> > Fritz: >>> > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> > >>> > Lise Menn >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri Tambovtsev) >>> >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. Line) >>> >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 7 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:44:46 +0200 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: alex gross >>> Cc: Lise Menn , funknet at mailman.rice.edu, >>> Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Message-ID: <1287906286.4cc3e3eed1cea at webmail.haifa.ac.il> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 >>> >>> My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >>> something >>> like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was >>> asked >>> to >>> comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for generative >>> linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >>> legitimacy to >>> it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >>> necessarily >>> see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article simply >>> assumed >>> the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >>> anything, >>> (2) >>> linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >>> disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting alex gross : >>> >>> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > > linguists. >>> > >>> > Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> > >>> > It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human >>> Language" >>> > presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> > This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of >>> generative >>> > theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other >>> fields >>> > into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important >>> work >>> was >>> > being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it >>> first >>> > came out fifteen years ago at: >>> > >>> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> > >>> > where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> > Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> > >>> > My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's >>> film, >>> can >>> > be found at: >>> > >>> > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> > >>> > While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers >>> and >>> > gained the >>> > impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> > >>> > Very best to everyone! >>> > >>> > alex >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: "Lise Menn" >>> > To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> > Cc: >>> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> > >>> > >>> > > Fritz: >>> > > The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> > > Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> > > linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> > > >>> > > Lise Menn >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Today's Topics: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> > >>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri >>> Tambovtsev) >>> > >>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> > >>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> > >>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. >>> Line) >>> > >>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> > >>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 8 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:52:40 -0400 >>> From: Daniel Everett >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Andrew Pawley >>> Cc: Funknet , john at research.haifa.ac.il, >>> Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Message-ID: <073E27B4-B0A4-4F3B-A018-55668EA8540F at daneverett.org> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >>> >>> Andy, >>> >>> This seems right on from my perspective. I think that there is still a >>> myth, taking a long time to die, that generative grammar somehow >>> advanced >>> our knowledge of the mind. That is an exciting idea, so its popularity, >>> from >>> my experience, is strongest among those who believe that myth, >>> propagated in >>> numerous popular books, leading to the 'plethora of instincts' >>> phenomenon >>> (music instinct, language instinct, art instinct, faith instinct, and >>> so >>> on). >>> >>> But among people from anthropology, sociology, and other fields, the >>> kinds >>> of contributions you mention are most respected, again in my >>> experience. >>> There are no more enduring works than grammars, dictionaries, and >>> enduring >>> archives of sounds, visual culture, and so on. These plus the best of >>> historical research are always going to be at the top of linguistics' >>> contributions to world knowledge. It is possible that interactions >>> between >>> linguists and computer scientists are of similar importance. But here >>> the >>> contributions are perhaps more variable. >>> >>> Structural linguistics, especially as seen in the work of Levi-Strauss >>> (though see my obituary of L-S here: >>> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1881) was less impressive to me >>> than the descriptive linguistics of Sapir (descriptive linguistics >>> being the >>> in-depth accounting, using structural linguistics perhaps, of the >>> 'genius' >>> of each language). >>> >>> I did receive, a very pleasant surprise, a longish letter from Ward >>> Goodenough, to whose work you alluded, a few months ago that indirectly >>> reminded me of his valuable contributions. >>> >>> -- Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24 Oct 2010, at 00:33, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Fritz >>> > >>> >> ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island SE >>> Asia, >>> several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by and have >>> been >>> influential in the thinking of archaeologists, cultural >>> anthropologists, >>> population geneticists, and writers of popular science like Jared >>> Diamond, >>> among others. I?m thinking in particular of (i) historical >>> linguistics, >>> (ii) grammars and dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> > (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >>> after >>> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative linguistic >>> evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the Pacific. >>> Word >>> lists showing close resemblances between Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and >>> Malagasy provided the most powerful evidence then available. In modern >>> times the syntheses of SE Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists >>> like >>> Bellwood, Green, Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, >>> all >>> give great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> interest >>> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >>> about in >>> historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns of diffusion, >>> and >>> lexical reconstructions that throw light on the culture and environment >>> of >>> prehistoric communities. >>> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by archaeologists and >>> historical linguists jibe so well as those concerning the dispersal of >>> Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across Island SE Asia and the >>> Pacific). >>> Work on the history of Indo-European languages surely holds a place of >>> some >>> eminence in Western intellectual history. Darwin was among the first >>> to >>> comment on close parallels between the family models of historical >>> linguistics and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today >>> typically >>> do their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and try >>> (often >>> without much success) to correlate particular genetic clades with >>> particular >>> language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza and his associates trying >>> to do >>> this on a grand scale. >>> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, scholars in other >>> disciplines, and the general public, value these as works of reference >>> and >>> are little concerned with advances in theory that underpin (and >>> sometimes >>> stem from) improvements in grammar writing. But some are interested in >>> cross-linguistic generalisations, which brings me to >>> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen interest >>> in >>> lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of cross-disciplinary >>> interaction between linguists and anthropologists in this domain. The >>> vast >>> literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s ideas about colour term >>> universals >>> is an example, as is the work on universals of folk taxonomies of flora >>> and >>> fauna by Berlin and his associates. In social anthropology key >>> concepts >>> such as mana and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island >>> languages >>> and societies. >>> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> Roger >>> Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> > Regards >>> > Andy Pawley >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 9 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:06:07 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> To: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII >>> >>> John, >>> >>> You are reading much too much diabolical intent into all of this. I am >>> one >>> of a dozen or so commentators on a target article that will appear in a >>> generative-oriented journal. The authors set out to try to explain why, >>> given that (generative) linguistics is so abstract and 'asocial', it >>> enjoys >>> so much prestige in related academic disciplines. That's all. I >>> shouldn't >>> say more, since the article has not been published yet. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >>> > My question to Fritz had in the background the feeling that maybe >>> something >>> > like this might be going on in the case of the article that he was >>> asked >>> to >>> > comment on--that is, that it is some sort of ad campaign for >>> generative >>> > linguistics and Fritz was recruited as someone who might provide >>> legitimacy to >>> > it (presumably without the inviter being aware that Fritz didn't >>> necessarily >>> > see things the same way). This would explain why (1) the article >>> simply >>> assumed >>> > the great contribution of linguistics rather than demonstrating >>> anything, (2) >>> > linguistics was equated with generative linguistics, and (3) applied >>> > disciplines were ruled out as irrelevant. >>> > John >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Quoting alex gross : >>> > >>> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> >>> linguists. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, Lise! And best wishes to you, Fritz! >>> >> >>> >> It is scarcely surprising that Gene Searchinger's "The Human >>> Language" >>> >> presents "quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> linguists." >>> >> This film was never anything but an in-house endorsement of >>> generative >>> >> theories, most probably intended to shepherd students from other >>> fields >>> >> into linguistics and to reassure the general public that important >>> work >>> was >>> >> being done. You can read the review I wrote of this film when it >>> first >>> >> came out fifteen years ago at: >>> >> >>> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/emperor.htm >>> >> >>> >> where I also coupled it with a brief review of Stephen Pinker's book >>> "The >>> >> Language Instinct" that appeared around the same time. >>> >> >>> >> My further review of Pinker's book, also mentioning Searchinger's >>> film, >>> can >>> >> be found at: >>> >> >>> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex//bigbird.htm >>> >> >>> >> While writing these reviews I had some contact with the film's >>> producers and >>> >> gained the >>> >> impression that they were full-fledged acolytes of the generative >>> movement. >>> >> >>> >> Very best to everyone! >>> >> >>> >> alex >>> >> >>> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> >> From: "Lise Menn" >>> >> To: "Frederick J Newmeyer" >>> >> Cc: >>> >> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:23 AM >>> >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> Fritz: >>> >>> The Gene Searchinger films sets 'The Human Language' and 'The >>> Writing >>> >>> Code' a\offer quite positive views of the value of linguistics and >>> >>> linguists. And 'The Linguists', of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> Lise Menn >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Today's Topics: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 1. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>>>> 2. The view of mathematicians is quite negative (Yuri >>> Tambovtsev) >>> >>>>> 3. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics >>> >>>>> (Brian MacWhinney) >>> >>>>> 4. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Mark P. >>> Line) >>> >>>>> 5. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Thomas E. >>> Payne) >>> >>>>> 6. Re: Outsiders' views of the value of linguistics (Craig >>> Hancock) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> University >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 10 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:14:26 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: Frederick J Newmeyer >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Andrew Pawley >>> Cc: Funknet >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7"; Format="flowed" >>> >>> Hi, Andrew, >>> >>> We haven't seen each other since around 25 years ago when you shouted >>> 'Long Live Noam Chomsky' in the Auckland airport baggage claim area (in >>> order to find me). >>> >>> I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that historical >>> linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other fields. Everyody >>> else >>> wants long-range comparisons of the Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct >>> and >>> they condemn mainstream historical linguists for being territorial, >>> conservative, Eurocentric, etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and >>> Gell-Mann >>> pieces that were cited a day or two ago. >>> >>> --fritz >>> >>> >>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> University >>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Fritz >>> > >>> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics? >>> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other? >>> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among? >>> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > >>> > -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. ?In the parts of the world >>> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> > SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> and >>> have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> > cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> popular >>> science like Jared Diamond, among others.? I?m thinking in >>> > particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> > >>> > (i) Historical linguistics.? In the 18th century, and especially >>> after >>> the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> > linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of the >>> Pacific.? Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> > Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> evidence then available.? In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> > Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> > great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> Unsurprisingly, >>> members of other historical disciplines have little interest >>> > in the fine points of theories of language change.? What they care >>> about >>> in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> > of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> > >>> > I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> other >>> regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> > archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> concerning >>> the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers across >>> > Island SE Asia and the Pacific).? Work on the history of >>> Indo-European >>> languages surely holds a place of some eminence in Western >>> > intellectual history.? Darwin was among the first to comment on close >>> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> > and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> > try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> clades >>> with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> > and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> > >>> > (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> most >>> enduring legacies of linguistic research.??Of course, >>> > scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these as >>> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> > theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> grammar >>> writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> > generalisations, which brings me to >>> > >>> > (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences,? >>> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> > interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> > in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> ideas >>> about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> > on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and his >>> associates.? In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> > and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> societies.? >>> > >>> > And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> > Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists.?? >>> > >>> > Regards >>> > >>> > Andy Pawley >>> > >>> > _______ >>> > > John, >>> > > >>> > > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> > > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> > > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> > > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> > > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> > > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> > > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> > > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> > > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> > > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> > > >>> > > --fritz >>> > > >>> > > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> > > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> > > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> > > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> > > Fraser University >>> > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > > >>> > > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> > > >>> > > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> > > generated, I'd >>> > > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> > > people in >>> > > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> > > article is this? >>> > > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> > > the article or >>> > > >is it your own idea? >>> > > >Best wishes, >>> > > >John >>> > > > >>> > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > -------- >>> > > >This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa >>> > > University> >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 11 >>> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:52:04 +0200 >>> From: Martin Haspelmath >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] A question for Fritz >>> To: Funknet >>> Message-ID: <4CC46434.6000408 at eva.mpg.de> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-7; format=flowed >>> >>> To Andy Pawley's list of highly regarded achievements of linguistics, >>> one might add the documentation of endangered languages. Over the last >>> 15 years, this has become a very visible activity of linguists, and >>> quite a bit of additional funding has gone into it. >>> >>> Note that this is somewhat different from Andy's "grammars and >>> dictionaries". Documentary linguists mainly collect (and annotate) >>> texts >>> and archive them, leaving description (lexical and grammatical) to a >>> later stage. >>> >>> Also, my sense is that language typology is highly respected, at least >>> in Europe, where it has many practitioners. When the World Atlas of >>> Language Structures went online, even Science reported on it (in 2008). >>> >>> While Fritz is right that nonlinguists tend to sympathize with >>> long-range comparativists and are sometimes frustrated by the >>> conservatism of very traditional historical linguists, they also >>> recognize that linguistic evidence is very valuable for finding out >>> about human population history. "Language and genetics" is one of the >>> Max Planck Society's "research perspectives 2010+". (Note that >>> generative linguistics plays no role in the Max Planck institutes, >>> probably because it doesn't have the same prestige as historical >>> linguistics outside of our field.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Martin >>> >>> Frederick J Newmeyer schrieb: >>> > Hi, Andrew, >>> > >>> > I think that you are mostly right, but there is one way that >>> > historical linguistics is roundly condemned by scholars in other >>> > fields. Everyody else wants long-range comparisons of the >>> > Greenberg/Ruhlen type to be correct and they condemn mainstream >>> > historical linguists for being territorial, conservative, >>> Eurocentric, >>> > etc. etc. Just look at the Renfrew and Gell-Mann pieces that were >>> > cited a day or two ago. >>> > >>> > --fritz >>> > >>> > >>> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser >>> > University >>> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> > >>> > On Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Andrew Pawley wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear Fritz >>> >> >>> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >> >>> >> -- Here I think you're being too gloomy. In the parts of the world >>> >> whose languages I work on, mainly the Pacific Islands and Island >>> >> SE Asia, several kinds of linguistic work are held in high regard by >>> >> and have been influential in the thinking of archaeologists, >>> >> cultural anthropologists, population geneticists, and writers of >>> >> popular science like Jared Diamond, among others. I?m thinking in >>> >> particular of (i) historical linguistics, (ii) grammars and >>> >> dictionaries, (iii) work on lexical semantics. >>> >> >>> >> (i) Historical linguistics. In the 18th century, and especially >>> >> after the three great voyages of Cook 1768 and 1779, comparative >>> >> linguistic evidence dominated theories of the human settlement of >>> the >>> >> Pacific. Word lists showing close resemblances between >>> >> Polynesian, Malay, Tagalog and Malagasy provided the most powerful >>> >> evidence then available. In modern times the syntheses of SE >>> >> Asian and Pacific prehistory by archeologists like Bellwood, Green, >>> >> Kirch and Spriggs, and by popularisers like Diamond, all give >>> >> great weight to the testimony of historical linguistics. >>> >> Unsurprisingly, members of other historical disciplines have little >>> >> interest >>> >> in the fine points of theories of language change. What they care >>> >> about in historical linguistics is mainly family trees, patterns >>> >> of diffusion, and lexical reconstructions that throw light on the >>> >> culture and environment of prehistoric communities. >>> >> >>> >> I dare say quite similar stories could be told about a number of >>> >> other regions (though in few places do the stories told by >>> >> archaeologists and historical linguists jibe so well as those >>> >> concerning the dispersal of Austronesian-speaking sailor-farmers >>> across >>> >> Island SE Asia and the Pacific). Work on the history of >>> >> Indo-European languages surely holds a place of some eminence in >>> Western >>> >> intellectual history. Darwin was among the first to comment on >>> close >>> >> parallels between the family models of historical linguistics >>> >> and evolutionary biology. Population geneticists today typically do >>> >> their sampling in terms of language families and subgroups and >>> >> try (often without much success) to correlate particular genetic >>> >> clades with particular language groups. We have seen Cavalli-Sforza >>> >> and his associates trying to do this on a grand scale. >>> >> >>> >> (ii) Descriptive works. Grammars and dictionaries are probably the >>> >> most enduring legacies of linguistic research. Of course, >>> >> scholars in other disciplines, and the general public, value these >>> as >>> >> works of reference and are little concerned with advances in >>> >> theory that underpin (and sometimes stem from) improvements in >>> >> grammar writing. But some are interested in cross-linguistic >>> >> generalisations, which brings me to >>> >> >>> >> (iii) Lexical semantics. Certain theorists in the social sciences, >>> >> especially in social and cognitive anthropology, have a keen >>> >> interest in lexical semantics and there has been quite a bit of >>> >> cross-disciplinary interaction between linguists and anthropologists >>> >> in this domain. The vast literature stemming from Kay and Berlin?s >>> >> ideas about colour term universals is an example, as is the work >>> >> on universals of folk taxonomies of flora and fauna by Berlin and >>> his >>> >> associates. In social anthropology key concepts such as mana >>> >> and taboo have come from the study of Pacific Island