From chowe at uga.edu Fri Apr 1 13:26:35 2011 From: chowe at uga.edu (Chad Howe) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:26:35 -0400 Subject: CFP: 2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium Message-ID: **We apologize for cross-listings.** ************************************* *2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium* Location:University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Dates:October 6-9, 2011 Meeting Email: /hls2011 at uga.edu/// Meeting URL: http://www.hls2011.uga.edu Call Deadline: 20-May-2011 Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics Subject Language: Portuguese, Spanish ************************************* Meeting Description: Papers are invited in any area of Hispanic Linguistics and Language Acquisition and in any theoretical or quantitative framework. Additional information regarding associated workshops or special sessions will be provided on the conference website: http//www.hls2011.uga.edu. Invited Speakers: José del Valle (The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)) Kimberly Geeslin (Indiana University) Paula Kempchinsky (University of Iowa) Papers may be delivered in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Authors may submit up to two abstracts, one individual and one joint. The body of the abstract must be no more than one page in length with a second page reserved for examples and references. Abstracts must clearly present a specific thesis statement and include a description of topic, approach, and conclusions. To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors should not include their names or otherwise reveal their identity anywhere in the abstract. Please specify the title of the paper, area of research, name, academic affiliation, and e-mail in the abstract submission. Abstracts must be submitted through EasyAbstracts (EasyAbs): http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/HLS2011 All submissions must be received by May 20, 2011. Pre-Conference Workshop: Title:New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics As part of the 2011 HLS at the University of Georgia, we will also be hosting a workshop entitled /New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics /on Thursday, October 6^th . The workshop will be aimed at highlighting new analytical developments in linguistics, including (but not limited to) experimental and quantitative techniques. The papers selected will be grouped according to the area of focus of the research and/or the nature of the methodological innovation employed. Presenters areencouraged to submit proposals that concentrate on providing introductory overviews and brief 'hands-on' tutorials of current methodological tools (e.g., methods for statistical analysis or software for psycholinguistic experimentation) for workshop attendees. As the methodologies utilized in linguistic studies continue to include a broader range of training in quantitative and experimental techniques, we are using this workshop at the 2011 HLS as a means of providing a forum for discussing best practices in the field.Facilities for conducting workshop-style presentations will be available for this workshop. All submissions for the conference workshop must be received by May 20, 2011 and should follow the same guidelines as the papers for the general sessions. In submitting an abstract for the conference workshop via EasyAbs, please be sure to indicate that the abstract is intended for the "Special Session". Any questions regarding abstracts for the conference workshop can be sent to hls2011 at uga.edu . Organizing Committee: Sarah Blackwell Timothy Gupton Chad Howe Margaret Quesada Diana Ranson From copelan at rice.edu Sat Apr 2 18:07:05 2011 From: copelan at rice.edu (copelan at rice.edu) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 13:07:05 -0500 Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: This might be of interest to Funknetters, a new book--a novel--by an old Funknet hand Tom Givon. Hedonism & fun & games crash on the rocks of Vietnam & radical politics in the late 1960s. Check it out on the Website /www.whitecloudpublishing.com/. It's a great read! From dedaicm at georgetown.edu Sun Apr 3 12:45:14 2011 From: dedaicm at georgetown.edu (dedaicm at georgetown.edu) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:45:14 -0400 Subject: Of general interest to linguistics: a new novel by Thomas Givon In-Reply-To: <20110402130856.14864n9f2d8p8oc8@webmail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Congratulations to TG for publishing a novel! I have a (somewhat) related question. I recently translated a novel written by a cult Croatian author Slobodan Novak. It has been a year since I started trying to find a publisher in the US, with no luck thus far. This is not one of those fast selling Larsenian love-and-violence novels, but rather a pensive, philosophical work whose theme is the period just before the dissolution of Yugoslavia seen through the eyes of an elderly professor. I'd be happy to send more information to anybody interested. Does anyone know of an independent, progressive publisher who'd be willing to consider such a novel? Thanks, Mima Dedaic From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 3 13:08:39 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 06:08:39 -0700 Subject: Of general interest to linguistics: a new novel by Thomas Givon In-Reply-To: <20110403084514.AJM12002@mstore-prod-1.pdc.uis.georgetown.edu> Message-ID: I run a small press: http://www.inverteda.com/ --Aya On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, dedaicm at georgetown.edu wrote: > Congratulations to TG for publishing a novel! > I have a (somewhat) related question. I recently translated a novel written by a cult Croatian author Slobodan Novak. It has been a year since I started trying to find a publisher in the US, with no luck thus far. This is not one of those fast selling Larsenian love-and-violence novels, but rather a pensive, philosophical work whose theme is the period just before the dissolution of Yugoslavia seen through the eyes of an elderly professor. I'd be happy to send more information to anybody interested. Does anyone know of an independent, progressive publisher who'd be willing to consider such a novel? > Thanks, > Mima Dedaic > > From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 4 17:26:30 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:26:30 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Putnam - Studies on German-Language Islands Message-ID: Studies on German-Language Islands Edited by Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University Studies in Language Companion Series 123 2011. xii, 477 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0590 2 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 e-Book 978 90 272 8740 3 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 The contributions in this volume present cutting-edge theoretical and structural analyses of issues surrounding German-language islands, or Sprachinseln, throughout the world. The individual topics of study in this volume focus on various aspects of these German-language islands such as (but not limited to) phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of these languages under investigation. Collectively, the body of research contained in this volume explores significantly under-researched topics in the fields of language contact and language attrition and illustrates how this on-going research can be enhanced through the application of formal theoretical frameworks and structural analyses. Table of contents Table of contents i–viii Acknowledgements vii–viii List of abbreviations ix–x List of contributors xi–xii Why study Sprachinseln from generative or structural perspectives? Introductory remarks Michael T. Putnam 1–10 Section 1. Phonetics & Phonology 11–64 On final laryngeal distinctions in Wisconsin Standard German Renee Remy 13–32 Past participles in Mòcheno: Allomorphy, alignment and the distribution of obstruents Birgit Alber 33–64 Section 2. Morphology & Lexical studies 65–162 Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German Annemarie Toebosch 67–110 Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German Michael T. Putnam 111–128 Lexical developments in Texas German Hans C. Boas and Marc Pierce 129–150 Gender assignment of English loanwords in Pennsylvania German: Is there a feminine tendency? B. Richard Page 151–162 Section 3. Syntax I - Verb clusters 163–230 Synchrony and diachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch Mark L. Louden 165–186 Looking for order in chaos: Standard convergence and divergence in Mennonite Low German Göz Kaufmann 187–230 Section 4. Syntax II - The syntax of Cimbrian German 231–368 Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic islands in Northern Italy- and what they (do not) betray about language universals and change under areal contact with Italo-Romance Werner Abraham 233–278 Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP Andrea Padovan 279–300 Hidden verb second: The case of Cimbrian Günther Grewendorf and Cecilia Poletto 301–346 Revisiting the Wackernagelposition: The evolution of the Cimbrian pronominal system Ermenegildo Bidese 347–368 Section 5. Syntax III - The syntax of Pennsylvania German 369–412 Changes in frequency as a measure of language change: Extraposition in Pennsylvania German Gesche Westphal Fitch 371–384 From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania German fer…zu construction Kersti Börjars and Kate Burridge 385–412 Section 6. Pragmatics & Conversation analysis 413–474 Word choice, turn construction, and topic management in German conversation: Adverbs that are sensitive to interactional positioning Emma Betz 415–454 Texas German discourse pragmatics: A preliminary study of the English-origin discourse markers of course, see, and now Hunter Weilbacher 455–474 Index 475–478 “I do not know any area where descriptive work has as long or as consistently remained separate from theoretical work as in the study of colonial German varieties. In recent years, individual studies have begun to bridge that gap, but this volume is the first to achieve that fully, across wide-ranging theoretical frameworks, colonial varieties and subfields of linguistics.” Joseph Salmons, University of Wisconsin-Madison -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 4 17:28:54 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:28:54 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Hieda et al. - Geographical Typology and Linguistic Areas Message-ID: Geographical Typology and Linguistic Areas With special reference to Africa Edited by Osamu Hieda, Christa König and Hirosi Nakagawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies / University of Cologne / Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 2 2011. vi, 321 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0769 2 / EUR 95.00 / USD 143.00 Is Africa a linguistic area (Heine & Leyew 2008)? The present volume consists of sixteen papers highlighting the linguistic geography of Africa, covering, in particular, southern Africa with its Khoisan languages. A wide range of phenomena are discussed to give an overview of the pattern of social, cultural, and linguistic interaction that characterizes Africa's linguistic geography. Most contributors to the volume discuss language contact and areal diffusion in Africa, although some demonstrate, with examples from non-African linguistic data, including Amazonian and European languages, how language contact may lead to structural convergence. Others investigate contact phenomena in social-cultural behavior. The volume makes a large contribution toward bringing generalized theory to data-oriented discussions. It is intended to stimulate further research on contact phenomena in Africa. For sale in all countries except Japan. For customers in Japan: please contact Yushodo Co. Table of contents Message from the President Ikuo Kameyama 1 Center for Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education Makoto Minegishi 3 Introduction Christa König 7 Section 1 Areal Features and Linguistic Areas: Contact-induced Change and Geographical Typology Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald 13 Areas of Grammaticalization and Geographical Typology Bernd Heine 41 Case Marking and Linguistic Geography Christa König 67 Can Ethiopian Languages be Considered Languages in the African Linguistic Area? The Case of Highland East Cushitic, particularly Sidaama and Kambaata Kazuhiro Kawachi 91 Proto-Bantu and Proto-Niger-Congo: Macro-areal Typology and Linguistic Reconstruction Tom Güldemann 109 Section 2 Explaining Convergence and the Formation of Linguistic Areas Yaron Matras 143 Is Kumam a Creole Language? A Mechanism of Linguistic Convergence in the Southern Lwo Area Osamu Hieda 161 The Continuum of Languages in West Tanzania Bantu: A Case Study of Gongwe, Bende, and Pimbwe Yuko Abe 177 Patterns of Linguistic Convergence in the Khoe-speaking Area of Southern Africa Rainer Vossen 189 Tense and Aspect in Khoesan: The case of Ju/'hoansi Budzani Gabanamotse-Mogara 201 Section 3 Ritual Pathways: Contact in a Framework of Difference, Imitation and Alterity Anne Storch 213 The Eastern Kalahari Khoe: A Focus on Inter-Khoisan Ethno-language Dynamics around the Makgadikgadi Salt Pans of Botswana Andy Chebanne 233 Language Contact and Social Change in North-central Namibia: Socialization via Singing and Dancing Activities among the !Xun San Akira Takada 251 Two Types of Kinship Classifi cation Found among the Khoe Languages — Relative and Absolute Calculations in Determining the Seniority among Classifi catory Siblings Hitomi Ono 269 A First Report on G|ui Ideophones Hirosi Nakagawa 279 Section 4 Noun-Modifi er Order in Africa Matthew S. Dryer 287 Index of Authors 313 Index of Languages, Language Families and Areas 315 Index of Subjects 318 Contributors 321 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Apr 5 01:58:34 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:58:34 -0700 Subject: Book suggestions? Message-ID: Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989. Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 02:59:12 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:59:12 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Hello, all, I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. My two main questions: (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. —David Tuggy From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 5 03:11:09 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:11:09 -0600 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. Lise Menn On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a > group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal > entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal > entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where > something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each > called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her > (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl > (nlv), for instance, > > New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask > after Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the > plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the > word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker > for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel > their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard- > plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? > E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other > such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that > count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any > noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps > only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is > associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language > *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any > language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an > associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > —David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 03:19:02 2011 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:19:02 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <133DFF35-7336-43B9-9B83-89863D751E65@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. Japanese = boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' Thai= phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. phUak tEE = you guys phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. Shoichi -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM To: David Tuggy Cc: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. Lise Menn On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group > of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but > rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It > shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something > like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called > "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for > instance, > > New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality > of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word > 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an > associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel > their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard- > plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? > E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other > such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? > Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What > about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one > person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with > that person to make the plurality. Does any language > *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language > distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > —David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Tue Apr 5 03:24:22 2011 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:24:22 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: There is an article on this: Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages have these. You can add them to proper names. Marianne Mithun --On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > From olga at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 04:01:43 2011 From: olga at humnet.ucla.edu (Yokoyama, Olga) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:01:43 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <64AC293F9340AE72DC78CCD0@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). Olga T. Yokoyama Professor Department of Applied Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles Tel. (310) 825-7694 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 Marianne Mithun Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM To: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals There is an article on this: Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages have these. You can add them to proper names. Marianne Mithun --On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 5 04:03:20 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:03:20 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three biblical texts. Something to chew on.... Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 05:33:26 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:33:26 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <26465246.1301976200650.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. John Quoting jess tauber : > Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, > -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are > given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative > dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if > this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three > biblical texts. Something to chew on.... > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Tue Apr 5 05:51:00 2011 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Robert) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:51:00 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8FAB2E57@EM17.ad.ucla.ed u> Message-ID: In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper name to refer to a man and his family like in: "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. Stéphane Robert Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga écrit: >In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms >as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the >19th century Russian peasant letters (by >speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found >a similar phenomenon with a subject personal >name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John >were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > >Olga T. Yokoyama > >Professor > >Department of Applied Linguistics > >University of California, Los Angeles > >Tel. (310) 825-7694 > >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 Marianne Mithun >Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >To: funknet >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > >There is an article on this: > > > >Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology > >of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. > > > >Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages > >have these. You can add them to proper names. > > > >Marianne Mithun > > > >--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy > >wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > > > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > > > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > > > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > > > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > > > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > > > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > > > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > > > > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > > > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > > > > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > > > Samuel and his friends. > > > > > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > > > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > > > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > > > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > > > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > > > Samuel's family/group'. > > > > > > My two main questions: > > > > > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > > > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > > > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > > > interpretation? > > > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > > > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > > > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > > > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > > > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > > > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > > > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > > > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > > > from an associative one? > > > > > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > > > appreciated as well. > > > > > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 5 06:23:22 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 02:23:22 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Well, Yahgan has an even higher animacy dual -a:pai. In pn's only found with 1st and 2nd person. I'm starting to think there are three underlying bases here that evolved from the three numeral terms for 1,2,3. Three in Yahgan is mvtan (v schwa), so -(n)de(i) from that. Two is kvmbai (alternate forms kvmbaibi, kvmbaibai), which would yield -a:pai. There is also a form hvnggvmbai which acts as a reciprocal. u:koali is one, and the definite article -a:ki (which also has an alternate in -a), also used independently to mean 'someone', may have evolved from it. There is a suffix -(n)chi, perhaps further evolved, on nouns which seems to relate to superindividuality (as when one has subordinates), so maybe this too is an associative use? It can be used alone (as when one appeals to the king), or also on possessors in constructions of X-nchi Y-n (Y of X). Still a bit fuzzy here, haven't thought in these terms before. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From comrie at eva.mpg.de Tue Apr 5 07:00:16 2011 From: comrie at eva.mpg.de (Bernard Comrie) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:00:16 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: For the world-wide distribution of some aspects of this phenomenon, see the relevant chapter in WALS, available at http://wals.info/feature/36. Bernard Comrie On 11/04/05 04:59, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group > of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but > rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It > shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something > like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called > "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for > instance, > > New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality > of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word > 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an > associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) > means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a > standard-plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. > in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such > things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does > any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about > 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is > speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person > to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative > plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple > speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > —David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > -- Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie Director, Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Distinguished Professor of Linguistics, University of California Santa Barbara E-mail: comrie at eva.mpg.de Home page: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/staff/comrie.php Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany tel. +49 341 35 50 315 fax +49 341 35 50 333 Department of Linguistics University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3100 USA fax +1 805 893 7769 A copy of all incoming e-mail is forwarded to my secretary. If you do not wish your message to be read other than by me, please put "private" in the subject box. From twood at uwc.ac.za Tue Apr 5 06:57:53 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:57:53 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301981606.4d9aa9a6b27e6@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not as contracted as is described above. Tahir -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer From ozgun.kosaner at deu.edu.tr Tue Apr 5 07:31:53 2011 From: ozgun.kosaner at deu.edu.tr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6zg=FCn_KOSANER?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:31:53 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Turkish has this phenomenon too. Turkish plural -lAr can be used as an associative plural. For instance, amca-m-lar uncle-POSSESIVE-PL. my uncles (my uncle and his family/friends) This suffix with this function can be added to proper nouns as weel as common nouns as in kedi-ler cat-PL cats (falidae family of animals) There is also another suffix, albeit not used widely now, in Turkish -gil. It's mostly used in species names such as feline, canine, etc. This suffix again is added to proper names and common names, but used especially with kinship terms. teyze-m-gil-(ler) aunt-POSS-ASSOC.PL. my aunts (my aunt and her family) Ahmet-gil-ler Ahmet-ASSOC.PL-PL Ahmets (Not several Ahmets, but Ahmet and friends) bakla-gil horsebean-ASSOC.PL pulse (horsebean and it kind) I do not remeber any studies on this function of plural suffix and the -gil suffix in Turkish though. Best Regards, Özgün Kosaner Ozgun Kosaner Department of Linguistics Dokuz Eylul University Izmir/Turkey ----- Original Message ----- From: "jess tauber" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > Well, Yahgan has an even higher animacy dual -a:pai. In pn's only found > with 1st and 2nd person. I'm starting to think there are three underlying > bases here that evolved from the three numeral terms for 1,2,3. Three in > Yahgan is mvtan (v schwa), so -(n)de(i) from that. Two is kvmbai > (alternate forms kvmbaibi, kvmbaibai), which would yield -a:pai. There is > also a form hvnggvmbai which acts as a reciprocal. u:koali is one, and the > definite article -a:ki (which also has an alternate in -a), also used > independently to mean 'someone', may have evolved from it. There is a > suffix -(n)chi, perhaps further evolved, on nouns which seems to relate to > superindividuality (as when one has subordinates), so maybe this too is an > associative use? It can be used alone (as when one appeals to the king), > or also on possessors in constructions of X-nchi Y-n (Y of X). > > Still a bit fuzzy here, haven't thought in these terms before. > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > > > > __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not as contracted as is described above. Tahir __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > > > __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 08:07:40 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:07:40 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9AD96B.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Actually it's even more contracted. I was thinking about it and with a noun ending with a vowel the first schwa would be dropped-- 'Jackie-nem'. John Quoting Tahir Wood : > > > >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > > > This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not > as contracted as is described above. > Tahir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue Apr 5 08:15:30 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:15:30 +0100 Subject: associated plurals Message-ID: I'm not sure if this is also the case. But in northern Hiberno-English, there is the possibility of making a plural of certain pronouns to show 'otherness'. It is most widely heard in youssuns and themuns. The words are formed from local versions of subject and/or object pronouns, i.e. yous (pl you) and them + ones. As far as I know, they are used as both subject and object pronouns e.g. i don't like youssuns and themuns aren't very nice. They can also be used as demonstratives as in 'see themuns over there, they were making fun of me'. I have never come across its us in an inclusive or solidary form e.g. ussuns. AM From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 08:27:48 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:27:48 +0300 Subject: associated plurals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of speakers of Appalachian English saying e.g. 