languages and >>> >> societies. >>> >> >>> >> And, at a more general level, think of the influence of structural >>> >> linguistics on the work of Levi-Strauss, Lounsbury, Goodenough and >>> >> Roger Keesing, among other anthropologists. >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> >>> >> Andy Pawley >>> >> >>> >> _______ >>> >> > John, >>> >> > >>> >> > That's a fair enough question. I was asked to provide commentary >>> >> > on a target article whose basic premise is that the field of >>> >> > linguistics enjoys 'tremendous prestige' among those in the >>> >> > humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. My >>> >> > immediate reaction was that such has not been true since the >>> >> > 1960s. Since everything in the target article follows from the >>> >> > premise, I thought that I might wrap my commentary around >>> >> > whether linguistics really does enjoy 'tremendous prestige'. >>> >> > Hence my question to the List. And then I decided to expand my >>> >> > commentary to a separate survey article. >>> >> > >>> >> > --fritz >>> >> > >>> >> > ps: The authors of the target article tacitly equate linguistics >>> >> > with generative grammar, though I am not aware of other >>> >> > approaches to linguistics enjoying tremendous prestige among >>> >> > those in the humanities, social sciences, and cognitive sciences. >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > Frederick J. Newmeyer >>> >> > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>> >> > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon >>> >> > Fraser University >>> >> > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >Particularly in view of the response which Fritz' posting has >>> >> > generated, I'd >>> >> > >like to ask him: Why are you looking particular for quotes from >>> >> > people in >>> >> > >theoretical rather than applied fields? What sort of a survey >>> >> > article is this? >>> >> > >Was this distinction made by the person who asked you to write >>> >> > the article or >>> >> > >is it your own idea? >>> >> > >Best wishes, >>> >> > >John >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 85, Issue 18 >>> *************************************** >>> >> >> > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 05:34:07 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:34:07 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). John Quoting Daniel Everett : > > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > would develop different genotypes over time. > > It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the > current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a > prediction. > > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > more general cognitive properties. > > Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue Oct 26 07:08:23 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:08:23 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <1288071247.4cc6684fb9643@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, I do not know whether it makes to to refer to some kind of Lamarckism in order to account for clicks and ejectives. True, the production of clicks usually involves a specific training of some muscles relevant in articulating these sounds (esp. tongue), but this simply is a matter of language acquisition. By the way, many of us can and do produce clicks, too, embodied in terms of the so-called "para-linguistic usages of clicks" (e.g. [ | | ] (reduplicated in German) in order to (a) make a horse or so moving or (b) to indicate negation (in e.g. Syrian Arabioc, [ non-reduplicated [ | ] would be the usual para-linguistic negator. Sure, certain genetically determined features of 'oral geometry' may favor the production of certain sounds, but we cannot (and probably mus nor) say that this geormetry has developed 'in order to prucde' these specific sounds. Such a claim would turn around the cause/effect relation. As for ejectives: Have a look at WALS (World Atlas of Language Strcutures, feature 7 (written by Ian Maddieson, by the way) to see that ejectives are far from being restricted to "groups living in high altitudes". This simply is a myth. For instance, in one of my field work languages (Udi, East Caucasian), ejectives are a pronounced feature in one of its dialects, whereas it tends to get lost in the other. Both (!) variants are spoken in the plains adjacent to the Southern slopes of the Great Caucasus mountain range, not in 'high altitude' . Some neighboring dialects of Azeri even tend to adopt the ejective articulation (as it is true for some low-land Qumyk dialects in Daghestan). Also note that other languages with ejectives such as Lakohta are spoken (more or less) on the plains, too. Obviously, ejectives have nothing to do with 'high mountains' except for the fact the communicative style 'on the plains' may have caused the loss of the ejective option (!), simply because the ejective feature may be less audible in 'long distance' communication among (say) shepherds or so. Again, this has nothing to do with genetics. Rather, we have to deal with the adoption of an articulatory style that may have developed under specific conditions and that was then handed over to the next generation in terms of language acquisition (learning). As for Dan's comment: > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > would develop different genotypes over time. In my eyes, this is an extremely difficult (and in parts dangerous) claim. First, we should define what is meant by 'culture' (integrating and respecting the actual discussion in the wide field of 'cultural sciences. As far as I can see there is no/communis opinio /concerning the definition of 'culture'). Second, it may have been (and still may be) that certain (alamodistic) preferences in cultural patterns relevant to 'partner selection' develop concerning specific human properties and that these properties will then (slowly) become dominant in a given social group (all this presupposes that these preferences are rather stable over time). It also may have been the case that idiosyncratic human features developed by mutation acquire a 'high value' within a culture and that they may later see a greater distribution because of their relevance for partner selection. But all this has nothing to do with language, not to speak of 'languages (plural). It's not language that is condition by genetics, but by [among others] (a) the ability to link articulatory patterns (that is: patterns of muscle activities etc. used to manipulate the air streaming when breathing) to conceptual 'events' in cognition (in other words:symbolization in its broadest sense) and (b) the ability to turn complex 'event images' into linear sequences (already in cognition). In this sense, you are right when say: > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > more general cognitive properties. But you should perhaps make clear what you mean by "result". For instance, you may say that (a) language is an instantiation of these properties (hence genetic by itself), or that (b) language is nothing but an stabilized emergent event in cognition the properties have nothing to do with the properties of the relevant cognitive 'micro level'. Or, you may say that (c) 'result' means nothing by the application and activation of these properties during knowledge acquisition, with hlanguage being nothing but 'learning how other people make use of these properties in order to produce language'. Personally, I waver between option (b) and (c). Best wishes, Wolfgang . Am 26.10.2010 07:34, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). > John > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Neue Anschrift // New address [!] Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistiky' Fakultahumanitny'ch vied UniverzitaMateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica Tajovske'ho40 SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich 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 Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 08:26:20 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 01:26:20 -0700 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <1288071247.4cc6684fb9643@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John, Dan's point about Phil Lieberman's assertion is a very good one, I think, but I did not take it to be specifically about phonetics. There are people who can't articulate at all, and they can still acquire a language whose normal mode of expression is through articulation. A child born with a damaged larynx has no trouble picking up whatever language is spoken around him or her. If a writing system is available, the child will be just as fluent as anyone at writing that language. In the local population where I live, here in the Ozarks, there are children who can't make a very good "r" sound, but this does not affect their ability to communicate effectively in English. If we compare parrots and chimpanzees, clearly parrots have an advantage in articulating human languages, despite being less closely related to humans genetically than chimpanzees. What really counts as language is not the sounds, but the use of the system of contrasts to express information. So, when I was comparing Alex's achievements with Bow's, I was comparing Bow's use of spelling in English and Hebrew with Alex's use of articulation, but the measure of whether it was language was at a much higher level of encoding and decoding. Overall, there is no evidence that general intelligence, rather than a specific language module in the brain, cannot account for language processing in real time. --Aya On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian Catford, > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us have > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air pressure > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really understand > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had become in > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance running > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high altitudes). > John > > > > > Quoting Daniel Everett : > >> >> I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism >> predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This is >> so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the >> last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random mutations. >> So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that >> prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations >> would develop different genotypes over time. >> >> It is possible that this is correct, but that it is an accident of the >> current population of languages that we haven't seen this yet. But it is a >> prediction. >> >> It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of >> more general cognitive properties. >> >> Dan > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 09:17:25 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:17:25 +0200 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism In-Reply-To: <4CC67E67.1020702@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, I'm not a phonetician and so I'm not in a position to intelligently discuss this issue (are you?). The statements were made by Ian Catford and (IIRC) Peter Ladefoged, two of the most respected phoneticians in the world, I did not fully understand the articulatory and acoustic arguments they were making, and I respect the field of phonetics enough, and sufficiently recognize its intellectual autonomy, to think that it's very likely that phoneticians understand things which not only other people but even other linguists don't really understand. Dan asked a question, I suggested something which he might look at in relation to his question. If he (or anyone) is interested in seriously investigating this, s/he should talk to a phonetician. I should say that I don't recall whether Ian specifically thought that physiological differences were associated with ejectives (this claim was definitely made with regards to the clicks, though). It was more of a statement about the acoustic properties of ejectives which make them easier to pronounce at high altitudes. The basic idea (if I remember and understood more or less correctly) was that pronouncing ejectives requires compressing and then releasing air pressure between the glottis and a more external point of closer, the tricky thing being that the air being released can't be expelled by the lungs because the glottis is closed, and this is easier if the air pressure from outside is weaker, as it is at higher altitudes. The fact that there is not a PERFECT correlation between contemporary altitude and the presence of ejectives does not mean that there is not a correlation which is far greater than chance in several places around the world, and such a correlation suggests to the inquiring and interested mind that there must be SOME explanation, and physiology might be that explanation, whether or not it seems in one way or another dangerous. Why then would there be exceptions? The counterevidence which you offer could have other explanations. The lowland Caucasian languages having ejectives might have originated in the highlands (the Israeli Circassians have been living at sea level for 130 years and still have ejectives). Or the ejectives may have spread to the lowlands as an areal feature. Both highland and lowland Mayan languages have ejectives BUT there is an extremely strong tendency for only the highland languages to have UVULAR ejectives (when I mentioned this to Catford he said that was natural enough given his understanding of why there is a correlation between altitude and ejectives, because it's particularly hard to build up the air pressure necessary to produce an ejective if the second point of closer is the uvula, because of the relative smallness of the air cavity and the general inflexibility of the articulator--that is, if there's one ejective you'll lose first, it'll be the uvular one). Of course anyone can learn to produce some kind of sound APPROXIMATING clicks in Khoisan languages/Zulu/Xhosa, and some of these can be approximated more easily than others. But there is no way that you or I can learn to produce in particular a lateral or retroflex click in exactly the same way as a Zulu speaker, especially in running speech (the bilabial and alveolar ones are easier). Have you actually heard a native speaker pronounce a retroflex click? I remember hearing a recording of Miriam Makeba singing in Xhosa and at first I literally assumed that the retroflex clicks were a wood block or some other musical instrument, they were that loud and clear, it was only when I became a linguist that I realized that she was singing them. If Peter Ladefoged declares himself to be physiologically incapable of pronouncing a certain sound in a remotely native-like way, this suggests to me that we are dealing with someone more than just language acquisition. Incidentally the alveolar click (with lips rounded) meaning negation isn't just in Syrian Arabic, it's found in many places around the Mediterranian (e.g. here in Israel) and at least in Brazil. I agree that claims explaining anything in language in terms of genetic or physiological differences are dangerous and very likely to be wrong. But that doesn't mean that ALL of them are dangerous or wrong. Best wishes, John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear John, > I do not know whether it makes to to refer to some kind of Lamarckism in > order to account for clicks and ejectives. True, the production of > clicks usually involves a specific training of some muscles relevant in > articulating these sounds (esp. tongue), but this simply is a matter of > language acquisition. By the way, many of us can and do produce clicks, > too, embodied in terms of the so-called "para-linguistic usages of > clicks" (e.g. [ | | ] (reduplicated in German) in order to (a) make a > horse or so moving or (b) to indicate negation (in e.g. Syrian Arabioc, > [ non-reduplicated [ | ] would be the usual para-linguistic negator. > Sure, certain genetically determined features of 'oral geometry' may > favor the production of certain sounds, but we cannot (and probably mus > nor) say that this geormetry has developed 'in order to prucde' these > specific sounds. Such a claim would turn around the cause/effect relation. > > As for ejectives: Have a look at WALS (World Atlas of Language > Strcutures, feature 7 (written by Ian Maddieson, by the way) to see that > ejectives are far from being restricted to "groups living in high > altitudes". This simply is a myth. For instance, in one of my field work > languages (Udi, East Caucasian), ejectives are a pronounced feature in > one of its dialects, whereas it tends to get lost in the other. Both (!) > variants are spoken in the plains adjacent to the Southern slopes of the > Great Caucasus mountain range, not in 'high altitude' . Some neighboring > dialects of Azeri even tend to adopt the ejective articulation (as it is > true for some low-land Qumyk dialects in Daghestan). Also note that > other languages with ejectives such as Lakohta are spoken (more or less) > on the plains, too. Obviously, ejectives have nothing to do with 'high > mountains' except for the fact the communicative style 'on the plains' > may have caused the loss of the ejective option (!), simply because the > ejective feature may be less audible in 'long distance' communication > among (say) shepherds or so. Again, this has nothing to do with > genetics. Rather, we have to deal with the adoption of an articulatory > style that may have developed under specific conditions and that was > then handed over to the next generation in terms of language acquisition > (learning). > > As for Dan's comment: > > > I believe that Phil Lieberman was the first to point this out. Nativism > > predicts that some peoples could learn some languages but not others. This > is > > so because we know that cultures can affect genes (even leading within the > > last 5,000 years to new genes) and that there can also be random > mutations. > > So there ought to be some mutation, nativism predicts it in fact, that > > prevents some people from learning some languages. Different populations > > would develop different genotypes over time. > In my eyes, this is an extremely difficult (and in parts dangerous) > claim. First, we should define what is meant by 'culture' (integrating > and respecting the actual discussion in the wide field of 'cultural > sciences. As far as I can see there is no/communis opinio /concerning > the definition of 'culture'). Second, it may have been (and still may > be) that certain (alamodistic) preferences in cultural patterns relevant > to 'partner selection' develop concerning specific human properties and > that these properties will then (slowly) become dominant in a given > social group (all this presupposes that these preferences are rather > stable over time). It also may have been the case that idiosyncratic > human features developed by mutation acquire a 'high value' within a > culture and that they may later see a greater distribution because of > their relevance for partner selection. But all this has nothing to do > with language, not to speak of 'languages (plural). It's not language > that is condition by genetics, but by [among others] (a) the ability to > link articulatory patterns (that is: patterns of muscle activities etc. > used to manipulate the air streaming when breathing) to conceptual > 'events' in cognition (in other words:symbolization in its broadest > sense) and (b) the ability to turn complex 'event images' into linear > sequences (already in cognition). In this sense, you are right when say: > > It is not a prediction, however, of the idea that language is a result of > > more general cognitive properties. > But you should perhaps make clear what you mean by "result". For > instance, you may say that (a) language is an instantiation of these > properties (hence genetic by itself), or that (b) language is nothing > but an stabilized emergent event in cognition the properties have > nothing to do with the properties of the relevant cognitive 'micro > level'. Or, you may say that (c) 'result' means nothing by the > application and activation of these properties during knowledge > acquisition, with hlanguage being nothing but 'learning how other people > make use of these properties in order to produce language'. Personally, > I waver between option (b) and (c). > > Best wishes, > Wolfgang . > > Am 26.10.2010 07:34, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > > You're probably looking for something more complex that this, but I > > remember some phonetician (Ladefoged?) saying that people speaking > > languages with clicks (Khoisan and neighboring Bantu languages like > > Xhosa and Zulu) have some sort of more highly developed musculature > > somewhere in the mouth which makes it possible to pronounce these > > sounds as they do and that other people simply can't do it (I remember > > in particular hearing the retroflex click, which sounds like a wood > > block, and thinking 'how can a human do this?'). I don't know to what > > extent this musculature is developed from a very early age and to what > > extent it's become genetic, I have the recollection that the person > > believed it had become genetic but I'm not sure. I also remember Ian > Catford, > > another phonetician, pointing out the obvious correlation between ejective > > consonants and groups living in high altitudes (which I think a lot of us > have > > noticed but had no explanation for) and explaining it in terms of air > pressure > > (he's done a lot of work on Caucasian languages) but I didn't really > understand > > what he was saying and I don't remember if he was suggesting that had > become in > > any way genetically inbred (the way that features related to distance > running > > may have become genetically inbred in populations living in high > altitudes). > > John > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > /Primary contact: / > > Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen > > Neue Anschrift // New address [!] > > Ludwigstra?e 25 > > D-80539 Mu"nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > /Second contact: / > > KatedraGermanistiky' > > Fakultahumanitny'ch vied > > UniverzitaMateja Be'la / Banska' Bystrica > > Tajovske'ho40 > > SK-97401 Banska' Bystrica > > Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 > > Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 > > Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk > > Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich 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 Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Oct 26 09:40:37 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:40:37 -0400 Subject: A problematic prediction of nativism Message-ID: Hmmm- interesting. Some years ago I noticed, in my oh so widely recognized, accepted, and respected work on sound symbolism, a relatively weak but definitely present tendency for words with clicks to have something to do with moisture content. In the context of the Kalahari, and the well-known dessication of much of Africa in past times, this might be relevant. Bushmen knowing where every errant microdroplet of water is hiding, and how to extract it, and so on. So if ejectives get you altitude, do clicks associate with adaptation to desert life (not talking about wells here). Frank Herbert missed this one. So, what goes with heat and cold?? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From m.norde at rug.nl Tue Oct 26 14:02:50 2010 From: m.norde at rug.nl (Muriel Norde) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:02:50 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Rosalind Franklin Fellowships Message-ID: Dear FUNKNET members, The Faculty of Arts at the University of Groningen has announced four "Rosalind Franklin positions". The deadline for applications is Jan. 7, 2011. These are prestigious and attractive positions offering an unusual amount of freedom in pursuing research. Although the conditions are quite demanding, the positions foresee in decisions for further promotion to reader and to professor. See the web site for details: http://www.rug.nl/let/onderzoek/rff/ Please inform potential, highly qualified young researchers of this opportunity! Ideal candidates are women 5-10 years after the Ph.D. who have already been successful in attracting postdoc funding. Please note that the positions are open to female applicants only. Sincerely, Muriel Norde -- Prof. dr. Muriel Norde Scandinavian Languages and Cultures University of Groningen P.O. Box 716 9700 AS Groningen The Netherlands http://www.murielnorde.com From d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Oct 26 14:14:50 2010 From: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Lesley-Neuman, D.F.) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:14:50 +0200 Subject: Regarding the importance of Linguistics Message-ID: One thing I have found shuffling between formal and functionalist departments is that generative syntacticians have they view that what they do IS linguistics, or, even SYNTAX, and don't know any different themselves. I got a real chuckle out of a formal syntax class at another institution in the States about a year or so back when the instructor said in class that grammaticalization was a new hot topic, that only a very few syntacticians worked in it! When I pointed out that almost everybody who has been doing so generally IS a syntactician, especially those who do language description with historical linguistics, but simply do not work within the same theoretical framework, it was a kind of revelation within that environment. Formal programs consciously repress other views within their programs and do such a complete job of it that even many of their teaching staff don't have an idea of the literature. This is why Shannon (who, by the way guys, is male) has been so persistent on this list to get more information about functionalism. Diane Lesley-Neuman PhD Researcher Leiden University Centre for Linguistics/ Languages and Cultures of Africa Van Wijkplaats 4 Office 103A 2311 BX Leiden The Netherlands Email: d.f.lesley-neuman.2 at hum.leidenuniv.nl Telephone: +31 71 527-1663 From jlmendi at unizar.es Tue Oct 26 15:51:26 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:51:26 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "A. Katz" wrote: > Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that > despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is > innate. Language is not. Language is learned. > Dear Aya (if I may): If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems to be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by Newmeyer's first message): "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something about human children which differentiates them from other species, and this something provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this neutrally as ?the human capacity to acquire language?. In generative linguistics this capacity is traditionally called the ?Language Acquisition Device?, and a characterization of its properties termed ?Universal Grammar? (Chomsky 1965, reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they are shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words exist and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of French ? it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely a general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky?s revival of the term, which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, both ?Language Acquisition Device? and, especially, ?Universal Grammar? arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that such a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term ?Universal Grammar?, even by people who accept without question that a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is specific to language)." T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In Biolinguistics, 3-4: p. 288 Best regards, Jos?-Luis -- Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 16:09:43 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:09:43 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101026175126.ooqam7hjk8s08g8w@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: Hi, Jose-Luis, I seemed to have gotten this message of yours twice, so I take it you really want an answer. Your quote here from Fitch starts: "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for language to develop in most organisms." It's not clear to me. Some parrots do speak the language of the humans around them without special training, and they use it to communicate actual information relevant at the time. So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need to use other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and this sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up literacy by himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams in standard orthography. http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy Best, --Aya On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > "A. Katz" wrote: > > >> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >> > > Dear Aya (if I may): > > If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's > learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People > defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate > capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems to > be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other > capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a > non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by > Newmeyer's first message): > > "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken > language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something > about > human children which differentiates them from other species, and this > something > provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this > neutrally as ?the human capacity to acquire language?. In generative > linguistics > this capacity is traditionally called the ?Language Acquisition Device?, > and a > characterization of its properties termed ?Universal Grammar? (Chomsky > 1965, > reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply > designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they are > shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional > grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words exist > and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of > French > ? it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that > does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. > The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature of > this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely a > general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky?s revival of the term, > which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, both > ?Language Acquisition Device? and, especially, ?Universal Grammar? > arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that such > a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello > 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term > ?Universal Grammar?, even by people who accept without question that a > biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a > uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. The > substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity for > language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of terminology, > but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is specific to > language)." > > T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In > Biolinguistics, > 3-4: p. 288 > > Best regards, > Jos?-Luis > > -- > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > From crm5 at rice.edu Tue Oct 26 16:21:43 2010 From: crm5 at rice.edu (crm5 at rice.edu) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:21:43 -0500 Subject: Rice Working Papers in Linguistics: Second Call for papers Message-ID: SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS The Rice Working Papers in Linguistics is currently soliciting submissions for its third volume (you can see published volumes at http://owling.blogs.rice.edu/rwpl-vol-1/ and http://owling.blogs.rice.edu/rwpl-vol-2/). The deadline is November 15th. Please see the guidelines below and consider submitting your work to rwpl at rice.edu. *** Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 3 Deadline: **November 15th, 2010** The Rice Linguistics Society (RLS) solicits submissions from all subfields of linguistics (with the exception of ESL/TESOL and related areas of applied linguistics) for publication in the Rice Working Papers in Linguistics. Students and post-docs are strongly encouraged to submit. We especially welcome submissions in line with our department's focus on functional, usage-based approaches to language study using empirical data, including but not limited to the following: -cognitive/functional linguistics -typology and language universals -field studies in less commonly researched languages -sociolinguistics, including sociophonetics -phonetics and speech processing -laboratory phonology -forensic linguistics -corpus linguistics -discourse -neurolinguistics -psycholinguistics and language processing -language change and grammaticalization Submitted papers must meet the following minimum style requirements: -recommended length 15-25 pages (normally 5000-8000 words); significantly longer or shorter papers will be considered on a case-by-base basis (contact the editorial board) -For comprehensive details on format (such as font, margins, examples, references, etc.) please refer to the RWPL template available on the Style sheet link at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rls/files/Style_Sheet.dot -submit an abstract (maximum 500 words), including 3-5 keywords, as a separate Word file -submit two copies (in addition to your abstract): (1) one copy in Word (2003 or 2007) (2) in addition to the Word submission, you must send a PDF version to ensure fonts are preserved RLS accepts only electronic submissions for the working papers. These must be sent to rwpl at rice.edu, and the body of the e-mail should include: -title of paper -name of author(s) -affiliation -address -phone number -contact e-mail address The deadline for receipt of submissions is **November 15th, 2010**. Questions regarding the submissions process or style requirements may be addressed to the editorial board at rwpl at rice.edu. Carlos Molina-Vital RWPL EIC From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 26 17:02:12 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:02:12 -0600 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents Message-ID: Sometime in the 1990s, I asked Bill Bright what he thought Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were - and remember, Bill was among those who felt more and more miserable at UCLA as the department became increasingly formalist in the 1970s and '80s. When he was editor of Language, he had been attacked -sometimes quite angrily - by both pro- and anti-Chomskyan folks - as he attempted to preserve the journal's neutrality. He said he figured that if he was getting it from both sides, he was doing his job. Here's what Bill said, to the best of my recollection (yes, I should have written it down, but it was only a dinner-table conversation): First, Chomsky brought renewed attention to syntax; most of the major work on language structures {until Harris, who was a lot harder to read - LM] stopped at morphology and morphophonemics. Second, he worked on an extremely widely and well-known language, English. People could argue about it from their own knowledge, and test claims easily. This really broke things open in a way we have forgotten; how many linguists were native speakers of Menomini? And third, he got a lot of people excited about linguistics; new departments were founded like crazy. We owe him a big debt of thanks for that. My own two cents: Charismatic figures who open up fields (Freud, Schliemann, Levi-Strauss, Piaget...) do/say a lot of things that later generations of critical thinkers rightly deplore, or at least find to be oversimplified. But there has to be a first approximation before there can be refinement. I'm in my 40th year of explaining why Jakobson was wrong - Marilyn Vihman and I have a paper about the development of features in the forthcoming Benjamins volume edited by Clements & Ridouane - but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who today would even be interested in child phonology? Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 grvsmth at panix.com Tue Oct 26 17:14:01 2010 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:14:01 -0400 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/26/2010 1:02 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who > today would even be interested in child phonology? I don't know much about Jakobson, but it's possible that someone else would have taken it up in a better way. That's the trouble with hindsight. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From dan at daneverett.org Tue Oct 26 17:15:31 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:15:31 -0400 Subject: Chomsky - Bill Bright's opinion, and my two cents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is excellent, Lise. I completely agree. In my obituary of Levi-Strauss, reference a few days ago on this list, I said this about Chomsky, Freud, and Levi-Strauss. They opened our eyes to many possibilities and said and wrote many very interesting things. Dan On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Sometime in the 1990s, I asked Bill Bright what he thought Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were - and remember, Bill was among those who felt more and more miserable at UCLA as the department became increasingly formalist in the 1970s and '80s. When he was editor of Language, he had been attacked -sometimes quite angrily - by both pro- and anti-Chomskyan folks - as he attempted to preserve the journal's neutrality. He said he figured that if he was getting it from both sides, he was doing his job. > > Here's what Bill said, to the best of my recollection (yes, I should have written it down, but it was only a dinner-table conversation): > First, Chomsky brought renewed attention to syntax; most of the major work on language structures {until Harris, who was a lot harder to read - LM] stopped at morphology and morphophonemics. > Second, he worked on an extremely widely and well-known language, English. People could argue about it from their own knowledge, and test claims easily. This really broke things open in a way we have forgotten; how many linguists were native speakers of Menomini? > And third, he got a lot of people excited about linguistics; new departments were founded like crazy. We owe him a big debt of thanks for that. > > My own two cents: Charismatic figures who open up fields (Freud, Schliemann, Levi-Strauss, Piaget...) do/say a lot of things that later generations of critical thinkers rightly deplore, or at least find to be oversimplified. But there has to be a first approximation before there can be refinement. I'm in my 40th year of explaining why Jakobson was wrong - Marilyn Vihman and I have a paper about the development of features in the forthcoming Benjamins volume edited by Clements & Ridouane - but if Roman Osipovitch hadn't made his grand theoretical claims, who today would even be interested in child phonology? > > Lise > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ > > 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 mark.dingemanse at mpi.nl Tue Oct 26 18:11:18 2010 From: mark.dingemanse at mpi.nl (Mark Dingemanse) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:11:18 +0200 Subject: A question for Fritz Message-ID: I know Fritz is looking for quotes, but one way to gauge outside views of our discipline is to see how our published work is being cited. This shows how scholars vote with their feet. On that issue, I must second Brian Macwhinney's note on Conversation Analysis. Two out of the five most cited articles in the flagship journal of our discipline are CA articles. The top article by number of citations is Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974. With 5638 citations recorded by Google Scholar, and the next article (Dowty 1991) coming in at a "mere" 2007 citations, this surely is the most cited article in the entire history of the journal. I hesitate to mention this because it's only tangentially related, but these statistics were prompted by the member survey that the LSA is currently doing. See http://ideophone.org/language-anthology-citations/ for background and data. Funknetters might be interested to know that a substantial number of the most viewed, downloaded, and cited articles in the journal Language are of a broadly functionalist bent. Mark -- Mark Dingemanse Language & Cognition group Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics From yutamb at mail.ru Tue Oct 26 18:28:59 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:28:59 +0700 Subject: An eye opener Message-ID: Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the sounds without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know I study different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was always surprised why different people all over the world produce more or less the same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot produced human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Oct 26 19:00:05 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:00:05 +0200 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <9C48C84E19BE4005A74F25EADC034FED@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Shannon recently sent an article in which it was argued that (IIRC) birds, bats, elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more developed communicative vocalizations than primates and speculated on what in the brain this is associated with. John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak > better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why > so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You > wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? > The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of > the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books > and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the sounds > without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know I study > different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was always > surprised why different people all over the world produce more or less the > same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot produced > human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Oct 26 19:10:39 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:10:39 -0600 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <1288119605.4cc7253515d19@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Yuri, some of the most extensive and best-documented work has been done by Irene Pepperberg. Try some of the links on this page: http://www.google.com/search?q=irene+pepperberg+alex&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:00 PM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Shannon recently sent an article in which it was argued that (IIRC) > birds, bats, > elephants, dolphins, and whales all have more developed communicative > vocalizations than primates and speculated on what in the brain this > is > associated with. > John > > > > > Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > >> Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot >> can speak >> better than your primate? I mean both better sounds and better >> phrases? Why >> so? Does it mean that birds with their limited brain can learn to >> speak? You >> wrote that your parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is >> that true? >> The speech apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from >> that of >> the primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? >> The books >> and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate >> the sounds >> without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know >> I study >> different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was >> always >> surprised why different people all over the world produce more or >> less the >> same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your parrot >> produced >> human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, >> Russia >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 kemmer at rice.edu Tue Oct 26 19:58:18 2010 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:58:18 -0500 Subject: Exploring the Mind through Music: Last call for fellowship appls Message-ID: To those interested in cognition and music: There are still a few days until the Nov. 1 deadline for fellowship applications for the "Exploring the Mind through Music" symposium June 13-17, 2011 at Rice. I'm informed there are large numbers of applicants by professional musicians and faculty and students in music schools, but not so many from people who are professionally active in studying cognition, including language. See http://www.rice.edu/mindandmusic/index.shtml Feel free to forward this to potentially interested people and groups. ---Suzanne From amnfn at well.com Tue Oct 26 20:51:38 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:51:38 -0700 Subject: An eye opener In-Reply-To: <9C48C84E19BE4005A74F25EADC034FED@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, It is not my parrot I speak of. I am speaking of parrots belonging to other people. Have you heard of Irene Pepperberg's work with Alex, the African Grey Parrot? That parrot is now deceased, but the work is documented. Irene Pepperberg is very careful not to make immodest claims about Alex's achievements and to couch her artciles in scientific jargon that is acceptable for publication, but if you watch the videos, you can judge for yourself. She did not teach Alex how to pronounce the words. She taught him about colors and shapes. The articulatory gestures were something he had to figure out all on his own. Since embarking on my work with Bow, I have informally met with many parrot owners who have experienced this and more with their parrots. As a linguist, I was taught to believe that parrots only imitated sound, but did not understand meaning. Parrot owners, on the other hand, can tell you that parrots will spontaneously announce that it is time for their favorite TV show, or that the family car is now approaching their home town. Nobody taught them to say these things. Even so, as a linguist and a primatologist I would caution against putting too much emphasis on the ability to pronounce well. That chimpanzees have a harder time pronouncing (and in fact cannot be understood when they try to speak a human language) does not take away from the ability to understand and express themselves using written symbols -- and in fact, their ability to distinguish phonemes is no worse than a parrot's. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear Aya, it is an eye opener. Do you really mean that your parrot can speak better than your primate? > I mean both better sounds and better phrases? Why so? Does it mean that >birds with their limited brain can learn to speak? You wrote that your >parrot spoke proper words in proper situations. Is that true? The speech >apparatus and the mind of birds is quite different from that of the >primate. I wonder how our Funknet colleagues can explain it? The books >and articles I read say that parrots and other birds just immitate the >sounds without understanding them. What you say is a novelty. As you know >I study different sounds human beings use in different languages. I was >always surprised why different people all over the world produce more or >less the same sounds in their speech chains. Did you notice that your >parrot produced human sounds equally well? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, >Novosibirsk, Russia > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 21:39:14 2010 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:39:14 +0200 Subject: post-doctoral position Message-ID: Dear all, I am writing to let you all know about a fairly new post-doctoral fellowship in the humanities and social sciences, including linguistics, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It's a generous grant, including housing, and the conditions for doing research are fantastic. The terms of the application are detailed in the attached files, and I am pasting them into this mail as well. It should be mentioned that the grant is a joint Israeli-German venture, and is limited to people with a connection to one of the two countries. It would be great if you would let people know about this. Israel, whatever its flaws, is a great place for linguists, including those interested in field research on a pretty wide range of languages. Best wishes, Eitan Grossman The Martin Buber Society of Fellows, a joint venture of the Hebrew University and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), aims at fostering inter-disciplinary and inter-cultural academic discourse at the highest level among outstanding young scholars (post-doctoral) from Israel and Germany together with selected senior colleagues. Each year the Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society selects up to ten exceptionally gifted young scholars (five from Israel, five from Germany) in all fields of the humanities broadly defined and including social sciences (with the exception of law and economics). Scholars who have completed their Ph.D. at an Israeli or German university, or citizens of Israel or Germany who have received their Ph.D. in other countries, are eligible to apply. The Ph.D. degree must have been approved after October 1, 2006 and no later than March 15, 2011. Doctoral candidates submitting their dissertation in U.S. universities in the winter-spring of 2011 are entitled to submit their candidacy, subject to approval of the dissertation by May 2011. Fellows will become part of a vibrant scholarly community reflecting the widest possible disciplinary spectrum in the humanities and social sciences and embodying a spirit of shared intellectual adventure. *No special connection to Jewish studies or Israel is required*. We are looking for creative humanists and social scientists with broad intellectual horizons. Discussions in the Martin Buber Society will take place in English (not in Hebrew or German). The Fellows will be asked to move to Jerusalem. They will receive a monthly stipend of approximately 9000 Israeli shekels and a housing subsidy either for apartments in the university?s Student Village on Mount Scopus or in town. They will be given offices at the Hebrew University (Mount Scopus campus) and will participate in bi-weekly seminars, lectures, study excursions, and other interactive academic modes. Each will have the opportunity to pursue his or her individual research under optimal conditions for the term of his or her fellowship. Scholarships are initially granted for two years (subject to a review at the end of the first year), beginning October 1, 2011, on the basis of a detailed outline and description of a research project of major scope and innovative character. The scholarship may be further extended beyond two years upon the approval of the Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society. The deadline for applications for 2011-2012 is January 30, 2011. Documents should not arrive after this date. Applications must be sent as hard copy, *without staples*, and accompanying diskette and must include: a complete CV and list of publications; a discursive description of the research project to be pursued in Jerusalem (up to five pages double-spaced); a one-page abstract of the Ph.D. dissertation; two letters of recommendation; and the evaluators' reports on the dissertation, if available. Applications must be sent *in English* (with the exception of the evaluators' reports if they are written in another language). Applications should be submitted, by post, in 3 hard copies, in a simple plastic folder, preferably with a transparent cover, along with a CD containing an electronic copy of all of the materials. Please avoid using staples on any of the documents and please do not send us application materials via email. Letters of recommendation must, however, be sent either directly by the recommender to the email address below or in sealed and signed envelopes. Please do not send applications by email. The Academic Committee of the Martin Buber Society will meet at the end of March to choose next year?s fellows. Outstanding candidates will be invited --at relatively short notice-- for an interview either in person or on Skype. Postal Address: The Martin Buber Society of Fellows, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rabin Building, Room 2201, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905. For further inquiries please contact Yael Baron on buberso at mscc.huji.ac.il Tel. 00972 (0)2-5883901 or 00972(0)2 5881747 Website: http://buberfellows.huji.ac.il/ From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Oct 26 21:56:49 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:56:49 -0400 Subject: crossing the eyes and dotting the t's Message-ID: I had the local news station on television going (I like background noise...), and one of their staff announced that later they would be talking about how leading a minimalist life might be the key to happiness. Egads! (B)oy have they got the wrong vampire.... :-) Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From jlmendi at unizar.es Wed Oct 27 09:47:02 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9-Luis_Mend=EDvil?=) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:47:02 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: El 26/10/2010, a las 18:09, A. Katz escribi?: > Hi, Jose-Luis, > > I seemed to have gotten this message of yours twice, so I take it you > really want an answer. I'm sorry, It was a mistake: I sent it to you and then to the list. > > Your quote here from Fitch starts: "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic > environment is not enough for language to develop in most organisms." > > It's not clear to me. Some parrots do speak the language of the humans > around them without special training, and they use it to communicate > actual information relevant at the time. > Is it not clear for you that most organisms (even in linguistic immersion) do not acquire human language? Nevertheless, if you believe that parrots speak English (or any other language), then our notion of 'language' is so different that more discussion is pointless. Best regards, Jos? Luis > So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human > language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need > to use other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and > this sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up > literacy by himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams > in standard orthography. > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > >> "A. Katz" wrote: >> >> >>> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >>> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >>> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >> >> Dear Aya (if I may): >> >> If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. >> It's learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this >> sense. People defending that language is innate mean rather that >> there is an innate capacity to learn a language from the environment. >> A capacity that seems to be specific to humans (in the same sense >> that other animals have other capacities). Let me use a claryfing >> quote from Fitch (by the way, a non-linguist who thinks that >> linguistics is important, as requiered by Newmeyer's first message): >> >> "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for >> spoken >> language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be >> something about >> human children which differentiates them from other species, and this >> something >> provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss >> this >> neutrally as ?the human capacity to acquire language?. In generative >> linguistics >> this capacity is traditionally called the ?Language Acquisition >> Device?, and a >> characterization of its properties termed ?Universal Grammar? >> (Chomsky 1965, >> reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) >> simply >> designated those aspects of human language competence which, because >> they are >> shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in >> traditional >> grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that >> words exist >> and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar >> of French >> ? it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact >> that does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to >> language. The original usage of the term made no particular claims >> about the nature of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to >> language, or conversely a general aspect of human cognition), nor did >> Chomsky?s revival of the term, which is quite neutral on such >> questions by my reading. However, both ?Language Acquisition Device? >> and, especially, ?Universal Grammar? arouse suspicion and rejection >> from scholars who nonetheless accept that such a human-specific >> biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, Tomasello 1999, >> 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the term >> ?Universal Grammar?, even by people who accept without question that >> a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a >> uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known >> animal. The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a >> human capacity for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear >> regardless of terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to >> which it is specific to language)." >> >> T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. >> In Biolinguistics, >> 3-4: p. 288 >> >> Best regards, >> Jos?-Luis >> >> -- >> Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? >> General Linguistics >> Universidad de Zaragoza >> Spain >> Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From amnfn at well.com Wed Oct 27 13:35:58 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 06:35:58 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <686d4b32f88d47bea74191813d527606@unizar.es> Message-ID: Jose-Luis, Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to mammals and birds.) Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for you? Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a language that some humans who were present did not understand? I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed my mind. Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that experience? Best, --Aya On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Jos?-Luis Mend?vil wrote: > Is it not clear for you that most organisms (even in linguistic immersion) do > not acquire human language? > > Nevertheless, if you believe that parrots speak English (or any other > language), then our notion of 'language' is so different that more discussion > is pointless. > > Best regards, > Jos? Luis > > >> So, clearly, having the articulatory apparatus to use a spoken human >> language helps. Humans without that apparatus and other animals need to use >> other ways of encoding the language -- such as writing -- and this >> sometimes requires a little teaching. Even so, Bow picked up literacy by >> himself, after exposure to spoken language and lexigrams in standard >> orthography. >> >> http://hubpages.com/hub/Bow-and-Literacy >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: >> >>> "A. Katz" wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Innateness, if it were true as claimed for language, would mean that >>>> despite lack of exposure, the trait would manifest. Eye color is >>>> innate. Language is not. Language is learned. >>> >>> Dear Aya (if I may): >>> >>> If by language you mean French or Russian, I agree fully with you. It's >>> learned. I think nobody says that language is innate in this sense. People >>> defending that language is innate mean rather that there is an innate >>> capacity to learn a language from the environment. A capacity that seems >>> to be specific to humans (in the same sense that other animals have other >>> capacities). Let me use a claryfing quote from Fitch (by the way, a >>> non-linguist who thinks that linguistics is important, as requiered by >>> Newmeyer's first message): >>> >>> "Clearly, immersion in a linguistic environment is not enough for spoken >>> language to develop in most organisms. There must therefore be something >>> about >>> human children which differentiates them from other species, and this >>> something >>> provides one of our core explananda in biolinguistics. We might gloss this >>> neutrally as ?the human capacity to acquire language?. In generative >>> linguistics >>> this capacity is traditionally called the ?Language Acquisition Device?, >>> and a >>> characterization of its properties termed ?Universal Grammar? (Chomsky >>> 1965, >>> reviving a 17th century term). Universal Grammar (before Chomsky) simply >>> designated those aspects of human language competence which, because they >>> are >>> shared by all humans and all languages, went unmentioned in traditional >>> grammars (Chomsky 1966, Allan 2007). For example, the notion that words >>> exist >>> and have specific meanings does not need to be specified in a grammar of >>> French >>> ? it can be taken for granted. But this is precisely the sort of fact that >>> does need to be explained by a successful biological approach to language. >>> The original usage of the term made no particular claims about the nature >>> of this competence (e.g., that it was specific to language, or conversely >>> a general aspect of human cognition), nor did Chomsky?s revival of the >>> term, which is quite neutral on such questions by my reading. However, >>> both ?Language Acquisition Device? and, especially, ?Universal Grammar? >>> arouse suspicion and rejection from scholars who nonetheless accept that >>> such a human-specific biological capacity exists (e.g., Lieberman 1998a, >>> Tomasello 1999, 2005). A huge amount of ink has been shed rejecting the >>> term ?Universal Grammar?, even by people who accept without question that >>> a biologically-based capacity to acquire complex language fully is a >>> uniquely-powerful birth-right of any normal human, but no known animal. >>> The substantive debate concerns not the existence of such a human capacity >>> for language acquisition, which is abundantly clear regardless of >>> terminology, but rather its nature (e.g., the degree to which it is >>> specific to language)." >>> >>> T.W. Fitch (2009): Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics. In >>> Biolinguistics, >>> 3-4: p. 288 >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Jos?-Luis >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil-Gir? >>> General Linguistics >>> Universidad de Zaragoza >>> Spain >>> > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil > General Linguistics > Universidad de Zaragoza > Spain > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Mon Oct 25 14:40:36 2010 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:40:36 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <1287996245.4cc543558d72b@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I think it is important to bear in mind what preceded the 'Chomskyan revolution' against empiricism. For one thing it was the bias against 'mentalism' that originated in American structuralism aligned with behaviourist psychology. As far as I recall that was the main target of Chomsky's critiques. Recently I was reminded of just how problematic extreme empiricism can still be when I attended a conference in Italy dominated by a certain school of corpus linguistics. I was shocked at the level of bias against theory and in favour of counting numbers of occurrences in particular pieces of discourse. The number of times a word, say 'do', occurs in a text, say Othello, tells you how 'important' this word is in that text. Then the number of times that it occurs in the company of some other word(s) tells you all about 'phraseology'. I told some of the people I met there that this reminded me more of Bloomfield and structuralist type 'slot filling' than anything else, which didn't go down well. But I think this kind of empiricism, which is an anti-intellectualism in favour of some notion of 'authenticity,' is highly repellant and if it ever became the dominant paradigm then we would surely need a new Chomsky to destroy it again. I had trouble recognising it as linguistics at all. Tahir >>> 10/25/2010 10:44 am >>> Dick, (1) Chomsky's descriptive observations about nominalizations were not at all original--Jespersen made the same observations. (2) The observations about island constraints were from Haj Ross' thesis. (3) The competence/performance distinction is basically Saussure's langue/parole. (4) At Penn (where I studied) it was commonly acknowledged that the idea of generative grammar was lifted from Zelig Harris (Chomsky's mentor there), although I'm not sure that I believe this. John Quoting Richard Hudson : > Thanks Aya, Alex and Mark for your views. It's very odd for me to be > defending Chomsky, since I've spent most of my life criticising him, but > he's an ordinary human being just like the rest of us, with good points > and bad points. When I said he couldn't be all wrong, I actually meant > he wasn't all wrong - I can easily think of plenty of things that he did > that were right, and inspired good work. > > My personal list of achievements by Chomsky: > - His 1970 article on nominalisation, with its clear distinction between > gerunds and nominalisations. > - His insights into the structure of the English auxiliary system (but > not his morpheme-based analysis). > - His observations on island constraints in syntax - but not his > conclusions. > - His contrast between knowledge (competence) and behaviour > (performance) - but not his catch-all use of 'performance'. > - His idea of formal 'generative' grammar - but not his later > abandonment of the substance. > I dare say I could add some more if I thought a bit longer. These are > all things that he did which influenced my own (generally non-Chomskyan) > work, and which I know have influenced plenty of other non-Chomskyans. > > And I don't agree that the whole field is so dominated by his doctrines > that other views can't be heard - just think of all the books and > articles and university departments oriented towards other approaches, > from non-Chomskyan formal theories such as HPSG and LFG, to > non-Chomskyan informal work on discourse and the like. I'm sure some > people on this list both disagree with Chomsky and have tenure. > > Dick Hudson > > -- > Richard Hudson www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From jlmendi at unizar.es Wed Oct 27 15:49:40 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (jlmendi at unizar.es) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:49:40 +0200 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Aya: I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason that they lack a human brain. Best regards, Jos?-Luis "A. Katz" wrote: > Jose-Luis, > > Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that > most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? > (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to > mammals and birds.) > > Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human > languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human > language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for > you? > Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a > language that some humans who were present did not understand? > > I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been > trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen > dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present > in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. > > Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and > since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. > It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed > my mind. > > Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this > because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to > you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is > not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if > that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped > conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that > experience? > > Best, > > --Aya From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 27 16:04:35 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:04:35 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <4CC5B2E2.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: It is a common myth that before Chomsky 'mentalism' was a bad word. Chomsky certainly brought mentalistm to a greater prominence in American linguistics than it had held previously. But he was not the first North American linguist interested in the mind by any means. Nor was he the dividing line between empiricism and rationalism in US linguistics. It is not nor has it been the case that the field can be divided neatly into 'empiricists' vs 'rationalists', either pre or post Chomsky. Sapir, for example, was very different from Bloomfield (or Harris for that matter). Chomsky is much more closely aligned with Bloomfield in his focus on structures. Sapir was concerned about what went on in the mind. But Sapir's take was partially that psychology should be a subdiscipline of anthropology and that we needed to see the developments of minds and languages as part of culture. And vice-versa (Sapir recognized that cognition, culture, and language interact and that each has causal relations to the other - these relations are not uni-directional). Also, although Bloomfield was interested in semantics and in the mind, he seems in some places to have let them lie because he didn't believe that we were prepared to study them yet, because to fully understand meaning or thinking was to understand everything. And yet at the same time, Bloomfield's own study of morphophonemics in Menominee has a strongly mentalist flavor in parts. (See Bever, T.G. (1963). Theoretical implications of Bloomfield's 'Menomini Morphophonemics'.Quarterly Progress Report, R.L.E., MIT Press.) There is an interesting correspondence between Sapir and Ken Pike about the perception of tones in tone languages, one letter leading Pike to distinguish contour vs. register tone systems, based on native speaker perceptions, if I recall (at least that is how Ken Pike explained it to me). I believe that the correspondence is on file at SIL Dallas. It is a pity for all of us that Sapir died so young. His Sterling Professorship at Yale was, after his death, occupied by his long-time rival/friend Bloomfield, who, as Sapir before him, moved to Yale from the U of Chicago (from the German department in Bloomfield's case). In some readings of his work, Sapir can be seen as skeptical about the professionalization of linguistics into departments of linguistics, rather than having linguists interspersed through other departments. My interpretation is that he feared a reification of language studies that would proceed independently of the study of actual languages or anthropology. Dan From amnfn at well.com Wed Oct 27 17:50:19 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:50:19 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <20101027174940.k7on5xhi4ggccc0o@webmail.unizar.es> Message-ID: Jose-Luis, So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are English? If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not these particular two. Best, --Aya On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > Dear Aya: > > I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of communicative > interaction with owners and trainers. And of course I'm aware that there is > clear evidence that many species have complex and sophisticated systems of > thought. But this does not mean they can acquire and use a human language. > For me, as for many people (regardless of the often sterile debate on > innatism) a language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a > creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the reach of > other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason that they lack a human > brain. > Best regards, > Jos?-Luis > > > "A. Katz" wrote: > >> Jose-Luis, >> >> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that >> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic immersion? >> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring to >> mammals and birds.) >> >> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human >> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire human >> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for >> you? >> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a >> language that some humans who were present did not understand? >> >> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been >> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have seen >> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were present >> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not understand. >> >> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and >> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long time. >> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I changed >> my mind. >> >> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this >> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it to >> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the answer is >> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? Or if >> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped >> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that >> experience? >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya > > From yutamb at mail.ru Wed Oct 27 19:48:10 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:48:10 +0700 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics Message-ID: Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev From mark at polymathix.com Wed Oct 27 20:23:53 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:23:53 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <0083D4F8E5764B74B3932D20C97E4ACA@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev It can't be done. Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee size of N. -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From oesten at ling.su.se Wed Oct 27 20:43:53 2010 From: oesten at ling.su.se (=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=96sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:43:53 +0200 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <90a9e825b72bdf18a13f24ee14b32c5a.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: If your library has a subscription, you can read Geoff Pullum's thoughts on the matter here: No Trips to Stockholm Geoffrey K. Pullum Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Vol. 3, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 265-270 or, with a couple of pages missing, here: http://tinyurl.com/38xfduw - ?sten On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:23:53 -0500, "Mark P. Line" wrote: > Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >> Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble >> prize? >> Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev > > It can't be done. > > Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of > linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about > anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no > less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee > size of N. > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK From lamb at rice.edu Wed Oct 27 21:24:36 2010 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:24:36 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: <90a9e825b72bdf18a13f24ee14b32c5a.