'Tom-ens' with associative meaning, but it might have been on The Beverly Hillbillies or something like that, so you better check it. John Quoting anne marie devlin : > > I'm not sure if this is also the case. But in northern Hiberno-English, > there is the possibility of making a plural of certain pronouns to show > 'otherness'. It is most widely heard in youssuns and themuns. The words are > formed from local versions of subject and/or object pronouns, i.e. yous (pl > you) and them + ones. As far as I know, they are used as both subject and > object pronouns e.g. i don't like youssuns and themuns aren't very nice. > They can also be used as demonstratives as in 'see themuns over there, they > were making fun of me'. I have never come across its us in an inclusive or > solidary form e.g. ussuns. > AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From michel.launey at ird.fr Tue Apr 5 08:35:07 2011 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:35:07 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <20110405055123.74B2757543D@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: Actually, in the same region (Poitou-Charentes, Centre-west of France) I often heard "chez" (normally a preposition meaning "at X's house"): "Chez Jean viennent ce soir", with the same meaning (Jean and his family) Michel Launey On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:51:00 +0200 Stéphane Robert wrote: > In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a >masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper >name to refer to a man and his family like in: > "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" > meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". > > I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people >originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't >know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a >vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a >family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. > > Stéphane Robert > > > Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga écrit: >>In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well >>(o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant >>letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a >>similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl >>verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). >> >> >> >>Olga T. Yokoyama >> >>Professor >> >>Department of Applied Linguistics >> >>University of California, Los Angeles >> >>Tel. (310) 825-7694 >> >>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 Marianne >>Mithun >>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >>To: funknet >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> >> >>There is an article on this: >> >> >> >>Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a >>typology >> >>of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: >>1-17. >> >> >> >>Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other >>languages >> >>have these. You can add them to proper names. >> >> >> >>Marianne Mithun >> >> >> >>--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hello, all, >> >> > >> >> > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have >>called >> >> > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a >>group of >> >> > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but >>rather >> >> > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows >>up >> >> > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like >>_the >> >> > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' >>but >> >> > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her >> >> > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for >>instance, >> >> > >> >> > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >> >> > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the >>Samuel.pl >> >> > >> >> > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask >>after >> >> > Samuel and his friends. >> >> > >> >> > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of >>which >> >> > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality >>of the >> >> > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': >> >> > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative >>plural >> >> > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house >>of >> >> > Samuel's family/group'. >> >> > >> >> > My two main questions: >> >> > >> >> > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an >> >> > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of >> >> > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a >>standard-plural >> >> > interpretation? >> >> > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? >>E.g. in >> >> > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such >>things, >> >> > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any >> >> > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about >>1st and >> >> > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is >>speaker or >> >> > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to >>make the >> >> > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural >>meaning >> >> > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl >>pronoun >> >> > from an associative one? >> >> > >> >> > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would >>be >> >> > appreciated as well. >> >> > >> >> > ?David Tuggy >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 08:57:47 2011 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:57:47 +0100 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: Dear David, There's an article on this, focusing on Amharic, with rich data. Olga Kapeliuk, 1989. Appurtenance as a linguistic concept. Folia Linguistica 23/3-4, 341-352. Best, Eitan On 5 April 2011 03:59, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a > group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ > will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice > and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' > In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is > a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes > that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: > _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's > family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my > English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. > silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow > associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural > pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another > group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any > language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any > language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative > one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > —David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > -- Eitan Grossman Martin Buber Society of Fellows Hebrew University of Jerusalem From caron.bernard at yahoo.fr Tue Apr 5 09:17:49 2011 From: caron.bernard at yahoo.fr (Bernard Caron) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:17:49 +0100 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20110405073806.0381a798@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Sans oublier en haoussa le pronom 3PL 'su' utilisé comme pré-déterminant devant un nom propre e.g. 'su Musa', signifiant 'Musa et al' Bernard CARON #13, Nagwamase Crst A.B.U. Zaria NIGERIA (++234 802 60 80 553) 12, Villa d'Amont 94800 Villejuif FRANCE (++336 65 55 94 25) -----Message d'origine----- De : funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] De la part de Stéphane Robert Envoyé : mardi 5 avril 2011 06:51 À : funknet Objet : Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper name to refer to a man and his family like in: "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. Stéphane Robert Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga écrit: >In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms >as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the >19th century Russian peasant letters (by >speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found >a similar phenomenon with a subject personal >name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John >were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > >Olga T. Yokoyama > >Professor > >Department of Applied Linguistics > >University of California, Los Angeles > >Tel. (310) 825-7694 > >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 Marianne Mithun >Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >To: funknet >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > >There is an article on this: > > > >Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology > >of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. > > > >Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages > >have these. You can add them to proper names. > > > >Marianne Mithun > > > >--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy > >wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > > > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > > > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > > > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > > > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > > > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > > > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > > > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > > > > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > > > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > > > > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > > > Samuel and his friends. > > > > > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > > > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > > > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > > > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > > > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > > > Samuel's family/group'. > > > > > > My two main questions: > > > > > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > > > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > > > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > > > interpretation? > > > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > > > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > > > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > > > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > > > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > > > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > > > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > > > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > > > from an associative one? > > > > > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > > > appreciated as well. > > > > > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Tue Apr 5 10:16:22 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoff Nathan) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:16:22 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301990860.4d9acdcc4bf44@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: The 'suffix' -n them, or even nem was also common in white Southern Ontario English when I was growing up in the fifties-sixties, only attached to proper names. A French colleague (originally from Morocco) with whom Margaret Winters and I socialized used to refer to us as 'les Margaret', so it's probably pretty widespread in French too. Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: john at research.haifa.ac.il To: "Tahir Wood" Cc: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 4:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Actually it's even more contracted. I was thinking about it and with a noun ending with a vowel the first schwa would be dropped-- 'Jackie-nem'. John Quoting Tahir Wood : > > > >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > > > This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not > as contracted as is described above. > Tahir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From swellsj at bgsu.edu Tue Apr 5 13:09:23 2011 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:09:23 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: >We had this in rural Michigan also at least when I was growing up: -n them worked for given names only though; family names used to have the /s/ suffix. For what it's worth, I remember my mother writing a list of people who would attend a family gathering, and all the families coming were listed by first name but with a possessive suffix: Kurt's and Kent's would be there. After that, I think I didn't hear that suffix as plural any longer. I also have heard this in Mexican and Puerto Rican Spanish: Los Martinez, for example. Sheri From edith at uwm.edu Tue Apr 5 13:24:49 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:24:49 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I strongly and enthusiastically recommend Guy Deutscher's wonderful books: 1/ The unfolding of language. An evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention. 2005. New York: Henry Holt. 2/ Through the language glass. Why the world looks so different in other languages. 2010. New York: Henry Holt. Best, Edith Moravcsik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johanna Rubba" To: "The LINGUIST Discussion List" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Monday, April 4, 2011 8:58:34 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989.  Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From mischlerj at nsula.edu Tue Apr 5 13:35:29 2011 From: mischlerj at nsula.edu (James J. Mischler) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:35:29 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions? In-Reply-To: <429318059.1645005.1302009889561.JavaMail.root@mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID: Johanna, I recommend "Language Myths," edited by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill. I have used it as a supplementary text in an introduction to linguistics class, and it worked well. The text is written for those who have not studied linguistics. Each chapter is written by a linguist and discusses an issue that is important to understanding how language works. Jim Mischler, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Northwestern State University of Louisiana Natchitoches, LA 71497 USA mischlerj at nsula.edu ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Edith A Moravcsik [edith at uwm.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:24 AM To: Johanna Rubba Cc: The LINGUIST Discussion List; funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? I strongly and enthusiastically recommend Guy Deutscher's wonderful books: 1/ The unfolding of language. An evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention. 2005. New York: Henry Holt. 2/ Through the language glass. Why the world looks so different in other languages. 2010. New York: Henry Holt. Best, Edith Moravcsik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johanna Rubba" To: "The LINGUIST Discussion List" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Monday, April 4, 2011 8:58:34 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989. Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:04:50 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:04:50 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <133DFF35-7336-43B9-9B83-89863D751E65@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can’t be interpreted as a plural, it’s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by “agreement” only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n’em or even full phrases like “and those associated with her” in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. —dt On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) > to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't > be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > >> Hello, all, >> >> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called >> "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group >> of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but >> rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It >> shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something >> like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called >> "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her >> bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for >> instance, >> >> New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the >> Samuel.pl >> >> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask >> after Samuel and his friends. >> >> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of >> which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the >> plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word >> 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an >> associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) >> means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >> >> My two main questions: >> >> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an >> associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of >> English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a >> standard-plural interpretation? >> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. >> in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such >> things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does >> any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about >> 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is >> speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that >> person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an >> associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a >> 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >> >> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be >> appreciated as well. >> >> —David Tuggy > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:10:46 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:10:46 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C3807@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the reply and the data. -tachi is always associative —have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does