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com> Message-ID: Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in 4th world societies. -Syd Lamb On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? > > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev > > It can't be done. > > Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of > linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about > anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no > less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee > size of N. > > > -- Mark > > Mark P. Line > Bartlesville, OK > > > Sydney M. Lamb Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From dan at daneverett.org Wed Oct 27 23:48:42 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:48:42 -0400 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pike was nominated I think 5 times for the Nobel peace prize. The initial efforts were led by Adam Makkai. Haj Ross's grandfather, John Raleigh Mott, won the Nobel peace prize in 1946. Dan On 27 Oct 2010, at 17:24, Sydney Lamb wrote: > Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was > once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in > 4th world societies. > > -Syd Lamb > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > >> Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >>> Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble prize? >>> Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev >> >> It can't be done. >> >> Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of >> linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about >> anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no >> less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee >> size of N. >> >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> Bartlesville, OK >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb > Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences > Rice University, Houston, TX > From mark at polymathix.com Thu Oct 28 00:56:17 2010 From: mark at polymathix.com (Mark P. Line) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:56:17 -0500 Subject: Noble prize for linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sydney Lamb wrote: > Right, Mark. But you may be interested to know that Ken Pike was > once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, because of his work in > 4th world societies. Oh yes. But not just once -- he was nominated in 15 or 16 consecutive years! I guess this comes back around to one possible data point in answer to Fritz's query, unless the Nobel committee was not considering his *linguistic* work in the 4th world. -- Mark > -Syd Lamb > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Mark P. Line wrote: > >> Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: >> > Is there any solid and respected prize for linguists like the Noble >> prize? >> > Should linguists establish it? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev >> >> It can't be done. >> >> Any such award would have to be awarded by a well-balanced committee of >> linguists. No such committee would ever produce a majority opinion about >> anything related to linguistics. In fact, it would generally produce no >> less than N+1 contradictory opinions on any question, given a committee >> size of N. >> >> >> -- Mark >> >> Mark P. Line >> Bartlesville, OK >> >> >> > > > Sydney M. Lamb > Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences > Rice University, Houston, TX > > -- Mark Mark P. Line Bartlesville, OK From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Oct 28 02:05:01 2010 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:05:01 -0600 Subject: Ellen Prince, RIP Message-ID: In Memoriam Ellen F. Prince It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our colleague Ellen F. Prince. Ellen died peacefully at home in Philadelphia on Sunday, October 24, after a long battle with cancer. After earning her doctorate in linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania in 1974, Ellen joined the faculty of the Penn Linguistics Department in the same year. She taught here until her retirement in 2005 and served as chair of our department from 1993 to 1997. Ellen was also active in the affairs of the Linguistic Society of America, serving on the executive committee and in many other capacities. She was noted for her interdisciplinary perspective and held a secondary appointment in Penn's Computer and Information Sciences Department. Among her many honors were the Presidency of the Linguistic Society of America in 2008 and election to the AAAS in 2009. A pioneer in linguistic pragmatics, Ellen worked on her own and with many colleagues and students on various aspects of the subject. Several of her incisive and tightly argued papers became classics in the field. She is perhaps best known for her typology of information statuses in discourse, based on the study of naturally-occurring data; but she also devoted major efforts to the study of the pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions, including the various species of cleft and left-periphery constructions, including topicalization and left-dislocation. She had a particular interest in Yiddish and used her knowledge of that language to do ground-breaking work on the cross-linguistic comparison of the pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions. In later years, she continued her work on the referential status of noun phrases in the framework of centering theory, as developed by colleagues Aravind Joshi, Scott Weinstein and Barbara Grosz. Ellen was an inspirational and caring teacher, imparting high intellectual standards while at the same time providing solid support and mentoring to her many students. We missed her acutely when she retired from our department; she will be even more sorely missed now and for years to come. Friends, colleagues and students who would like to remember Ellen Prince by making a charitable donation are asked to donate to the American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/donate/). Gillian Sankoff & Tony Kroch From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Oct 28 05:15:11 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:15:11 -0600 Subject: Ellen Prince, RIP In-Reply-To: <4CC8DA4D.5080904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: A small correction of an error in the original: election as a Fellow of the AAAS in 2009. Joining AAAS is open to anyone. Lise (Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics and Language Sciences]) On Oct 27, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > In Memoriam Ellen F. Prince > > It is with great sadness that we announce the death of our colleague > Ellen F. Prince. Ellen died peacefully at home in Philadelphia on > Sunday, October 24, after a long battle with cancer. > After earning her doctorate in linguistics at the University of > Pennsylvania in 1974, Ellen joined the faculty of the Penn > Linguistics Department in the same year. She taught here until her > retirement in 2005 and served as chair of our department from 1993 > to 1997. Ellen was also active in the affairs of the Linguistic > Society of America, serving on the executive committee and in many > other capacities. She was noted for her interdisciplinary > perspective and held a secondary appointment in Penn's Computer and > Information Sciences Department. Among her many honors were the > Presidency of the Linguistic Society of America in 2008 and election > to the AAAS in 2009. > > A pioneer in linguistic pragmatics, Ellen worked on her own and with > many colleagues and students on various aspects of the subject. > Several of her incisive and tightly argued papers became classics in > the field. She is perhaps best known for her typology of information > statuses in discourse, based on the study of naturally-occurring > data; but she also devoted major efforts to the study of the > pragmatic functions of syntactic constructions, including the > various species of cleft and left-periphery constructions, including > topicalization and left-dislocation. She had a particular interest > in Yiddish and used her knowledge of that language to do ground- > breaking work on the cross-linguistic comparison of the pragmatic > functions of syntactic constructions. In later years, she continued > her work on the referential status of noun phrases in the framework > of centering theory, as developed by colleagues Aravind Joshi, Scott > Weinstein and Barbara Grosz. > > Ellen was an inspirational and caring teacher, imparting high > intellectual standards while at the same time providing solid > support and mentoring to her many students. We missed her acutely > when she retired from our department; she will be even more sorely > missed now and for years to come. > > Friends, colleagues and students who would like to remember Ellen > Prince by making a charitable donation are asked to donate to the > American Lung Association (http://www.lungusa.org/donate/). > > Gillian Sankoff & Tony Kroch > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute of Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Thu Oct 28 06:54:03 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:54:03 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using language Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language also don't learn any language. The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was exposed to? An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. best, Keith Johnson On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Jose-Luis, > > So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of > reach of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a > human brain" falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if > presented-- change your mind? If there isn't, then your statement is > an article of faith and not a scientific hypothesis. > > What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language > is beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple > reason that they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that > this hypothesis is falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone > without any English ancestry was able to master English better than > someone whose ancestors are English? > > If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex > have mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better > than people who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who > don't speak any language at all, there are also humans who do speak > some language, but not these particular two. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > >> Dear Aya: >> >> I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of >> communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course >> I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have >> complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not >> mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many >> people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a >> language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a >> creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the >> reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason >> that they lack a human brain. >> Best regards, >> Jos?-Luis >> >> >> "A. Katz" wrote: >> >>> Jose-Luis, >>> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that >>> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic >>> immersion? >>> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring >>> to >>> mammals and birds.) >>> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human >>> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire >>> human >>> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for >>> you? >>> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a >>> language that some humans who were present did not understand? >>> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been >>> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have >>> seen >>> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were >>> present >>> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not >>> understand. >>> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and >>> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long >>> time. >>> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I >>> changed >>> my mind. >>> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this >>> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it >>> to >>> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the >>> answer is >>> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? >>> Or if >>> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped >>> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that >>> experience? >>> Best, >>> --Aya >> >> Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From yutamb at mail.ru Thu Oct 28 10:15:36 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:15:36 +0700 Subject: Crisis in linguistics Message-ID: True, but mathematicians have no Nobel Prize. So, they set up their own Prize. In linguistics the researcher follow the fashion, but not the important direction which may lead to some non-trivial results. The selection of articles in "Language" or "Word" is quite arbitrary and by chance. The last but not least. There is a crisis in linguistics, though linguists do not care to notice it. What is the way out? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 12:38:13 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:38:13 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Keith, You are quite right that Pepperberg does not claim that Alex learned a human language. She is very careful not to make immodest claims, as I mentioned before, and if you read her writings you will see that she goes to great trouble, jumping through convoluted verbal hoops to explain that the fact that Alex could answer questions correctly about color and shape does not necessarily mean that he understood what he was talking about in human terms. In order to get published by a reputable scientific journal, you pretty much have to do that. I do not blame her for this. What I was saying is that if any of you want to judge for yourself, watch the videos. Pay attention also to the unsolicited things that Alex said. Notice how he kept asking for water. Notice Irene asking him whether he really wanted water, or he was just trying to interrupt. Evaluate their relationship. Take into account that answering all those questions repeatedly was boring for Alex, and that they weren't talking about anything that really interested him. Understand that Irene and Alex had a relationship that went beyond that, but that their job was to prove small, palatable things involving formal sound/meaning correspondences. You think Alex's pronunciation sounded mechanical? He had a completely different articulatory system from yours. He spent hours trying to figure out the right articulatory gestures to make those sounds. He had no formal instruction on that! He did it on his time off, when there wasn't even anyone there with him. I think he did a pretty good job all things considered. Compare his production with those of a human with an artificial larynx. For that matter, compare his productions with those of a non-native speaker of English. Or even consider this: have you ever heard an autistic child who does speak, but who has no affect? The catch-22 in animal language studies is that if it spontaneous and a nonce utterance it is not replicable, and you can't do statistical studies on it, and so it doesn't count. But if you go the other route, and you create an elaborate structure that is amenable to statistical testing, then you take all the creativity the subject can muster out of it. If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better. But none of us actually had to prove that we were talking rather than repeating something we heard, before our speech was allowed to pass for language. --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex > learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance > I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be > able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't > display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using > language > > Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in > mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we > are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that > deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of > people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing > world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure > to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic > input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language > also don't learn any language. > > The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been > exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference > between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with > greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was > exposed to? > > An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) > of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word > productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone > has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide > some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. > > best, > Keith Johnson > > On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Jose-Luis, >> >> So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach >> of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" >> falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your >> mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a >> scientific hypothesis. >> >> What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is >> beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that >> they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is >> falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English >> ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are >> English? >> >> If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have >> mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people >> who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any >> language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not >> these particular two. >> >> Best, >> From bjking at wm.edu Thu Oct 28 13:01:14 2010 From: bjking at wm.edu (bjking at wm.edu) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:01:14 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Colleagues, I think Aya Katz has it right, with her focus on Alex's creativity and on the emergence of Alex's thoughtful communication in the context of a key social relationship (Alex and Pepperberg). I've not met or communicated directly with Alex, but I've watched videos extensively. I have met and communicated directly with bonobos Kanzi and Panbanisha, and I've written extensively about their communication skills and the social-emotional contexts in which they emerge. What I've argued for years, in my book The Dynamic Dance (2004, Harvard), and in books and articles since, is that we miss worlds of richness and complexity when we content ourselves with focusing on the Alexes, Kanzis and Panbanishas (as wonderful as they are), and asking ONLY if nonhuman creatures "have language." OK, it's an interesting question. But as an anthropologist I think there are more interesting questions, questions that avoid an insistence on comparing other creatures with ourselves. I've observed apes (bonobos, gorillas mostly) for years, and filmed their interactions, and there's a world of subtlety and richness in their back-and-forth, creative communication with each other: via gaze, body position and degree of muscular tension, vocalizations, manual and head gestures, and so on. It is of vastly less interest to me to ask whether this is language than to understand the richness of this system, how it emerges, how it may different between individuals or between groups, how infants learn the system, what it allows these creatures to do (and not to do), and so on. Doing this requires years of watching, and filming and analyzing videotapes; a sender-receiver, message-based model isn't sufficient to capture the dynamic nature of the communication, which is often contingent and co-constructed by the social partners rather than fixed. We can look for similar phenomena in elephants, cetaceans, etc.; if we keep asking over and over if these species are capable of language, we won't see what they spontaneously do with each other-- and that's worth knowing in its own right. It's also potentially, if arguably, useful (in some cases, e.g., apes) in reconstructing evolutionary trajectories, but there again we run the risk of using a human standard with which to evaluate everything. Best wishes, Barbara Barbara J. King Blogging animals at http://www.barbarajking.com/ Chancellor Professor of Anthropology Director, Undergraduate Studies in Anthropology College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA, USA 23187 ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT) >From: "A. Katz" >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >To: Keith Johnson >Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > >Keith, > >You are quite right that Pepperberg does not claim that Alex learned a >human language. She is very careful not to make immodest claims, as I >mentioned before, and if you read her writings you will see that she goes >to great trouble, jumping through convoluted verbal hoops to explain that >the fact that Alex could answer questions correctly about color and shape >does not necessarily mean that he understood what he was talking about in >human terms. > >In order to get published by a reputable scientific journal, you pretty >much have to do that. I do not blame her for this. > >What I was saying is that if any of you want to judge for yourself, watch >the videos. Pay attention also to the unsolicited things that Alex said. >Notice how he kept asking for water. Notice Irene asking him whether he >really wanted water, or he was just trying to interrupt. Evaluate their >relationship. Take into account that answering all those questions >repeatedly was boring for Alex, and that they weren't talking about >anything that really interested him. Understand that Irene and Alex had a >relationship that went beyond that, but that their job was to prove small, >palatable things involving formal sound/meaning correspondences. > >You think Alex's pronunciation sounded mechanical? He had a completely >different articulatory system from yours. He spent hours trying to figure >out the right articulatory gestures to make those sounds. He had no formal >instruction on that! He did it on his time off, when there wasn't even >anyone there with him. I think he did a pretty good job all things >considered. Compare his production with those of a human with an >artificial larynx. For that matter, compare his productions with those of >a non-native speaker of English. Or even consider this: have you ever >heard an autistic child who does speak, but who has no affect? > >The catch-22 in animal language studies is that if it spontaneous and a >nonce utterance it is not replicable, and you can't do statistical studies >on it, and so it doesn't count. But if you go the other route, and you >create an elaborate structure that is amenable to statistical testing, >then you take all the creativity the subject can muster out of it. > >If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, >they wouldn't fare much better. But none of us actually had to prove that >we were talking rather than repeating something we heard, before our >speech was allowed to pass for language. > > > --Aya > >http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies > > >On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > >> Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed that Alex >> learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read of his performance >> I would have to agree. Knowing 150 words, and having some intelligence to be >> able to use those words in contextually appropriate ways, just doesn't >> display enough creative power to make me think that this bird was using >> language >> >> Regarding humans who have not learned language: I'm not sure who Aya has in >> mind when she refers to "humans who don't speak any language at all". If we >> are speaking of deaf persons who don't "speak" it is certainly the case that >> deaf can learn language without being able to speak. If we are speaking of >> people who are isolated from a linguistic community (deaf raised in a hearing >> world, or neglected children deprived of human contact over years), failure >> to learn language in the absence of linguistic input shows that linguistic >> input is needed. I'm sure that parrots who are not exposed to human language >> also don't learn any language. >> >> The more relevant comparison is of humans and other animals when both been >> exposed to to linguistic input, and from what I've seen there is a difference >> between the species that needs to be explained. Why couldn't Alex speak with >> greater range and creativity given the amount of linguistic input that he was >> exposed to? >> >> An aside: Listening to recordings (youtube.com is a great source of video) >> of talking parrots, I'm struck by the phonetic roteness of the word >> productions - almost like playing a recording back. I don't know if anyone >> has studied these productions phonetically, but such a study might provide >> some evidence about the phonological compositionality of parrot's words. >> >> best, >> Keith Johnson >> >> On Oct 27, 2010, at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Jose-Luis, >>> >>> So, in your opinion is your statement that human language is out of reach >>> of other living beings "for the simple reason that they lack a human brain" >>> falsifiable? Is there any evidence that would -- if presented-- change your >>> mind? If there isn't, then your statement is an article of faith and not a >>> scientific hypothesis. >>> >>> What if someone were to say, for instance, that the English language is >>> beyond the reach of anyone who isn't English, for the simple reason that >>> they don't possess an English brain? Would you see that this hypothesis is >>> falsifiable by presenting evidence that someone without any English >>> ancestry was able to master English better than someone whose ancestors are >>> English? >>> >>> If so, why not accept evidence that non-humans such as Bow and Alex have >>> mastered a human language (such as English or Hebrew) better than people >>> who possess a human brain? Not only are there humans who don't speak any >>> language at all, there are also humans who do speak some language, but not >>> these particular two. >>> >>> Best, >>> From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Oct 28 15:06:53 2010 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:53 -0700 Subject: Nobel and Kyoto In-Reply-To: <224C0AD2A29E44AAB3F5D39BF816A52F@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: In addition to the Nobel Prize, there is the Kyoto Prize. Here is the blurb: "The Kyoto Prize has been awarded annually since 1985 by the Inamori Foundation, founded by Kazuo Inamori. The prize is a Japanese award similar in intent to the Nobel Prize, as it recognizes outstanding works in the fields of philosophy, arts, science and technology. The awards are given not only to those that are top representatives of their own respective field, but also to those that have contributed to humanity with their work. Prizes are given in the fields of Advanced Technology, Basic Sciences and Arts and Philosophy. Within each broad category, the prize rotates among subfields, e.g. the technology prize rotates across electronics, biotechnology, materials science and engineering, and information science. The prize was endowed with 50 million yen and Kyocera stock. The prize is rising in prestige as it covers fields not often awarded by the Nobel Prizes." The only linguist to win the Kyoto Prize has been Noam Chomsky, in 1988, in the 'cognitive science' subdivision of 'basic sciences' -- the only award so far in that subdivision. The Kyoto Prize is more like a 'lifetime achievement award' than the Nobel, which is generally awarded for a specific achievement. --fritz From dan at daneverett.org Thu Oct 28 15:08:11 2010 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:08:11 -0400 Subject: Nobel and Kyoto In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > The Kyoto Prize is more like a 'lifetime achievement award' than the Nobel, which is generally awarded for a specific achievement. > > > > Good thing in the case of the single linguist to win it. Dan From lamb at rice.edu Thu Oct 28 15:18:10 2010 From: lamb at rice.edu (Sydney Lamb) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:18:10 -0500 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Regarding parrots' language: I don't think that Pepperberg claimed > that Alex learned a human language, and from what I've seen and read > of his performance I would have to agree. Right. She is very careful to avoid making any such claims. -Syd > > > > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, jlmendi at unizar.es wrote: > > > >> Dear Aya: > >> > >> I agree that domestic animals can have a certain degree of > >> communicative interaction with owners and trainers. And of course > >> I'm aware that there is clear evidence that many species have > >> complex and sophisticated systems of thought. But this does not > >> mean they can acquire and use a human language. For me, as for many > >> people (regardless of the often sterile debate on innatism) a > >> language is not just a collection of sound/meaning pairs, but a > >> creative complex system of knowledge that seems not to be at the > >> reach of other living beings, for the simple and obvious reason > >> that they lack a human brain. > >> Best regards, > >> Jos?-Luis > >> > >> > >> "A. Katz" wrote: > >> > >>> Jose-Luis, > >>> Let me ask you this: on what evidence do you base the assertion that > >>> most organisms do not acquire human language in linguistic > >>> immersion? > >>> (I'm assuming you're not counting bacteria here, but are referring > >>> to > >>> mammals and birds.) > >>> Is it because most other animals can't produce the sounds of human > >>> languages? Do you recognize that a mute human being can acquire > >>> human > >>> language but be unable to speak? Does comprehension at all count for > >>> you? > >>> Have you ever had a dog? Have you ever had a dog who understood a > >>> language that some humans who were present did not understand? > >>> I'm not talking about responding to rote commands that have been > >>> trained. I'm talking about responding to nonce utterances. I have > >>> seen > >>> dogs understand what I said to them, while the humans who were > >>> present > >>> in the room, but were not speakers of the language, did not > >>> understand. > >>> Like you, I was specifically taught that parrots only immitate, and > >>> since I had never had a parrot, I believed that for a very long > >>> time. > >>> It's only in the past decade, after I saw the evidence, that I > >>> changed > >>> my mind. > >>> Are you speaking from the same kind of belief? Do you believe this > >>> because you read it in a book or because your professors taught it > >>> to > >>> you? How much experience do you have with non-humans? If the > >>> answer is > >>> not much, isn't it about time you got to know some other animals? > >>> Or if > >>> that's not possible, because you live in a city under cramped > >>> conditions, couldn't you at least interview people who do have that > >>> experience? > >>> Best, > >>> --Aya > >> > >> > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > > > > Sydney M. Lamb Linguistics and Cognitive Sciences Rice University, Houston, TX From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Thu Oct 28 17:38:04 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:38:04 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better." I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to explain. Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 17:47:33 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:47:33 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Keith, I agree with you that it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. I don't agree that proof that a child is aware of the meaning of what he is saying is held to an equal standard as proof for a non-human. If you ask a child in a controlled setting which of several objects on the table is blue, and the child picks the blue object, the researcher writing up the experiment does not have to go into a big long discussion about how the child's understanding of "blue", or the syntax of the entire question, is not proof that the child has acquired human language. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, > they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research > reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are > studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman > creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman > species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an > observation that we should be able to explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether > nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are > seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call > language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for > language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > > From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Oct 28 20:00:59 2010 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:00:59 -0600 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 10/28/10 11:38 AM, Keith Johnson wrote: > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Just an expansion on what Keith has said, (and one I assume he would agree with): if we approach this search with the assumption that the "capacity for language" is a unitary thing, our answer is always going to be "only humans have the capacity for human language." We need to approach it by studying the cognitive, social, perceptual, and motoric abilities that make up the "capacity for language," to see which of those are shared across species -- and eventually to understand how they arose, to what extent they are the same/different across species, and how they came together to make possible this amazing thing we call human language. -- Sherman Wilcox Professor of Linguistics University of New Mexico From swellsj at bgsu.edu Thu Oct 28 20:10:16 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:10:16 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. Peace, Sheri Sheri Wells-Jensen -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM To: A.Katz Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really talk, they wouldn't fare much better." I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to explain. Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand whether the capacity for language is shared across species. Keith Johnson Professor of Linguistics University of California keithjohnson at berkeley.edu From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 20:48:58 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:48:58 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn from them may not be exactly the same. I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse them. That's syntax. Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than production. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Folks, > It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. > > He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. > It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. > > For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. > > Peace, > Sheri > > > Sheri Wells-Jensen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM > To: A.Katz > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really > talk, they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of > research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". > Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently > than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic > accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of > humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to > explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > From swellsj at bgsu.edu Thu Oct 28 20:58:47 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:58:47 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Aya, What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their linguistic abilities per se. Sheri -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn from them may not be exactly the same. I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse them. That's syntax. Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than production. --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Folks, > It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. > > He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. > It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. > > For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. > > Peace, > Sheri > > > Sheri Wells-Jensen > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM > To: A.Katz > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: > > "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really > talk, they wouldn't fare much better." > > I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of > research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". > Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently > than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic > accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of > humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to > explain. > > Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that > whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say > that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human > capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand > whether the capacity for language is shared across species. > > > Keith Johnson > Professor of Linguistics > University of California > keithjohnson at berkeley.edu > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Oct 28 21:15:14 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:15:14 -0400 Subject: Chomsky- selective breeding Message-ID: I'd like to suggest a long-term study to see if parrots and other animals good at imitation can be selectively bred for syntactic abilities and larger vocabularies. The birds appear to be of reproductive age at from 5-7 years, so generational turnover can be relatively fast. Heck, they domesticated the Siberian silver fox in a few decades of dedicated work. What else could be accomplished here? Soon we may be forced to admit birds to our universities, and give them civil rights. Hurrah for Uplift. Jess Tauber From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 21:57:22 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:57:22 -0700 Subject: Chomsky- selective breeding In-Reply-To: <17273400.1288300515133.JavaMail.root@wamui-haziran.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jess, So you think syntactic ability is innate? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, jess tauber wrote: > I'd like to suggest a long-term study to see if parrots and other animals good at imitation can be selectively bred for syntactic abilities and larger vocabularies. The birds appear to be of reproductive age at from 5-7 years, so generational turnover can be relatively fast. Heck, they domesticated the Siberian silver fox in a few decades of dedicated work. What else could be accomplished here? Soon we may be forced to admit birds to our universities, and give them civil rights. Hurrah for Uplift. > > Jess Tauber > > From amnfn at well.com Thu Oct 28 22:29:39 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:29:39 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Hi Aya, > What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex > experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood > would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work > on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >linguistic abilities per se. > > > Sheri > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn > from them may not be exactly the same. > > I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to > interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse > them. That's syntax. > > Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than > production. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Folks, >> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >> >> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >> >> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >> >> Peace, >> Sheri >> >> >> Sheri Wells-Jensen >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >> To: A.Katz >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >> >> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >> >> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >> explain. >> >> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >> >> >> Keith Johnson >> Professor of Linguistics >> University of California >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Oct 29 01:19:24 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:19:24 -0400 Subject: Chomsky-selective breeding Message-ID: There was just a NOVA show, from 2009, on crow intelligence, on the local PBS station. In it they talk about sociality, shared responsibilities, communication, tool making and use- the works. Supposedly crows (all, some?) have more than 200 vocal signals. What is the inner architecture of such a large set? Combinations of signs from a smaller set? Each unique? A mix? What are the communicative outlines? Just kin hierarchy, challenge, food, warnings, mating, the usual set? Or something more? Sounds like a much cheaper set of test/experimental subjects than parrots, and less likely to drive populations to extinction. Anyone know if they have imitative capacities? In experiments they clearly can learn- how about acoustically, for verbalized concepts? Go nuts, become a Raven Lunatic... Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From gaelv at uvigo.es Fri Oct 29 10:18:45 2010 From: gaelv at uvigo.es (Gael Vaamonde) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:18:45 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote Message-ID: Hello, I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! Gael Vaamonde University of Vigo From brian.nolan at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 12:06:57 2010 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:06:57 +0100 Subject: Call for abstracts - SLE2011: Functionally motivated computational approaches to models of language and grammar In-Reply-To: <686d4b32f88d47bea74191813d527606@unizar.es> Message-ID: Functionally motivated computational approaches to models of language and grammar Within the framework of the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, to be held at the Universidad de La Rioja (Logro?o, Spain), 8-11 September 2011, we would like to propose a workshop on functionally motivated work in computational approaches to models of language and grammar Convenors: Brian Nolan (Institute of Technology Blanchardstown Dublin Ireland) Carlos Peri??n Pascual (Universidad Cat?lica de San Antonio, Murcia Spain) In this call for papers we propose to host a workshop under the SLE to examine and discuss recent and current work in the use of functional, cognitive and constructional approaches to the computational modelling of language and grammars. While recognising that in recent times much work has concentrated on statistical models, we wish to examine in particular computational models that are linguistically motivated and that deal with problems at the interfaces between concept, semantics, lexicon, syntax and morphology. Many functionally oriented models of grammar, including Functional Grammar, Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and reference Grammar have lent them selves to work as diverse as lexically motivated machine translation from Arabic to English (Nolan and Salem 2009, Salem and Nolan 2009a and 2009b) and to the conceptual ontological work on FunGramKB (Peri??n-Pascual & Arcas-T?nez 2005, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; Peri??n-Pascual & Mairal Us?n 2009) plus recent work undertaken within the Lexical-Constructional Model (Mairal Us?n, R. & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008 and 2009, Ruiz de Mendoza Ib??ez, Francisco Jos? and Mairal, Ricardo. 2008, Guest, Nolan & Mairal-Uson. 2009) and Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin 2005, Van Valin & LaPolla 1997). Indeed, similar work has been ongoing quietly within the domain of Sign Linguistics where various initiatives based upon variations of the original Mental Spaces Model (Fauconnier 1994) have been productively used in the creation of digital intelligent avatars to translate spoken/written languages into several Sign Languages (Morrissey & Way 2006, Cassell et al 2000, Prendinger & Ishizuka 2010). Sign Languages, as visual gestural languages, pose interesting problems for functional models of grammar (Leeson & Nolan 2008, Leeson et al 2006). The organisers of this workshop are a European group of linguists, computational linguists and computer scientists who, since the 2004 Role and Reference Grammar International Conference in Dublin have formulated computational proposals in different areas concerned with the lexicon and concept ontologies, and the computational processing of the syntax, morphology and semantics of a variety of languages. Thus far, these actual computational projects have encompassed 1) rule-based lexicalist interlingua bridge machine translation, 2) ontological engineering of concepts that enhance and enrich logical structures in a machine tractable way, 3) the implementation of a unified lexical meta-language in software, and 4) the parsing of complex sentences. The languages that have undergone a computation treatment in RRG have included English, Arabic and Spanish, and others. A consequence of this computational work has been the enrichment of the theoretical elements of the RRG theory, especially in its semantics and lexical underpinnings where they connect with concepts, and the building of frame based applications in software that demonstrate its viability in natural language processing. Furthermore, this computational work provides compelling evidence that functional approaches to grammar have a positive and crucial role to play in natural language processing. We claim that a functional approach to grammar delivers a credible and realistic linguistic model to underpin these kinds of NLP applications. The main topics of the workshop will include, but are not limited to, the following: ? The deployment of functional models in parse and generation ? The architecture of the lexicon ? The linking system between semantics, lexicon and morphosyntax ? Interpretation of the linguistic model into an algorithm specification ? Issues for the layered structure of the clause and word ? Complexity issues ? Concept formation ? Linguistically motivated computational approaches to gesture in language We would like to present a forum for a functional and cognitive linguistic, computational research agenda, based around an inclusive model consisting of the various cognitive and functional approaches to grammar. In sum, the aim of this workshop is to offer a forum for discussion and critical evaluation of the full gamut of research projects concerned with a broadly functional computational linguistics and that also contributes to our understanding of languages in a functionally oriented way. Procedure: ---------------------- Abstracts are invited for 20 minute presentations with 10 minute discussion. Interested researchers and linguists are invited to email brian.nolan at gmail.com with their name, affiliation and provisional abstract of 500 words by 10 November 2010. Important dates ---------------------- Submission of provisional abstract: 10 November 2010. Notification of acceptance of workshop proposal: 15th December 2010. If the workshop proposal is accepted then all abstracts will need to be submitted to SLE by 15th January 2011, via the SLE conference website: http://sle2011.cliap.es Notification of acceptance: 31st March 2011 Registration: From April 2011 onwards Conference: 8-11 September 2011 Selected references Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (Eds.). 2000. Embodied Conversational Agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fauconnier, Gilles. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Guest, Elizabeth, Brian Nolan and Ricardo Mairal-Uson. 2009. Natural Language processing applications in an RRG Framework. Proceedings of the 10th International Role and Reference Grammar Conference. University of California, Berkeley USA. Leeson, Lorraine and Brian Nolan. 2008. Digital Deployment of the Signs of Ireland Corpus in Elearning. Language Resources and Evaluation LREC2008 - 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Construction and Exploitation of Sign Language Corpora. Marrakech, Morocco. Leeson, Lorraine, John Saeed, Deirdre Byrne-Dunne, Alison Macduff and Cormac Leonard. 2006. Moving Heads and Moving Hands: Developing a Digital Corpus of Irish Sign Language. The ?Signs of Ireland? Corpus Development Project. IT&T Conference (www.ittconference.ie). IT Carlow, Ireland. http://www.tara.tcd.ie/jspui/handle/2262/1597 Mairal Us?n, R. and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2008: New challenges for lexical representation within the Lexical-Constructional Model (LCM). In Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. Universidad de La Laguna. Mairal Us?n, Ricardo and Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza. 2009: Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Ch. Butler and J. Mart?n Arista (eds.). Deconstructing Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Morrissey, Sara and Andy Way. 2006. Lost in Translation: the Problems of Using Mainstream MT Evaluation Metrics for Sign Language Translation. In Proceedings of Strategies for developing machine translation for minority languages: 5th SALTMIL Workshop on Minority Languages. Genoa, Italy. pp.91-98 Nolan, Brian and Yasser Salem. 2009. UniArab: An RRG Arabic-to-English machine translation software. Proceedings of the Role and Reference Grammar International Conference. University of California, Berkeley USA. Peri??n-Pascual, Carlos, and Francisco Arcas-T?nez. 2005. Microconceptual- Knowledge Spreading in FunGramKB. Proceedings on the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. 239-244, ACTA Press, Anaheim-Calgary-Zurich. Peri??n-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas T?nez. 2007. Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39, 197-204. Peri??n-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas T?nez. 2010a. Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44, 27-34. Peri??n-Pascual, Carlos and Francisco Arcas T?nez. 2010b. The architecture of FunGramKB. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, European Language Resources Association (ELRA), 2667-2674. Peri??n-Pascual, Carlos and Ricardo Mairal Us?n. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43, 265-273. Prendinger, Helmut and Mitsuru Ishizuka. 