boku-ra ever clearly mean “I and the other speakers”, i.e. does the -ra mean “the group associated with me by also being speakers”? Does tanaka-ra ever mean “the group of people all called Tanaka”? —David T On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > Japanese = > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > Thai= > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > phUak tEE = you guys > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > Shoichi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > To: David Tuggy > Cc: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:15:27 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:15:27 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8FAB2E57@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: The Russian examples sound like what I was looking directly for: plural morphology of some sort used with associative meaning. Plus the added beauty of lack of overt plural affixation, with the plurality only showing up in “agreement”. Thanks! —David T On 4/4/2011 11:01 PM, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor > > Department of Applied Linguistics > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-7694 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:20:06 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:20:06 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301981606.4d9aa9a6b27e6@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: -en-em (or -’n-em or however you spell it) would be a dedicated associative marker, right? Or is it ever used as a plural? E.g. does Jackie-en-em ever mean "those named Jackie", or horse-en-em mean “horses”? (Thanks to all who reported this one: I won't respond on-list to you all.) —David T On 4/5/2011 12:33 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > John > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > >> Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, >> -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are >> given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative >> dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if >> this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three >> biblical texts. Something to chew on.... >> >> Jess Tauber >> phonosemantics at earthlink.net >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:23:05 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:23:05 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20110405073806.0381a798@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Thanks for the data. The stipulation of use where the reference to the person is obvious is certainly (and certainly naturally) true of Orizaba Nawatl as well. —David T On 4/5/2011 12:51 AM, Stéphane Robert wrote: > In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a > masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper > name to refer to a man and his family like in: > "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" > meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". > > I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people > originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't > know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a > vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a > family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. > > Stéphane Robert > From gmodica at fh.seikei.ac.jp Tue Apr 5 23:34:45 2011 From: gmodica at fh.seikei.ac.jp (Guy Modica) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:34:45 +0900 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA176.6000906@sil.org> Message-ID: Let me add that -tachi can be added to any noun, including *teacher*, which yields sensei-tachi. A pack of dogs can be referred to as inu-tachi. Though come to think of it, I don't remember ever hearing inanimate nouns suffixed in this way - Fukushima-tachi or baseball-tachi - though they may be possible. Judging from some of the tentativeness of the assertions, and the rudimentary questions being asked, perhaps having a native speaker weigh in on the Japanese data would be fruitful. And I am not. Guy Modica Tokyo On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, David Tuggy wrote: > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative —have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean “I and the other speakers”, i.e. does the -ra mean > “the group associated with me by also being speakers”? Does tanaka-ra ever > mean “the group of people all called Tanaka”? > > —David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > >> Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as >> well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. >> >> Japanese = >> boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' >> >> Thai= >> phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. >> phUak tEE = you guys >> phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. >> >> Shoichi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM >> To: David Tuggy >> Cc: funknet >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to >> personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be >> interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> >> > > From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 23:44:48 2011 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:44:48 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA176.6000906@sil.org> Message-ID: (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. Gakusee-tachi = students Gakusee-ra = students (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative meaning emerges) (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, colleagues) This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful relationship with the speaker. (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. Shoichi Iwasaki -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM To: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Thanks for the reply and the data. -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? -David T On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > Japanese = > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > Thai= > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > phUak tEE = you guys > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > Shoichi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > To: David Tuggy > Cc: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > From thompsoc at ipfw.edu Tue Apr 5 23:44:56 2011 From: thompsoc at ipfw.edu (Chad Thompson) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA012.8040100@sil.org> Message-ID: I've heard the Old Order Amish around referring to entire families by the plural of the head of the household, as in "I saw the Steves" to mean I saw Steve and his family. On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:04 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can’t be interpreted as a plural, it’s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by “agreement” only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n’em or even full phrases like “and those associated with her” in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. > > —dt > > On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> >>> Hello, all, >>> >>> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, >>> >>> New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >>> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl >>> >>> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. >>> >>> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >>> >>> My two main questions: >>> >>> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? >>> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >>> >>> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. >>> >>> —David Tuggy >> > From david_tuggy at sil.org Wed Apr 6 02:08:07 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:08:07 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C381D@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, that’s helpful, and very clear now. One further comment: I wasn't clear in asking 'does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?' I should have said 'associated with me by being speakers/emitters of the present communication.' I was supposing the defining characteristic of the stem boku is (as is generally taken to be definitional for 1psg) 'speaker/emitter of the present communication'. I wouldn't have expected just any speaker to be thereby associated with me, but anyone else speaking the same message with me at this moment would likely be—that would easily be taken as "a meaningful relationship." (Of course if construed at all closely it is an uncommon relationship as well, which is why 1ppl does not often mean 'multiple speakers'.) —David T On 4/5/2011 6:44 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. > > Gakusee-tachi = students > Gakusee-ra = students > > (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative meaning emerges) > > > (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, colleagues) > This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. > > "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful relationship with the speaker. > > (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. > > Shoichi Iwasaki > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM > To: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra > mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does > tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? > > -David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: >> Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. >> >> Japanese = >> boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' >> >> Thai= >> phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. >> phUak tEE = you guys >> phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. >> >> Shoichi >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM >> To: David Tuggy >> Cc: funknet >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Apr 6 07:46:46 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:46:46 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C381D@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: But so this is not misunderstood--in usage (1), -tachi is by no means obligatory as a plural marker. 'gakusee' can also be 'students', not just 'student'. Gakuseetachi is only used in particular circumstances (which a native speaker could explain better than me). On the other hand, some sort of plural marking IS obligatory in usage (2), otherwise the reference would be understood to be singular. John Quoting "Iwasaki, Shoichi" : > (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. > > Gakusee-tachi = students > Gakusee-ra = students > > (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative > meaning emerges) > > > (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, > colleagues) > This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. > > "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" > --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to > qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful > relationship with the speaker. > > (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> > No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. > > Shoichi Iwasaki > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM > To: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra > mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does > tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? > > -David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. > And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > > > Japanese = > > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > > > Thai= > > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > > phUak tEE = you guys > > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > > > Shoichi > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > > To: David Tuggy > > Cc: funknet > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to > personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be > interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > > Lise Menn > > > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From Keith_Slater at sil.org Wed Apr 6 15:48:53 2011 From: Keith_Slater at sil.org (Keith Slater) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:48:53 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this aspect of it down pretty well. For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally included). However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I would get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people named "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to resort to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in which case it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet another strategy). So context is very important, and application of the pattern is actually pretty limited. Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might have been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. Keith On 4/5/2011 6:44 PM, Chad Thompson wrote: > I've heard the Old Order Amish around referring to entire families by the plural of the head of the household, as in "I saw the Steves" to mean I saw Steve and his family. > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:04 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > >> Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can’t be interpreted as a plural, it’s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by “agreement” only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n’em or even full phrases like “and those associated with her” in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. >> >> —dt >> >> On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >>> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >>> Lise Menn >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, all, >>>> >>>> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, >>>> >>>> New͎itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >>>> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl >>>> >>>> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. >>>> >>>> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >>>> >>>> My two main questions: >>>> >>>> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? >>>> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots& pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >>>> >>>> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. >>>> >>>> —David Tuggy From david_tuggy at sil.org Thu Apr 7 00:16:01 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:16:01 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9C8B65.5090201@sil.org> Message-ID: Note that this is a more restricted phenomenon than the Orizaba Nawatl one in that, at least as far as we have been told, family is the only group so named. It may be the designated group in ON, but a team, group of friends, group united by work (especially if the named person is the employer and the others his employees), political party (especially if the named person is the current main candidate), etc., may also be designated. Especially in this last use (a political party), where a candidate’s surname may function as a proper name, surnames sometimes enter into the construction: e.g. the Baracks or the Obamas might be the same group as the Democrats. The "not universally applied" strictures are the same as for use of proper names in general, are they not? If I understand correctly, in your circle the sentence "Bob just rode by" would usually need no further clarification, but "John just rode by" (or "I saw John") would likely prompt the question "John who?" So, as you say, "context is important", and use of a single given name, sans surname or other additional identifier, "is actually pretty limited." —David T On 4/6/2011 10:48 AM, Keith Slater wrote: > In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. > I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this aspect > of it down pretty well. > > For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve > and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally > included). > > However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" > it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a > relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I would > get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people named > "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to resort > to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in which case > it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet another > strategy). So context is very important, and application of the > pattern is actually pretty limited. > > Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an > apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always > analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might have > been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. > > Keith > From Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr Fri Apr 8 14:03:47 2011 From: Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr (Florence Chenu) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:03:47 +0200 Subject: AFLiCo IV Universit=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E9_?