2010. Life-Like Characters: Tools, Affective Functions, and Applications (Cognitive Technologies). Springer. Ruiz de Mendoza Ib??ez, Francisco Jos? and Mairal, Ricardo. 2008: ?Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: an introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model?. Folia Linguistica 42/2 (2008), 355?400. Salem, Y., Hensman, A., and Nolan, B., 2008a. Implementing Arabic-to-English machine translation using the Role and Reference Grammar linguistic model. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual International Conference on Information Technology and Telecommunication (IT&T 2008), Galway, Ireland. Salem, Y. and Nolan, B., 2009a. Designing an XML lexicon architecture for Arabic machine translation based on Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools (MEDAR 2009), Cairo, Egypt. Salem, Y. and Nolan, B., 2009b. UNIARAB: An universal machine translator system for Arabic Based on Role and Reference Grammar. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Germany (DGfS 2009). Van Valin, R., 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantic Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, R. and LaPolla, R., 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge University Press. From jlmendi at unizar.es Fri Oct 29 12:16:41 2010 From: jlmendi at unizar.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9-Luis_Mend=EDvil?=) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:16:41 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote In-Reply-To: <20101029121845.bwzmql5vgkcco00k@correoweb.uvigo.es> Message-ID: I'm not sure this is what you are looking for, but (the need of) the distinction between 'grammaticallity' and 'unnaceptability' was discussed interestingly in Newmeyer's 1983 (still) remarkable book: Newmeyer, F.J. (1983): Grammatical Theory. Its Limits and Its Possibilities, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago y Londres. Best regards, Jos?-Luis Mend?vil El 29/10/2010, a las 12:18, Gael Vaamonde escribi?: > Hello, > > I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of > the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be > better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated > context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or > indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the > source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote > or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! > > Gael Vaamonde > University of Vigo > > Dr Jos?-Luis Mend?vil General Linguistics Universidad de Zaragoza Spain From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Oct 29 12:31:28 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:31:28 +0200 Subject: Looking for the author and the quote In-Reply-To: <20101029121845.bwzmql5vgkcco00k@correoweb.uvigo.es> Message-ID: Gael, have a look at "Recontextualizing Context Grammaticality meets appropriateness" by Anita Fetzer (Benjamins 2004): She discusses these terms together with their (first) proponents at length p. 12ff. Best wishes, Wolfgang Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 121 2004. Am 29.10.2010 12:18, schrieb Gael Vaamonde: > Hello, > > I remember to read an article or a book where it is said that much of > the cases discussed in terms of grammatical vs. agrammatical should be > better accounted for in terms of appropriated vs. inappropriated > context. Of course, this is a general idea which can be directly or > indirectly found in several works, but I am looking for the > source/author where (I think) this is stated as a (well-known?) quote > or maxim. Some suggestion?... Thank you! > > Gael Vaamonde > University of Vigo > -- -- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 Postanschrift / Postal address:Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-16567 // 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.uni-muenchen.de/personen/professoren/schulze/index.html http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistik? Fakultahumanitn?ch vied UniverzitaMateja B?la / Bansk? Bystrica Tajovsk?ho40 SK-97401 Bansk? Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- From swellsj at bgsu.edu Fri Oct 29 15:58:34 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:58:34 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). Sheri -- Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen Assistant Director English as a Second Language Program Associate Professor Department of English 423 East Hall Bowling Green State University (419) 372-8935 -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? --Aya On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Hi Aya, > What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex > experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood > would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work > on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >linguistic abilities per se. > > > Sheri > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn > from them may not be exactly the same. > > I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to > interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse > them. That's syntax. > > Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than > production. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Folks, >> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >> >> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >> >> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >> >> Peace, >> Sheri >> >> >> Sheri Wells-Jensen >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >> To: A.Katz >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >> >> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >> >> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >> explain. >> >> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >> >> >> Keith Johnson >> Professor of Linguistics >> University of California >> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 17:50:00 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:50:00 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from language? --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Aya, > > I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). > > Sheri > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much > difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because > many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. > > The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition > when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit > pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how > did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? > > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Hi Aya, >> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >> linguistic abilities per se. >> >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >> from them may not be exactly the same. >> >> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >> them. That's syntax. >> >> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >> production. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>> >>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>> >>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>> >>> Peace, >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>> To: A.Katz >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>> >>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>> >>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>> explain. >>> >>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>> >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> Professor of Linguistics >>> University of California >>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>> >>> >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 19:21:26 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:21:26 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dianne, Yes, Pepperberg has published some on the phenomenon you are describing. Shortly before Alex died she gave a talk at LACUS, in which she was very circumspect as usual in not claiming too much, but after seeing her presentation I was convinced that Alex had mastered English phonology. Again, she said no such thing herself-- she beat around the bush in the terminology she used, but that's what her evidence suggested. For anybody who is interested in what she actually said, and in her evidence, her paper for LACUS is availabel online: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/34/103_pepperberg_i.pdf --Aya On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Dianne Patterson wrote: > While I would not touch the "language" question with a 10 foot pole, > I can tell you that Alex engaged in fascinating word play (and so did the > younger parrots). > In these vocal games he would do things like swap consonants within words. > > He would also perform a sort of scaffolding behavior behavior for learning > new words based on similar old words. > Whatever you call this, he certainly did NOT treat words as unanalyzable > wholes. > > -Dianne Patterson, Ph.D. > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:50 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Sheri, >> >> Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were >> symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she >> spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? >> >> I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on >> them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do >> this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's >> not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that >> compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. >> >> How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? >> >> This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for >> humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would >> you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the >> subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from >> language? >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word >> >> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >> Aya, >>> >>> I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by >>> language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily >>> "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to >>> hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and >>> Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel >>> ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported >>> in anything I've read). >>> >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Assistant Director >>> English as a Second Language Program >>> >>> Associate Professor >>> Department of English >>> >>> 423 East Hall >>> Bowling Green State University >>> >>> (419) 372-8935 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM >>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Sheri, >>> >>> I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much >>> difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because >>> many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. >>> >>> The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition >>> when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit >>> pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how >>> did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>> >>> Hi Aya, >>>> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and >>>> reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed >>>> at Alex >>>> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the >>>> best measures of what he actually understood >>>> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way >>>> outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the >>>> published work >>>> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >>>> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >>>> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >>>> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >>>> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >>>> linguistic abilities per se. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sheri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >>>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>> >>>> Sheri, >>>> >>>> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >>>> from them may not be exactly the same. >>>> >>>> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >>>> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >>>> them. That's syntax. >>>> >>>> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >>>> production. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and >>>>> the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot >>>>> cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly >>>>> that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate >>>>> his various (impressive) abilities. >>>>> >>>>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's >>>>> fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, >>>>> demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>>>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities >>>>> necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the >>>>> parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>>>> >>>>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex >>>>> Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>>>> >>>>> Peace, >>>>> Sheri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >>>>> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>>>> To: A.Katz >>>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>>> >>>>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>>>> >>>>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>>>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>>>> >>>>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>>>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>>>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>>>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>>>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>>>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>>>> explain. >>>>> >>>>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>>>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>>>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>>>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>>>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Keith Johnson >>>>> Professor of Linguistics >>>>> University of California >>>>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Dianne Patterson, Ph.D. > dkp at u.arizona.edu > University of Arizona > SLHS 314 > 621-9877 > From swellsj at bgsu.edu Fri Oct 29 19:32:27 2010 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:32:27 -0400 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I remember feeling the same way about our daughter when she was about one: I kept thinking: those are certainly signs that refer to things, but I wonder if it's language ... yet. Later on, at some point, she crossed over some productivity point and it seemed clear to me that she was actually using language. I can't say when that was or what made me feel like it was language, but there was a point where I thought it wasn't and then later a point where I thought it was. I like to think of things in terms of a continuum and this seems to be an example of this to me. I respect the way the Alex papers are all quite conservative with the claims made about everything. I wouldn't say Alex didn't use language, but I feel cautious about all such claims: human and animal I guess. Sheri: apparently feeling difficult today! :) -- Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen Assistant Director English as a Second Language Program Associate Professor Department of English 423 East Hall Bowling Green State University (419) 372-8935 -----Original Message----- From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:50 PM To: Sheri Wells-Jensen Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky Sheri, Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we speak. How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart from language? --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > Aya, > > I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). > > Sheri > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much > difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because > many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. > > The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition > when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit > pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how > did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? > > > --Aya > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Hi Aya, >> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >> linguistic abilities per se. >> >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >> from them may not be exactly the same. >> >> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >> them. That's syntax. >> >> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >> production. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>> >>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>> >>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>> >>> Peace, >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>> To: A.Katz >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>> >>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>> >>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>> explain. >>> >>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>> >>> >>> Keith Johnson >>> Professor of Linguistics >>> University of California >>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>> >>> >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Oct 29 20:25:18 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:25:18 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sheri, Okay. I certainly respect that. There is a point with every child where you're not sure if they're really talking, or we're just reading too much into it. But that's usually before they can reliably produce recognizable output. There's even sometimes the point at which only some family members can understand what they are saying. It's because we give them the benefit of the doubt that they can proceed along the path beyond that point. I don't have problems with a graded approach. But then we'd have to admit that some humans don't have language at all, and others have mastered phonology and the lexicon, but not syntax. And others still are good at almost everything, but they can't write metrical poetry to save their lives. So if we really went around making each human subject prove with the same exactitude what degree of mastery they have over language, it would be a level playing field. And there would be no more grandiose claims about what anyone knows just by virtue of being human. But I don't think we're even allowed to say that Alex mastered phonology, after seeing him manipulate phonemes. I have people who tell me they do not doubt that Bow can spell words and construct sentences, but that somehow it isn't the same, because he's not human. The same proof should apply in all cases. (And if social cuing is not okay for other animals, then it's not okay for humans, too.) The great thing about Alex is that no one can claim that he was being cued as to what vocal gesture he should make. --Aya On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > I remember feeling the same way about our daughter when she was about one: I kept thinking: those are certainly signs that refer to things, but I wonder if it's language ... yet. Later on, at some point, she crossed over some productivity point and it seemed clear to me that she was actually using language. I can't say when that was or what made me feel like it was language, but there was a point where I thought it wasn't and then later a point where I thought it was. I like to think of things in terms of a continuum and this seems to be an example of this to me. I respect the way the Alex papers are all quite conservative with the claims made about everything. I wouldn't say Alex didn't use language, but I feel cautious about all such claims: human and animal I guess. > > Sheri: apparently feeling difficult today! :) > > > > > > -- > Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen > Assistant Director > English as a Second Language Program > > Associate Professor > Department of English > > 423 East Hall > Bowling Green State University > > (419) 372-8935 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:50 PM > To: Sheri Wells-Jensen > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky > > Sheri, > > Are you saying that when Pepperberg spoke English words out loud they were > symbols rather than words, because she was speaking to a parrot? But if > she spoke those same words to a human, they would be words? > > I agree that she could as easily have used plastic signs with words on > them, but to me in both cases those would be words. She probably didn't do > this because there is a notion that reading is harder, but I agree that > it's not functionally all that different from recognizing the phonemes > that compose a word from the acoustic stream that we generate when we > speak. > > How do you distinguish words from symbols? Or symbols from language? > > This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the double standard for > humans and non-humans. If you did this experiment with a human child, > would you take the trouble to call the words used by the experimenter and > the subject symbols? Would you claim that you were testing cognition apart > from language? > > > --Aya > > http://hubpages.com/hub/Project-Bows-FAQ-Why-is-it-called-a-lexigram-when-it-looks-like-a-word > > > On Fri, 29 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: > >> Aya, >> >> I don't think I'm convinced that his responses to her were mediated by language necessarily. Symbols, certainly but she could have as easily "asked her questions' by holding up a plastic stop sign. What I'd like to hear more about are the informal interactions where language was used and Alex responded. there is where we could see words recombining in novel ways: something I don't think he ever did (or at least it was never reported in anything I've read). >> >> Sheri >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Assistant Director >> English as a Second Language Program >> >> Associate Professor >> Department of English >> >> 423 East Hall >> Bowling Green State University >> >> (419) 372-8935 >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:30 PM >> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >> >> Sheri, >> >> I did notice the "simplified" English, but I'm not sure it makes much >> difference in terms of judging the ability to master human syntax, because >> many other human languages don't need a copula in that kind of sentence. >> >> The idea that you could by-pass language and go straight to cognition >> when the questions and answers are in the form of spoken English, (albeit >> pidginized), is somewhat naive. What we should ask ourselves is this: how >> did Alex understand what Pepperberg wanted to know? >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >> >>> Hi Aya, >>> What you say makes sense and the difference between production and reception is an important one. For what it's worth, the questions directed at Alex >>> experimentally were simplified: "What Same" for example. Probably the best measures of what he actually understood >>> would have come from his reactions to casual speech directed his way outside of the experimental paradigm. I've read some quantity of the published work >>> on Alex and the other parrots, but I've never seen any controlled >>> attempt to measure his (or their) language comprehension outside of the >>> experimental tasks designed to access cognitive processing. It's >>> fascinating work. I was quite startled by the things the birds could do, >>> and I'd love to see some experimental attention directed toward their >>> linguistic abilities per se. >>> >>> >>> Sheri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: A. Katz [mailto:amnfn at well.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 4:49 PM >>> To: Sheri Wells-Jensen >>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>> >>> Sheri, >>> >>> What the Alex Studies were intended to investigate, and what we can learn >>> from them may not be exactly the same. >>> >>> I would disagree that he did not seem to acquire much syntax. In order to >>> interpret Pepperberg's questions correctly, Alex had to be able to parse >>> them. That's syntax. >>> >>> Let's remember that language comprehension is no less important than >>> production. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Sheri Wells-Jensen wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> It's worth pointing out, I think, that the goal of the Alex studies and the ongoing studies of other parrots has been the investigation of parrot cognition not language acquisition. Dr. Pepperberg states quite clearly that Alex's utterances are meant as only a vehicle for him to demonstrate his various (impressive) abilities. >>>> >>>> He does not seem to have acquired much syntax at all, but it's fascinating to note the other cognitive abilities he clearly has, demonstrated by the problems he can solve. >>>> It would be interesting to construct a list of the cognitive abilities necessary to manipulate a grammar accurately and compare those to what the parrots can do albeit in a nonlinguistic context. >>>> >>>> For what it's worth, there is quite a bit of phonetic detail in The Alex Studies if you want to see spectrograms and such of parrot speech. >>>> >>>> Peace, >>>> Sheri >>>> >>>> >>>> Sheri Wells-Jensen >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice*.