=Lyon 2, France, 24-27 mai 2011 Message-ID: CALL FOR PARTICIPATION French Cognitive Linguistics Association : Fourth International Conference (AFLiCo IV) University of Lyon, France, 24th-27th May 2011 'Cognitive Linguistics and Typology: Language diversity, variation and change ' http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/ Program : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/PageWeb/pdf/AFLiCo_IV_pr g_FR.pdf INVITED SPEAKERS Danièle DUBOIS (University of Paris 6, France), ‘Sentir’ et ‘dire’ : sémantique des sens Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia), Grammatical diversity and social cognition Harriet JISA (University of Lyon 2, France), Information structure in narrative texts: a crosslinguistic developmental study Maarten LEMMENS (University of Lille 3, France), Inter- and intralanguage variation in the domain of static location verbs Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, United States), Syntactic Innovation and Grammar Evolution: The Role of Constructions Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom), Sign Language Typology - New evidence from sign languages in village communities CONFERENCE THEME: This conference brings together linguists engaged in cognitively-oriented research with those working in a functional-typological framework on cross-linguistic variation and on language description. The emphasis is on (1) language diversity of both spoken and signed languages; (2) inter- and intra-linguistic variation; (3) language change. The conference includes a variety of methodological approaches and a wide range of spontaneous and elicited data, including spoken and written corpora, fieldwork data, and experimental data. The languages of the conference are English and French. Registration deadline : APRIL 29th 2011 ************************************************** ********************** APPEL À PARTICIPATION Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive : 4ème conférence internationale (AFLiCo IV), Université Lyon 2, Campus Berges du Rhône, France, 24-27 mai 2011 'Linguistique cognitive et Typologie : Diversité, variation et changement linguistique ' http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/ Programme : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/PageWeb/pdf/AFLiCo_IV_pr g_FR.pdf CONFÉRENCIERS INVITÉS : Danièle DUBOIS (Université Paris 6, France), ‘Sentir’ et ‘dire’ : sémantique des sens Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia), Grammatical diversity and social cognition Harriet JISA (University Lyon 2, France), Information structure in narrative texts: a crosslinguistic developmental study Maarten LEMMENS (University Lille 3, France), Inter- and intralanguage variation in the domain of static location verbs Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, United States), Syntactic Innovation and Grammar Evolution: The Role of Constructions Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom), Sign Language Typology - New evidence from sign languages in village communities THÈME DE LA CONFERENCE : Cette conférence rassemblera des linguistes travaillant dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive et/ou dans le domaine de la linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique sur la variation inter-linguistique et la description des langues. L’accent du colloque sera mis sur (1) la diversité des systèmes linguistiques aussi bien oraux que signés, (2) la variation qui s’opère sur les plans inter- et intra- linguistiques et (3) les changements des systèmes linguistiques. La conférence présente une variété d’approches méthodologiques et un éventail important de données spontanées ou élicitées incluant des corpus oraux et écrits, des données de terrain et des données expérimentales. Les langues de la conférence sont l’anglais et le français Date limite pour les inscriptions : 29 avril 2011 ****************************************** From jleitao at fpce.uc.pt Tue Apr 12 17:21:06 2011 From: jleitao at fpce.uc.pt (jleitao at fpce.uc.pt) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:21:06 +0200 Subject: Anaphora Conference DAARC2011, Faro/Portugal, *2ND CFP* Message-ID: [apologies for multiple copies] ** SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS ** DAARC2011 The 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium Faro, Portugal hosted by the University of Lisbon October 6-7, 2011 http://daarc2011.clul.ul.pt Anaphora is a central topic in the study of natural language and has long been the object of research in a wide range of disciplines such as theoretical, corpus and computational linguistics, philosophy of language, cognitive science, psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology. On the other hand, the correct interpretation of anaphora has played an increasingly vital role in real-world natural language processing applications, including machine translation, automatic abstracting, information extraction and question answering. As a result, the processing of anaphora has become one of the most productive topics of multi- and inter-disciplinary research, and has enjoyed increased interest and attention in recent years. In this context, the Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquia (DAARC) have emerged as the major regular forum for presentation and discussion of the best research results in this area. Initiated in 1996 at Lancaster University and taken over in 2002 by the University of Lisbon, and moving out of Europe for the first time in 2009, to Goa, India, the DAARC series established itself as a specialised and competitive forum for the presentation of the latest results on anaphora processing, ranging from theoretical linguistic approaches through psycholinguistic and cognitive work to corpus studies and computational modelling. The eighth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC2011) will take place in Faro, Portugal, in October 6-7, 2011. We would like to invite anyone currently researching in the areas of discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution, from any methodological perspective or framework, to submit a paper to DAARC2011, including submissions presenting a thorough discussion of a system and results obtained in the context of competitive evaluations, with general interest or impact for the progress of the area. The closing date for submission is June 1, 2011. Notification of acceptance will be sent by July 15, 2011. Final versions of selected papers to be included in the proceedings are expected by September 15, 2011. A selection of best papers will be published by Springer, at the ISI indexed LNAI-Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence series. The remainder papers will be published in the conference Proceedings with an ISBN printed by Edições Colibri. For details on the submission procedure and other relevant info on the colloquium visit its website at: http://daarc2011.clul.ul.pt Program Committee: Sergey Avrutin, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Sivaji Bandopadhyaya, Jadavpur University, India Patricio Martinez Barco, University of Alicante, Spain Peter Bosch, University of Osnabrueck, Germany António Branco, University of Lisbon, Portugal Francis Cornish, University Toulouse-Le Mirail, France Dan Cristea, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, Romania Robert Dale, Macquarie University, Australia Jeanette Gundel, University Minnesota, USA Laura Hasler, University of Strathclyde, UK Lars Hellan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Iris Hendrickx, University of Lisbon, Portugal Graeme Hirst, University Toronto, Canada Anke Holler, University of Goettingen, Germany Véronique Hoste, University College Gent, Belgium Elsi Kaiser, University Southern California, USA Andrew Kehler, University of California, San Diego, USA Andrej Kibrik, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Sobha L., AU-KBC Research Centre, India José Leitão, University of Coimbra, Portugal Fons Maes, Tilburg University, The Netherlands Ruslan Mitkov, University Wolverhampton, UK Costanza Navarretta, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Vincent Ng, University of Texas at Dallas, USA Constantin Orasan, University Wolverhampton, UK Maria Mercedes Piñango, Yale University, USA Massimo Poesio, University of Essex, UK Georgiana Puscasu, University Wolverhampton, UK Marta Recasens, University of Barcelona, Spain Eric Reuland, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Petra Schumacher, University of Mainz, Germany Veselin Stoyanov, Johns Hopkins University, USA Roland Stuckardt, University Frankfurt am Main, Germany Joel Tetreault, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, USA Renata Vieira, Pontifícia Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Jos van Berkum, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Klaus von Heusinger, Konstanz University, Germany Organisers: António Branco, University of Lisbon, Portugal Iris Hendrickx, University of Lisbon, CLUL, Portugal Ruslan Mitkov, University of Wolverhampton, UK Sobha L., Anna University Chennai, India From Keith_Slater at sil.org Wed Apr 13 16:06:48 2011 From: Keith_Slater at sil.org (Keith Slater) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:06:48 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9D0241.5080007@sil.org> Message-ID: Yes, you are right, the plural form is no less ambiguous than the proper name that it's attached to. Or rather, it can only be attached to proper names that are sufficiently unambiguous. Keith On 4/6/2011 7:16 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Note that this is a more restricted phenomenon than the Orizaba Nawatl > one in that, at least as far as we have been told, family is the only > group so named. It may be the designated group in ON, but a team, > group of friends, group united by work (especially if the named person > is the employer and the others his employees), political party > (especially if the named person is the current main candidate), etc., > may also be designated. Especially in this last use (a political > party), where a candidate’s surname may function as a proper name, > surnames sometimes enter into the construction: e.g. the Baracks or > the Obamas might be the same group as the Democrats. > > The "not universally applied" strictures are the same as for use of > proper names in general, are they not? If I understand correctly, in > your circle the sentence "Bob just rode by" would usually need no > further clarification, but "John just rode by" (or "I saw John") would > likely prompt the question "John who?" So, as you say, "context is > important", and use of a single given name, sans surname or other > additional identifier, "is actually pretty limited." > > —David T > > > On 4/6/2011 10:48 AM, Keith Slater wrote: >> In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. >> I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this >> aspect of it down pretty well. >> >> For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve >> and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally >> included). >> >> However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" >> it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a >> relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I >> would get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people >> named "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to >> resort to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in >> which case it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet >> another strategy). So context is very important, and application of >> the pattern is actually pretty limited. >> >> Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an >> apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always >> analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might >> have been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. >> >> Keith >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 19:12:19 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:12:19 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news Message-ID: Hi all, Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear reactions. Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph Greenberg. Are the rules of language encoded in our genes, or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature. The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four language families and found that each of the families followed its own idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are driven by culture rather than innate preferences. The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam Chomsky's generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story Cheers, Shannon From dan at daneverett.org Thu Apr 14 19:20:38 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:20:38 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a very worthwhile read. Dan On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > reactions. > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > Greenberg. > Are the rules of language encoded in our > genes, > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > journal Nature. > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > Chomsky's > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > Cheers, > Shannon > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 19:31:24 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:31:24 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news In-Reply-To: <57DF69D7-6228-469E-B9E6-8465FD5756B9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Thanks Dan, I managed to get the link to the original article Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals and there is also a similar (to the LA Times) but perhaps more informative general article at Nature Newswith some "sober" reflection from Martin towards the end. Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization ( http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > genes< http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/human-body/genes-chromosomes-HHA000024.topic >, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > Chomsky< http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/noam-chomsky-PECLB000974.topic>'s > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Apr 14 23:03:46 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:03:46 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news Message-ID: Here is a link to the online paper, gotten by following links on Dunn's MPI pages: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:95245:13/component/escidoc:848596/Dunn_nature09923.pdf Jess Tauber From clements at indiana.edu Fri Apr 15 01:40:37 2011 From: clements at indiana.edu (Clements, Joseph Clancy) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:40:37 +0000 Subject: Language Universals in the news Message-ID: This might be of interest to some: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700 Clancy Clements From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Fri Apr 15 02:09:03 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:09:03 -0400 Subject: Language Universals in the news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What? Both God and Chomsky usurped by evolution? ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Clements, Joseph Clancy wrote: > This might be of interest to some: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700 > > Clancy Clements From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Fri Apr 15 10:03:12 2011 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:03:12 +0200 Subject: Workshop on "Gradualness in change and its relation to synchronic variation and use" Pavia, 30-31 May 2011 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/ The detailed program is now online! https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/program ------------------------ 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. You can find the detailed program below and on the website: https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/program ---------------------------- DAY 1 – 30th May 9.00-9.30 Opening Elisa Romano, Dean of the Faculty of Arts Marco Mancini, University of Tuscia (main coordinator of the PRIN project) 9.30-10.20 Plenary Graeme Trousdale (Edinburgh)- Constructionalization and gradual change 10.20-11.00 Muriel Norde & Karin Beijering, (Groningen) & Gudrun Rawoens (Ghent) - From matrix to sentence adverb or vice versa? The history of Swedish kanske ‘maybe’ Lien De Vos (Liège) - On the use of gender-marked personal pronouns: the emergence of a new system in Southern Dutch? 11.00-11.30 Coffee break 11.30-12.10 Van de Pol Nikki & Hubert Cuyckens (Leuven) - Present-day English absolutes: a multiple-source construction? Melanie Uth (Köln) - The diachrony of the French -age suffixation in a moderately emergentist framework 12.10-12.50 Plenary – PRIN project Chiara Fedriani, Gianguido Manzelli, Paolo Ramat (Pavia) - Expressions for physical and mental states in the Circum-mediterranean languages: contact-induced and/or autonomous parallelisms? 12.50-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.10 Plenary - PRIN project Elisabetta Magni (Bologna) - Synchronic gradience and language change in Latin genitive constructions 15.10-15.50 Oliver Currie (Ljubljiana) - Gradual change and continual variation: the history of a verb-initial construction in Welsh Bjiörn Wiemer (Mainz) - Different roads toward the rise of evidential modification and diachronic explanations for their variation and areal biases in Europe 15.50-16.20 Coffee break 16.20-17.00 Hélène Margerie (Bordeaux) - An analogy-based account of the rise of a complex network of resultative and degree construction Dimitra Melissaroupoulou (Patras) - Gradualness in analogical change as a complexification stage in a language simplification process: a case study from Greek dialects 17.00-17.40 Regina Pustet (Münich) - From canonical coordination to switch-reference: a typological continuum? Melani Wratil (Duesseldorf, Jena) - Double Agreement in the Alpine Languages: An Intermediate Stage in the Development of Inflectional Morphemes 17.40-18.30 Plenary Olga Fischer (Amsterdam) - Against unidirectionality in grammaticalization: the influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change 20.15 Social Dinner ------ DAY 2 – 31st May 9.00-9.50 Plenary Johan van der Auwera (Antwerp) - On diachronic semantic maps 9.50-10.30 David Willis (Cambridge) - Cyclic change in the distribution of indefinites in negative polarity environments Barbara Egedi (Budapest) - Grammatical encoding of referentiality in the history of Hungarian 10.30-11.10 Steve Disney (Plymouth) - Variation in the form Be Meant to: what it is and where it comes from. Mads Christiansen (Aarhud) - Between Syntax and Morphology. On the Diachrony of Cliticization of Preposition and Article in German 11.10-11.40 Coffee break 11.40-12.20 Caterina Guardamagna(Lancaster) - Synchronic variation and grammaticalisation: gradience and gradualness in two Italian evidential expressions (dice and secondo NP). Chiara Semplicini (Perugia) - Synchronic variation and grammatical change: the case of Dutch double gender nouns 12.20-13.00 Plenary - PRIN project Luca Lorenzetti (Cassino) - Graphic interference in late and medieval Latin epigraphy of Tripolitania 13.00-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.10 Plenary - PRIN project Alessandro De Angelis (Messina) - “Binding Hierarchy” and peculiarities of the verb ‘potere’ in some Southern Calabrian varieties 15.10-15.50 Evie Coussé (Ghent) - Reanalysis or thinking outside the box? Assessing the historical development of the have perfect in Dutch Liesbeth Degand (Louvain) - Speech as the driving force of semantic change: On the rise of metadiscursive markers in French 15.50-16.20 Coffee break 16.20-17.00 Lennart Bierkandt & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko & Balthasar Bickel (Leipzig) - Synchronic variation and diachronic trends in the alignment of Kiranti agreement Miriam Voghera(Salerno) - A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: the emergence of gradient tipo in the Italian language. 17.00-17.40 Athanasios Giannaris (Athens) - Grammaticalization through analogy: the formation of participial periphrases in Ancient Greek Henrik Rosenkvist & Sanna Skärlund (Lund) - Grammaticalization in the Present – the Changes of Modern Swedish typ 17.40-18.30 Plenary Béatrice Lamiroy (University of Leuven) - The pace of grammaticalization in Romance languages ------------------ There is NO REGISTRATION FEE! However, for organizational reasons we need to be able to estimate the number of participants, so please register sending an e-mail to gradualness.workshop (at) gmail.com by the 15th of May 2011. Thank you! 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, please write to gradualness.workshop at gmail.com --- Caterina Mauri Dept. of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics University of Pavia Strada Nuova 65 27100 Pavia Italy Email: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Homepage: http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/docenti.php?&id=1114 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Apr 16 09:16:10 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:10 +0300 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <57DF69D7-6228-469E-B9E6-8465FD5756B9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? John Quoting Daniel Everett : > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a > Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ > are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The > Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization > (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a > very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > > genes, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > > Chomsky's > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over > others. > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 16 12:12:14 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 05:12:14 -0700 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: One of my former interns sent me a reference to this, but it was in the general press and not an academic article. If anyone does have access to the article itself, I would be very interested in reading it. I think the idea was, according to the write up for the public, that changes in syntax, morphology and phonology are historical, and can be seen as step-wise accumulations, and are not explained by Chomskyan theory as being motivated by language internal causes. Also that language changes as culture changes. --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist > from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human > language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken > because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial > reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to > believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY > discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe > at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that > real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that > traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? > Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? > John > > > > > > > Quoting Daniel Everett : > >> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >> >> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a >> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ >> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization >> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a >> very worthwhile read. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to >>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>> reactions. >>> >>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers >>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that >>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – >>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>> Greenberg. >>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>> >> > genes, >>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>> >>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for >>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>> journal Nature. >>> >>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four >>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are >>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>> >>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>> >> > Chomsky's >>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules >>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >> others. >>> >>> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shannon >>> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From elc9j at virginia.edu Sat Apr 16 13:22:38 2011 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:22:38 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The article is Quentin D. Atkinson, "Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa". Science 332, 346 (2011). Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/346.full but probably requires a library subscription to access the full text. Ellen On 4/16/2011 8:12 AM, A. Katz wrote: > One of my former interns sent me a reference to this, but it was in > the general press and not an academic article. If anyone does have > access to the article itself, I would be very interested in reading it. > > I think the idea was, according to the write up for the public, that > changes in syntax, morphology and phonology are historical, and can be > seen as step-wise accumulations, and are not explained by Chomskyan > theory as being motivated by language internal causes. > > Also that language changes as culture changes. > > --Aya > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a >> biologist >> from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming >> that human >> language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are >> spoken >> because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my >> initial >> reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was >> difficult to >> believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a >> Ph.D. in ANY >> discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references >> to Don Ringe >> at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that >> real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed >> to be, that >> traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological >> mergers??? >> Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Daniel Everett : >> >>> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >>> >>> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: >>> Language as a >>> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The >>> folks in NZ >>> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >>> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and >>> Civilization >>> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and >>> looks to be a >>> very worthwhile read. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a >>>> chance to >>>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>>> reactions. >>>> >>>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues >>>> Researchers >>>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and >>>> conclude that >>>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans >>>> create – >>>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>>> Greenberg. >>>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>>> >>> >> genes, >> >>>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>>> >>>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are >>>> hard-wired for >>>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>>> journal Nature. >>>> >>>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for >>>> four >>>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language >>>> choices are >>>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>>> >>>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>>> >>> >> Chomsky's >> >>>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering >>>> rules >>>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >>> others. >>>> >>>> >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Shannon >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> -- Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Sat Apr 16 17:59:43 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoff Nathan) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:59:43 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I was also somewhat surprised by this article, because the data seemed a little bit odd. Hasn't anyone looked at a phoneme inventory for any of the Salish languages? They're about as far away from southern Africa as you can get (it's 10,000 miles, or 16,000 km from Capetown to Vancouver, according to a random internet search). And the inventories of some of the Caucasian languages are pretty impressive too. Tbilisi is about 5000 miles from Capetown. I assume the premise is a little better based than the description in the press. Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: john at research.haifa.ac.il To: "Daniel Everett" Cc: "s.t. bischoff" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:16:10 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? John Quoting Daniel Everett : > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a > Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ > are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The > Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization > (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a > very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create – > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > > genes, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > > Chomsky's > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over > others. > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 16 18:13:10 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:13:10 -0600 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302967673.4da9b57955b87@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Absolutely, John, ****in'-insane-ridiculous; especially now that Ellen Contini-Morava has sent me the original. An ignoramus who knows nothing of language change, and does not understand the radical difference between genetic evolution, where multiple, in-sequence developmental stages are preserved virtually intact in the genome, and historical language change, where phonological and grammatical systems undergo repeated RE-CYCLING, are ground down to zero, and then start all over again (and again, and again)--often along rather different typological dimensions. What worries me most, I suppose, are esteemed colleagues in linguistics who should surely know better and still seem to encourage this kind of nonsense. To allow ignorami from other fields to trash our discipline and peddle their shoddy wares to gullible media babblers like Nicholas Wade is truly self-defeating. But--to quote Paddy Shaemus O'Sullivan ("Weep Not My Children", 1959)--Weep not, my children, for I still amused. Cheers, TG ============= On 4/16/2011 9:27 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Meaning what? You agree it's ridiculous? > John > > > Quoting Tom Givon: > >> Right on! TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> On 4/16/2011 3:16 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a >> biologist >>> from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that >> human >>> language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken >>> because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my >> initial >>> reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult >> to >>> believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in >> ANY >>> discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don >> Ringe >>> at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that >>> real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, >> that >>> traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological >> mergers??? >>> Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Daniel Everett: >>> >>>> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >>>> >>>> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as >> a >>>> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in >> NZ >>>> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >>>> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization >>>> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to >> be a >>>> very worthwhile read. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance >> to >>>>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>>>> reactions. >>>>> >>>>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers >>>>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that >>>>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create >> – >>>>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>>>> Greenberg. >>>>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>>>> > genes, >>>>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>>>> >>>>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired >> for >>>>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>>>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>>>> journal Nature. >>>>> >>>>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four >>>>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>>>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are >>>>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>>>> >>>>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>>>> > Chomsky's >>>>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules >>>>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>>>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >>>> others. >> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Shannon >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 wcroft at unm.edu Sat Apr 16 19:19:19 2011 From: wcroft at unm.edu (Bill Croft) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:19:19 -0600 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long abstract for the real paper. A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in context of what the paper actually says: "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a language through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme inventory data describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not entail that phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial founder effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are shown to be significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of global variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic diversity." (supplementary materials, p. 11) "In a general linear model, language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic diversity (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in phonemic diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, p<0.001). This level of conservation within major language families indicates that robust statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many millennia and could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." (supplementary materials, p. 7) In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution of this typological trait. Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. Bill From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 16 19:53:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:53:41 -0700 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to noise in the signal? --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long > abstract for the real paper. > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > context of what the paper actually says: > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a > language > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > inventory data > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > entail that > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > founder > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > shown to be > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of > global > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic > diversity." > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > "In a general linear model, > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > diversity > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > phonemic > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > p<0.001). > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > robust > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > millennia and > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution > of this typological trait. > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > Bill > > From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Sat Apr 16 20:11:09 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:11:09 +0200 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Atkinson says: "Human genetic and phenotypic diversity declines with distance from Africa, as predicted by a serial founder effect in which successive population bottlenecks during range expansion progressively reduce diversity, underpinning support for an African origin of modern humans" and "If phoneme distinctions are more likely to be lost in small founder populations, then a succession of founder events during range expansion should progressively reduce phonemic diversity with increasing distance from the point of origin, paralleling the serial founder effect observed in population genetics". -- It is possible that there is such a founder effect in phonology, but if it exists, it is not parallel to the genetic founder effect. In a genetic bottleneck, interindividual variation in the gene pool is reduced due to the small size of the population. But the number of phonemes has nothing to do with interindividual variation. Perhaps we would have a parallel if the average number of allophones per phoneme decreased in a founder event. If the number of phonemes is reduced, that would rather correspond to the loss of genes. - östen -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] För A. Katz Skickat: den 16 april 2011 21:54 Till: Bill Croft Kopia: Funknet Ämne: Re: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to noise in the signal? --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long > abstract for the real paper. > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > context of what the paper actually says: > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a > language > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > inventory data > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > entail that > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > founder > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > shown to be > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of > global > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic > diversity." > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > "In a general linear model, > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > diversity > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > phonemic > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > p<0.001). > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > robust > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > millennia and > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution > of this typological trait. > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > Bill > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sat Apr 16 21:28:57 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:28:57 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? Message-ID: It would be interesting to know how the mapping of phoneme/gene diversity correlates with language internal distribution of semiotic resources (manual/body/facial gestures, analytically transparent sound symbolism, different morphosyntactic types, etc.). Would there be remnant signals here as well? The largest ideophone inventories tend to be found in Sub-Saharan African areas (though much rarer in 'Khoisan' itself), and in South, Southeast, and East Asia (with Uralic and Basque in Europe), and on into Oceania. Smaller but still significant sets are found in Mesoamerica and northern South America. Augmentative-diminutive shifting is much more popular around the Pacific Rim, but also is found in a number of East African Bantu languages, in South Asia, and Basque. Root-level transparency can be found in a number of Khoisan languages- this is neither ideophonic nor augmentative-diminutive in nature, but seems to be differentially fused form-internal derivation. Some has to do with the level of moisture depicted, in an environment famous for easily obtainable water resources (and these have shifted around within Africa over many thousands of years), instrumental actions (for ex. one piece following clicks commonly associates with squeezing out contents from tubes, such as waste matter from intestines), general areas of an abstracted 'body' (dorsal, ventral and caudal, rostral), and so on. The latter is interesting in comparison to similar true morphology found in many Andaman languages. One never sees things like this in normal ideophones. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Apr 17 06:51:07 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:51:07 +0300 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are so many problems with Atkinson's claims that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, you can't just point out statistical patterns without some connection to reality--arguments about ambiguity are just irrelevant. I am extremely familiar with sociolinguistic research on ongoing phonological changes, including gaining or losing phonemic distinctions, and I have never heard of a change motivated by or prevented by considerations of ambiguity. Of those cases for which some motivation can be identified, the main reason for change is language contact, e.g. Ashkenazic Jews couldn't pronounce the Hebrew pharyngeals so they got lost, and now Sephardic Israelis are losing the pharyngeals as well, immigrants to Hawaii from e.g. China and Japan couldn't pronounced the English dental fricatives so they turned into stops, etc. In some cases phonemes are simply borrowed from another language (e.g. the English postalveolar voiced fricative from French). For many changes, the motivation isn't clear but has no connection with ambiguity--for example the English velar nasal became a phoneme rather than an allophone of /n/ when the velar stop stopped being pronounced in final position--who knows why? Short a has divided into two phonemes in the northeastern US (so that e.g. in NYC the vowel in 'dad' and 'bad' are different) but not in the Midwest--who knows why? None of these have anything to do with ambiguity. It's possible to identify cases in which an ambiguity argument can be made (and in some cases IS made by people who don't know any better)--for example by saying that the phoneme split in the northeastern US helps to distinguish between 'can' and 'can't' considering that the t is often not pronounced or reduced to a barely-perceivable glottal stop--but this can hardly explain an entire phonemic category. Apart from this, there is the entire question about 'what is a language?' In some cases, languages are defined very narrowly, resulting in smaller numbers of speakers; in other cases, languages are defined very broadly, resulting in greater numbers of speakers. When a language is defined more broadly, phonological analyses will in some cases require more phonemes. For example, if one were to consider the Arabic spoken in Haifa to be a language rather than a dialect of a larger language, it would have fewer phonemes because of mergers between dental fricatives and stops and also between the voiceless uvular stop and the glottal stop--but since it's considered to be a dialect of a larger language, the [q] and the dental fricatives are considered to be 'underlying' different phonemes. This has nothing to do with anything that Atkinson mentions. John Quoting ײsten Dahl : > Atkinson says: > "Human genetic and phenotypic diversity declines with distance from Africa, > as predicted by a > serial founder effect in which successive population bottlenecks during range > expansion > progressively reduce diversity, underpinning support for an African origin of > modern humans" > and > "If phoneme distinctions are more likely to be lost in small founder > populations, then a succession > of founder events during range expansion should progressively reduce phonemic > diversity with increasing > distance from the point of origin, paralleling the serial founder effect > observed in population genetics". > > -- It is possible that there is such a founder effect in phonology, but if it > exists, it is not parallel to the genetic founder effect. In a genetic > bottleneck, interindividual variation in the gene pool is reduced due to the > small size of the population. But the number of phonemes has nothing to do > with interindividual variation. Perhaps we would have a parallel if the > average number of allophones per phoneme decreased in a founder event. If the > number of phonemes is reduced, that would rather correspond to the loss of > genes. > > - צsten > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Frוn: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] Fצr A. Katz > Skickat: den 16 april 2011 21:54 > Till: Bill Croft > Kopia: Funknet > ִmne: Re: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? > > Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the > assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it > increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. > > Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to > noise in the signal? > > > > --Aya > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > > > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials > - > > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a > long > > abstract for the real paper. > > > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out > languages > > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > > context of what the paper actually says: > > > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect > past > > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes > driving > > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, > and > > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in > a > > language > > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > > inventory data > > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > > entail that > > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > > founder > > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > > shown to be > > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% > of > > global > > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected > to > > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in > phonemic > > diversity." > > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > > > "In a general linear model, > > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > > diversity > > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > > phonemic > > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > > p<0.001). > > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > > robust > > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > > millennia and > > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of > many > > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of > the > > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article > states > > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic > diversity > > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite > large, > > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical > distribution > > of this typological trait. > > > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder > populations > > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the > explanation > > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on > pp. > > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to > exist > > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number > of > > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to > read > > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > > > Bill > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From wcroft at unm.edu Tue Apr 19 18:24:47 2011 From: wcroft at unm.edu (Bill Croft) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:24:47 -0600 Subject: Atkinson on phoneme inventories in Science Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I was asked to repost this from Lingtyp to Funknet. It is mostly to do with the Atkinson paper in Science that has been discussed her on Funknet, but also a paper by Dunn et al. that appeared in Nature last week. There has been some discussion of both papers on Lingtyp, which is referred to in this post. Although I think this post can be followed as is, I encourage interested parties to look at the cited posts on Lingtyp for clarification (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A0=LINGTYP). Atkinson argues for the existence of two correlations in a global sample of phoneme inventories: a correlation between size of phoneme inventory and distance from Africa, and a correlation between size of phoneme inventory and size of the population of the speech community. Atkinson needs the latter, phoneme-population correlation to justify his founder-effect explanation for the former correlation. The phoneme-population correlation was also identified by Hay and Bauer (2007). (Hay and Bauer also test Pericliev's [2004] data and found, pace Pericliev, that the correlation is also strong in his sample [Hay and Bauer 2007:397].) Johanna Nichols reports in her post a tentative result from her sample: she reports that the global correlation is present, but a division of the sample into large areas shows that the correlation does not exist, or is even negative, in some of the areas. On this basis, Johanna writes, "If there is really a correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size (or anything else), it should hold within areas as well as worldwide." She concludes that the global phoneme-population correlation is an artifact of population sizes in Eurasia and Africa, and areality in Africa plus neighboring regions. Interestingly, with Dunn et al., the shoe is on the other foot with respect to global correlations and correlations in subpopulations. Here it is Dunn et al. who argue against the global word-order correlations manifested in Greenbergian word order universals. Dunn et al. argue that a correlation between various pairs of word orders are supported in some language families but not others. Hence word-order correlations are lineage-specific (and culture-specific) rather than universal in the Greenbergian sense. Dunn et al. divide the global sample into phylogenetic subpopulations rather than areal subpopulations, but the point is the same. (There are two differences between Dunn et al.'s analysis and the Greenberg universals: the Greenberg universals are synchronic, while Dunn et al's data is a sample of diachronic word order changes; and the model that Dunn et al. tests is not the model implied by Greenbergian universals. While these differences are important, as I argued in my post on their paper, I believe they aren't relevant to the point being made here.) And in the case of Dunn et al., Matthew Dryer argued in a post that the lineage-specific correlations are random effects and the globally identified Greenbergian word-order correlations are real. I asked a couple of physicists with whom I collaborate about what to think of global correlations when those correlations are not found in most or all of the subpopulations that the data may be partitioned into (areal, phylogenetic, etc.). They both stated that a global correlation is statistically valid even if the same correlation does not exist in all the partitioned subpopulations. This situation may arise when negative correlations or noncorrelations in some subpopulations are more than compensated for by positive correlations in other subpopulations, so that the global effect is a positive correlation. (One of them further added that another possible reason is that the subpopulation samples may be too small to provide a significant correlation one way or the other.) When pressed further about why a global correlation would not lead to the same correlations in (large enough) subpopulations, the response was that, in the simplest case, X is dependent not only on Y but also on a factor Z that varies considerably from subpopulation to subpopulation; and that one would expect the same correlations in the subpopulations if and only if most of the observed variation in X is due to Y. In fact, this is not the case for the phoneme-population correlation: Atkinson shows that language family membership, which clearly varies by region, accounts for the greatest amount of variance for phoneme inventory size. But the other correlations still hold globally when combined with this factor (Atkinson, supplementary materials, pp. 5-6). So it appears that the global phoneme-population and word-order correlations are valid, that is, there is a factor (or factors) Y that needs to be accounted for; but there is apparently also a factor or factors Z that lead to areal- and/or phylogeny-specific differences in the linguistic patterns. Of course, correlation is not causation, as we all know. We have to find an explanatory framework that allows us to say that when X correlates with Y (and Z), there is a causal connection between X and Y (and Z). One problem with the global phoneme-population correlation is that there is no satisfactory explanation for it: even the linguists who found the correlation have only a few suggestions that they do not consider to be strong enough to offer as an explanation. Conversely, there is no obvious explanation why word-order correlations might be lineage- or culture-specific. For example, no cultural reason easily comes to mind why Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants couple verb-object and adposition-noun order, but Proto-Uto-Aztecans and their descendants do not. Nor is there an obvious culture-specific nonlinguistic behavior that might be causally connected to word-order patterns in the way that spatial cognition has been shown to be connected to linguistic spatial frames of reference by Levinson and his colleagues. Bill Hay, Jennifer and Laurie Bauer. 2007. Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83.388-400. Pericliev, Vladimir. 2004. There is no correlation between the size of a community speaking a language and the size of the phonological inventory of that language. Linguistic Typology 8.376-83. From langconf at bu.edu Wed Apr 20 17:30:31 2011 From: langconf at bu.edu (BUCLD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:30:31 -0400 Subject: BU Conference on Language Development- Abstract submissions now open Message-ID: THE 36th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Abstract submissions are now open NOVEMBER 4-6, 2011 Keynote Speaker: Sandra Waxman, Northwestern University "What's in a word? Links between linguistic and conceptual organization in infants and young children" Plenary Speaker: Cornelia Hamann, University of Oldenburg "Bilingual development and language assessment" Lunch Symposium: "Morphology in second language acquisition and processing" Harald Clahsen, University of Essex/University of Potsdam Holger Hopp, University of Mannheim Donna Lardiere, Georgetown University Silvina Montrul (organizer), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Submissions that present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspective will be fully considered. Eligible topics include: Bilingualism, Cognition and Language, Creoles and Pidgins,Dialects, Discourse and Narrative, Gesture, Hearing Impairment and Deafness, Input and Interaction, Language Disorders, Linguistic Theory, Neurolinguistics, Pragmatics,Pre-linguistic Development, Reading and Literacy, Signed Languages, Sociolinguistics, and Speech Perception and Production. A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/abstracts/abstract-format/ We have begun accepting abstract submissions. Please check http://www.bu.edu/bucld/ for a link to the submission form and any important updates. DEADLINE: All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EDT, May 15, 2011. FURTHER INFORMATION General conference information is available at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Questions about abstracts should be sent to abstract at bu.edu From language at sprynet.com Sun Apr 24 10:00:22 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:00:22 -0400 Subject: The Singularity and Universal Grammar... Message-ID: With all respect to everyone on FUNKNET, I would like to call your attention to the following article on AI from yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/us/24bcstevens.html I realize that I may be making myself even less likable than heretofore, but I find many parallels between the sense of this article and the recent history of linguistics. After all, MT has usually been regarded as a branch of AI and has intermittently been heralded as a major goal of linguistic research. As I wrote eleven years ago under Reason 41 of my 44 Reasons piece: 41. The question of whether TGG is in fact a linguistic theory at all or has rather become something far closer to a religious cult. It certainly puts forward what appear to be cult-like beliefs and specializes in a form of compulsory indoctrination for all who wish to join its inner precincts. With best wishes to everyone! alex ******************************* Language design follows no particular pattern--it simply spreads out to fit the reality around it and serve the purposes of the people who use it. ******************************* The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ******************************* From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Mon Apr 25 18:32:52 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:32:52 -0700 Subject: New Publication: Blackwel's "A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology" Message-ID: A new publication--possibly of interest: David Kronenfeld Cover image for product 1405187786 A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology David B. Kronenfeld (Editor), Giovanni Bennardo (Editor), Victor C. de Munck (Editor), Michael D. Fischer (Editor) ISBN: 978-1-4051-8778-7 Hardcover 624 pages May 2011, Wiley-Blackwell For more information, go to http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187786.html -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Mon Apr 25 18:42:23 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:42:23 -0700 Subject: A new publication--possibly of interest:--resend without the "noise" Message-ID: Resend without the "noise"--I hadn't realized that the copied graphics would not work ! Sorry. David A new publication--possibly of interest: Blackwell's /*A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology*/ Edited by David B. Kronenfeld, Giovanni Bennardo, Victor C. de Munck, and Michael D. Fischer ISBN: 978-1-4051-8778-7 May 2011, Wiley-Blackwell For more information, go to http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187786.html -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From akrofiansah at hotmail.com Sun Apr 3 22:21:52 2011 From: akrofiansah at hotmail.com (Mercy) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:21:52 +0000 Subject: CFP: 2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium In-Reply-To: <4D95D28B.70404@uga.edu> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Chad Howe wrote: > **We apologize for cross-listings.** > > ************************************* > *2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium* > Location:University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA > Dates:October 6-9, 2011 > Meeting Email: /hls2011 at uga.edu/// > Meeting URL: http://www.hls2011.uga.edu > Call Deadline: 20-May-2011 > Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics > Subject Language: Portuguese, Spanish > ************************************* > > Meeting Description: > Papers are invited in any area of Hispanic Linguistics and Language Acquisition and in any theoretical or quantitative framework. Additional information regarding associated workshops or special sessions will be provided on the conference website: > http//www.hls2011.uga.edu. > > Invited Speakers: > José del Valle (The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)) > Kimberly Geeslin (Indiana University) > Paula Kempchinsky (University of Iowa) > > Papers may be delivered in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Authors may submit up to two abstracts, one individual and one joint. The body of the abstract must be no more than one page in length with a second page reserved for examples and references. Abstracts must clearly present a specific thesis statement and include a description of topic, approach, and conclusions. To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors should not include their names or otherwise reveal their identity anywhere in the abstract. Please specify the title of the paper, area of research, name, academic affiliation, and e-mail in the abstract submission. > > Abstracts must be submitted through EasyAbstracts (EasyAbs): > http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/HLS2011 > > All submissions must be received by May 20, 2011. > > Pre-Conference Workshop: > Title:New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics > > As part of the 2011 HLS at the University of Georgia, we will also be hosting a workshop entitled /New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics /on Thursday, October 6^th . The workshop will be aimed at highlighting new analytical developments in linguistics, including (but not limited to) experimental and quantitative techniques. The papers selected will be grouped according to the area of focus of the research and/or the nature of the methodological innovation employed. Presenters areencouraged to submit proposals that concentrate on providing introductory overviews and brief 'hands-on' tutorials of current methodological tools (e.g., methods for statistical analysis or software for psycholinguistic experimentation) for workshop attendees. As the methodologies utilized in linguistic studies continue to include a broader range of training in quantitative and experimental techniques, we are using this workshop at the 2011 HLS as a means of providing a forum for discussing best practices in the field.Facilities for conducting workshop-style presentations will be available for this workshop. > > All submissions for the conference workshop must be received by May 20, 2011 and should follow the same guidelines as the papers for the general sessions. In submitting an abstract for the conference workshop via EasyAbs, please be sure to indicate that the abstract is intended for the "Special Session". Any questions regarding abstracts for the conference workshop can be sent to hls2011 at uga.edu . > > Organizing Committee: > Sarah Blackwell > Timothy Gupton > Chad Howe > Margaret Quesada > Diana Ranson > From chowe at uga.edu Fri Apr 1 13:26:35 2011 From: chowe at uga.edu (Chad Howe) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:26:35 -0400 Subject: CFP: 2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium Message-ID: **We apologize for cross-listings.** ************************************* *2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium* Location:University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Dates:October 6-9, 2011 Meeting Email: /hls2011 at uga.edu/// Meeting URL: http://www.hls2011.uga.edu Call Deadline: 20-May-2011 Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics Subject Language: Portuguese, Spanish ************************************* Meeting Description: Papers are invited in any area of Hispanic Linguistics and Language Acquisition and in any theoretical or quantitative framework. Additional information regarding associated workshops or special sessions will be provided on the conference website: http//www.hls2011.uga.edu. Invited Speakers: Jos? del Valle (The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)) Kimberly Geeslin (Indiana University) Paula Kempchinsky (University of Iowa) Papers may be delivered in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Authors may submit up to two abstracts, one individual and one joint. The body of the abstract must be no more than one page in length with a second page reserved for examples and references. Abstracts must clearly present a specific thesis statement and include a description of topic, approach, and conclusions. To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors should not include their names or otherwise reveal their identity anywhere in the abstract. Please specify the title of the paper, area of research