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Johnson >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:38 PM >>>> To: A.Katz >>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu >>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Chomsky >>>> >>>> Aya, discussing the problem of demonstrating that birds can talk, says: >>>> >>>> "If humans had to go through this to prove their children can really >>>> talk, they wouldn't fare much better." >>>> >>>> I think that this is a false statement, as evidenced by the years of >>>> research reported in journals like the "Journal of Child Language". >>>> Children are studied in controlled settings, and behave differently >>>> than nonhuman creatures do. My point is that the linguistic >>>> accomplishments of nonhuman species are quite different from those of >>>> humans. This seems to be an observation that we should be able to >>>> explain. >>>> >>>> Barbara King argues that there are more interesting questions that >>>> whether nonhuman creatures have "language" or not. But, I would say >>>> that if we are seeking to understand the organic basis of this human >>>> capacity we call language, then it is crucial that we understand >>>> whether the capacity for language is shared across species. >>>> >>>> >>>> Keith Johnson >>>> Professor of Linguistics >>>> University of California >>>> keithjohnson at berkeley.edu >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Oct 29 20:47:18 2010 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: Chomsky Message-ID: It would be interesting to know whether parrots or other imitating birds can deal with human phonosemantic trends. Say, train them in a language with huge numbers of transparent ideophones (for ex. a Gbaya dialect) but minimal derivation and inflection. See how they do. Or conversely, use a heavily polysynthetic language where there is little such iconic transparency. Could they handle it? Would they fare differently with languages of different morphosyntactic typology? Or we could look at differently quantized phonological systems- something with a minimal set but lots of surface variation depending on local context, or maximal with minimal variation (Ubykh? !Kung?). Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From language at sprynet.com Sat Oct 30 03:25:47 2010 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:25:47 -0400 Subject: Linguistics, MT, and AI... Message-ID: Thanks to Yuri Tambovtsev for the following: > There is a crisis in linguistics, though linguists do not care to notice > it. I don't intend to push the points I have already made too much further, since I respect all of you for the difficult situation in which you find yourselves, even if you "do not care to notice it." If it's any consolation, you're not alone in this situation, it's one shared by everyone in the AI field, of which MT is just one branch (and yes, I'm aware there was an MT movement before AI which would later merge). Up there on that Tokyo Prize stage with Chomsky was John McCarthy, the inventor of the phrase Artificial Intelligence and often named as its father. (If memory serves, you'll find a photo of them both on that Tokyo platform in Barsky's bio). It was a heady year, 1988, when AI was at its summit of prestige, when we were told repeatedly that it was only a matter of time before KEs (Knowledge Engineers) would be arriving in every area of business, education, and industry to consult with DEs (Domain Experts), and once the KEs had absorbed what the DEs knew, they would digitize it all, and DEs would no longer be needed. But it all worked out rather differently, just as in MT, where it was widely boasted in 1988 that human translators, the DEs in their field, were soon due to vanish. What actually turned out is that almost all the MT companies of the 80s & 90s went under, while remaining MT/TM companies are virtually begging human translators to use their systems, since only human translators are capable of coping with them. Back during those ambitious 80s & 90s, it was widely boasted that the Austin CYC project would soon solve all of AI and language by joining vast numbers of computers together to simulate the human mind & human language. We hear little about CYC these days, though according to the Times it has just been reborn at Carnegie Mellon under its new name of NELL (Never Ending Language Learning). I'm willing to bet that my 1994 criticisms of CYC will still apply to NELL, you'll find them at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/nextwave.htm#totop Just a few weeks ago the New York Times published another pro-AI article claiming that robotically driven cars are nearly here. None other than John McCarthy made this claim to me on-line back in 1998, and once again I believe that most of the counter-arguments I made to him then still hold. You'll find them at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/autocars.htm I could go on and on with further AI examples but will spare you. The future of linguistics is your problem, and sooner or later you will need to confront it. Very best to everyone! alex PS--I realize that "culture" is a dirty word around here, but the granting of the Tokyo Prize to Chomsky and McCarthy by Japan was scarcely a disinterested one devoid of cultural and political overtones. This was the period when the Japanese were staking their own future on AI with their so-called Fifth Generation drive, and they saw these two men as providing key guidance in their campaign, Chomsky for language, McCarthy for everything else. I discussed all of this in some detail at the time in a review you can find here: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/japanai.htm#totop From keithjohnson at berkeley.edu Sat Oct 30 18:23:06 2010 From: keithjohnson at berkeley.edu (Keith Johnson) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:23:06 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Sheri, I wonder if your feeling that your daughter had crossed a language learning threshold might have been at about 18 months, the usual time of the "vocabulary explosion"? Bob McMurray has some really interesting ideas about how to explain this feature of language acquisition. He simulated the vocabulary explosion by making only two assumptions. (1) words are being learned in parallel - a little bit of learning for many words at the same time, and (2) some words are easier to learn than others. That's all it takes to have a vocabulary explosion - no language module needed. McMurray posted a very helpful discussion of his work: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mcmurray/science/ If the sense that a child has crossed a linguistic threshold is related to the vocabulary explosion, and if the vocabulary explosion is related to McMurray's two factors, then what keeps Alex from crossing the threshold must be one of two things; he is learning words sequentially rather than in parallel, or he finds it much harder to learn words than children do. If the first impediment is the culprit then perhaps training methods could be adjusted, but if the second is the crucial factor then it may not be possible for a parrot to cross that language-learning threshold with English. Earlier work with Chimps has tried to address the word difficulty problem by teaching ASL rather than spoken language, but one wonders if the difficulty lies at a more conceptual level of word learning than mere input/output system unnaturalness. Still the LACUS paper that Aya pointed us to hints at an impressive use by parrots of duality of patterning (one of Hockett's 13 design features of language Hockett, C (1960) "The Origin of Speech". in Scientific American, 203, pp. 89?97). best, Keith Johnson p.s. I would like to say, regarding the range of human linguistic ability (Aya's repeated point that some humans don't have language), that it would be useful to remember that clinical speech and language pathologists have developed numerous standardized tests of human linguistic ability, and school-aged children are routinely tested to detect developmental delays. Perhaps, if one wanted to measure the level of linguistic accomplishment reached by a parrot or other animal it would be good to score the animal on some standardized tests. From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 30 18:42:09 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:42:09 -0700 Subject: Chomsky In-Reply-To: <0F705506-C1CF-4618-B13A-D4260EE82C7A@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Keith, Overall that was a very useful suggestion concerning the standards established by language pathologists to assess first language learning. However, I'm a little more skeptical that these tests are effective at detecting problems with "general language ability" as opposed to the success of a particular child with the acquisition of a specific language. There are numerous stories about language delay experts being unable to independently detect the difference between general language delay and the fact that the child in question is not a speaker of the particular language being tested. To my knowledge, there is no test of generalized language ability even for humans. --Aya On Sat, 30 Oct 2010, Keith Johnson wrote: > Hi Sheri, > > I wonder if your feeling that your daughter had crossed a language learning > threshold might have been at about 18 months, the usual time of the > "vocabulary explosion"? > > Bob McMurray has some really interesting ideas about how to explain this > feature of language acquisition. He simulated the vocabulary explosion by > making only two assumptions. (1) words are being learned in parallel - a > little bit of learning for many words at the same time, and (2) some words > are easier to learn than others. That's all it takes to have a vocabulary > explosion - no language module needed. > > McMurray posted a very helpful discussion of his work: > http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/mcmurray/science/ > > If the sense that a child has crossed a linguistic threshold is related to > the vocabulary explosion, and if the vocabulary explosion is related to > McMurray's two factors, then what keeps Alex from crossing the threshold must > be one of two things; he is learning words sequentially rather than in > parallel, or he finds it much harder to learn words than children do. If the > first impediment is the culprit then perhaps training methods could be > adjusted, but if the second is the crucial factor then it may not be possible > for a parrot to cross that language-learning threshold with English. > > Earlier work with Chimps has tried to address the word difficulty problem by > teaching ASL rather than spoken language, but one wonders if the difficulty > lies at a more conceptual level of word learning than mere input/output > system unnaturalness. Still the LACUS paper that Aya pointed us to hints at > an impressive use by parrots of duality of patterning (one of Hockett's 13 > design features of language Hockett, C (1960) "The Origin of Speech". in > Scientific American, 203, pp. 89?97). > > best, > Keith Johnson > > p.s. I would like to say, regarding the range of human linguistic ability > (Aya's repeated point that some humans don't have language), that it would be > useful to remember that clinical speech and language pathologists have > developed numerous standardized tests of human linguistic ability, and > school-aged children are routinely tested to detect developmental delays. > Perhaps, if one wanted to measure the level of linguistic accomplishment > reached by a parrot or other animal it would be good to score the animal on > some standardized tests. From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:16:59 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:16:59 +0700 Subject: Glottal stops Message-ID: Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru From amnfn at well.com Sat Oct 30 19:31:36 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:31:36 -0700 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yuri, It's not that the brain commands us to use glottal stops or not. There is a historical process whereby languages change their phonetic inventories. It has nothing to do with the genetic configuration of different brains. --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Oct 30 19:39:03 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:39:03 +0200 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I meant glottalized sounds, not simple glottal stops--the glottalized sounds essentially have glottal stops as secondary articulations. In relation to frequency of occurrence--and since you said you've done frequency counts-- I should say that I remember having the impression when I was looking at Mayan languages that--aside from the fact that highland languages almost always have the uvular glottal stop while lowland languages almost never do--the general frequency of glottal stops was much higher in highland languages like Quiche than lowland languages like Yucatec. I was doing text analyses of word order variation, not frequency of occurrence of different phonemes, but I remember having this impression very clearly. Would you happen to have done any studies of any of these languages? Best wishes, John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they are used in > Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of occurrence, > then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds in the > sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too much effort > of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world languages. > They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting enough, but what > is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of speech sounds > more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this direction of > research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently in one > language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use the same > sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes that Human > Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the Human > speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound > pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on 256 world > languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:41:41 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:41:41 +0700 Subject: Brain sends commands to the articulators Message-ID: Yuri, It's not that the brain commands us to use glottal stops or not. There is a historical process whereby languages change their phonetic inventories. It has nothing to do with the genetic configuration of different brains. --Aya My dear Aya, if you read books on phonetics, you'll learn that Brain sends commands to the articulators to produce this or that sound. What you wrote is quite strange for specialists in phonetics. Be well Yuri From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sat Oct 30 19:47:22 2010 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:47:22 -0600 Subject: Glottal stops In-Reply-To: <1288467543.4ccc7457ad2fd@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: this sort of question is exactly what the on-line World Atlas of Linguistic Structures is intended to help with. In about a minute, I got to the page for the distribution of glottalized consonants of various types: http://wals.info/feature/7?tg_format=map&v1=cfff&v2=c00d&v3=cd00&v4=dff0&v5=c909&v6=d00d&v7=dd00&v8=d909&s=20&z4=3000&z8=2999&z7=2998&z5=2997&z6=2996&z3=2995&z2=2994&z1=2993 Paste this link into your browser to go to the Google map WALS generated for me. Lise On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:39 PM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I meant glottalized sounds, not simple glottal stops--the > glottalized sounds > essentially have glottal stops as secondary articulations. In > relation to > frequency of occurrence--and since you said you've done frequency > counts-- > I should say that I remember having the impression when I was > looking at Mayan > languages that--aside from the fact that highland languages almost > always have > the uvular glottal stop while lowland languages almost never do--the > general > frequency of glottal stops was much higher in highland languages > like Quiche > than lowland languages like Yucatec. I was doing text analyses of > word order > variation, not frequency of occurrence of different phonemes, but I > remember > having this impression very clearly. Would you happen to have done any > studies of any of these languages? > Best wishes, > John > > > > > Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > >> Dear John, if you mean glottal stops as clicks, then indeed they >> are used in >> Caucasian languages. However, if you count their frequency of >> occurrence, >> then you see that they are quite seldom among other speech sounds >> in the >> sound speech chain. I should guess it is because they require too >> much effort >> of the articulartory apparatus. I have studied them in 256 world >> languages. >> They are not common to the Human Language. It is interesting >> enough, but what >> is more interesting it is why some languages use some sort of >> speech sounds >> more frequently than the others. I wonder who is working in this >> direction of >> research? Why does brain commands to use this sound more frequently >> in one >> language and the same Human Brain (or different?) commands to use >> the same >> sound in some other language less frequently? Linguistics assumes >> that Human >> Brains are the same all over the world. It is also assumed that the >> Human >> speech production apparatus is also the same. Nevertheless, the sound >> pictures of different languages are different. I have checked it on >> 256 world >> languages. Is it not an enigma? Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, yutamb at mail.ru >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ 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 yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:48:17 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:48:17 +0700 Subject: Quiche Message-ID: I counted a small text of Quiche all right. I do not remember that the per cent of occurrence of glottal stops in it was higher than the other speech sounds. From yutamb at mail.ru Sat Oct 30 19:58:29 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:58:29 +0700 Subject: labial against velar consonants Message-ID: At the moment I am writing an article on how much different poets use labial consonants against velar consonants and how much fricative consonants against occlusive consonants and so on. The Nobel Prize Winner Josif Brodskiy does not use as many vowels and sonorants as Alexander Pushkin or Sergey Esenin. Why so? That is the question. From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 31 11:55:20 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:55:20 +0600 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages Message-ID: Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 31 12:24:47 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:24:47 -0700 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages In-Reply-To: <91724379E7D24C92A7911F05562B0B82@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Yuri, The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in monogenesis or not. If language arose only once, then it had a certain phonetic inventory at that time. Then historical processes set in. My guess is that guttural sounds and clicks and pharyngeals were part of the phonetic inventory of the original language (or languages), but that they tend to disappear with time. In less urban settings, where there is less commerce and less noise, the sounds can survive. But in other places they tend to disappear. Have you ever heard of a click developing from a non-click, a pharyngeal from an oral sound? I think there's some kind of directionality in the process of change. --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk > > From yutamb at mail.ru Sun Oct 31 12:46:46 2010 From: yutamb at mail.ru (Yuri Tambovtsev) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:46:46 +0600 Subject: apply exact or objective methods Message-ID: Aya Katz wrote= Yuri, The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in monogenesis or not. = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Oct 31 13:31:13 2010 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:31:13 +0200 Subject: Guttural consonants in world languages In-Reply-To: <91724379E7D24C92A7911F05562B0B82@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: In a generally similar vein, Niloofar Haeri has argued convincingly that in sound changes, women are overwhelmingly more likely to lead if the process involves fronting while men are overwhelmingly more likely to lead if the process involves backing. Another mystery of human language... John Quoting Yuri Tambovtsev : > Dear colleagues, it is still an enigma for me why in some languages labial > consonants are used more frequently while in some other palatal or guttural > consonants are preferred. When I asked J.Greenberg about it in 1973, he wrote > me that he was wondering about that as well. I think that J.Greenberg > published an article on the frequency of speech sounds in the chain of some > Amer.Indian language. Is that true? Do you know Greenberg's article on the > frequency of occurrence of speech sounds? He urged me to calculate the > frequencies of phonemic occurrence in different world languages. I have > calculated the degree of the use of the guttural consonants in the speech > sond chain in the world languages. By guttural consonants I mean velar, > uvular, pharingeal and glottal consonants. The use of guttural was calculated > in per cent to all sounds in the speech sound chain. The least guttural > languages are Rumanian (1,45%) and Latvian (5.55%), while the most guttural > are Wichita (30.23%) and Naukan Eskimo (26.76%). It means nearly every third > speech sound in the chain is guttural. I can send my list of publications to > those interested. Please, write to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, remain yours most > gratefully for different fruitful discussions on the list, Yuri Tambovtsev, > Novosibirsk > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Sun Oct 31 14:13:51 2010 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 07:13:51 -0700 Subject: apply exact or objective methods In-Reply-To: <6D60D5328F7B46049CF813D5DD187FE4@ngufa28a6c2639> Message-ID: Touche! I misspoke. You are right. I should not have mentioned "belief." What I meant was, have you seen any historical evidence of the development of clicks from non-clicks? Or of oral sounds becoming pharyngeal? Is the development documented to have occurred in either direction? --Aya On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > Aya Katz wrote= > Yuri, > The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in > monogenesis or not. > = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Oct 31 14:25:22 2010 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:25:22 +0100 Subject: apply exact or objective methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well, I recall Bernd Heine once arguing in favor of the emergence of at least some clicks from clusters of oral consonants in Khoisan languages (but I have to check that! Bernd: In case you read this, please correct me!). As for "orals sounds becoming pharyngeal": In Udi (East Caucasian), for instances, there is a secured sound law that runs *[t?'] > [q'], as in *ot?- 'ground' > Udi oq' 'ground' (many other examples). Best, Wolfgang Am 31.10.2010 15:13, schrieb A. Katz: > Touche! I misspoke. You are right. I should not have mentioned "belief." > > What I meant was, have you seen any historical evidence of the > development of clicks from non-clicks? Or of oral sounds becoming > pharyngeal? Is the development documented to have occurred in either > direction? > > --Aya > > > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Yuri Tambovtsev wrote: > >> Aya Katz wrote= >> Yuri, >> The answer to your question might depend on whether we believe in >> monogenesis or not. >> = That's it! Linguistics is a set of believers. Linguists just >> believe or not. Usually, they do not care to apply exact or objective >> methods. Why should I believe in monogenesis of language? Or on the >> contrary, why should I not believe in monogenesis? Is linguistics a >> science or a religion? Is linguistics just for believers? Why should >> a linguist be a beliver if he can prove theories, like in biology, >> chemistry, physics, etc? Why should I belive that this language has a >> lot of gutturals if I can calculate them? Write back to >> yutamb at mail.ru Be well, Yuri Tambovtsev, Novosibirsk, Russia >> >> > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- /Primary contact: / Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Neue Anschrift // New address [!] Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: New page (change bookmarks!): http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- /Second contact: / KatedraGermanistik? Fakultahumanitn?ch vied UniverzitaMateja B?la / Bansk? Bystrica Tajovsk?ho40 SK-97401 Bansk? Bystrica Tel: (00421)-(0)48-4465108 Fax: (00421)-(0)48-4465512 Email: Schulze at fhv.umb.sk Web: http://www.fhv.umb.sk/app/user.php?user=schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich 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 Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen.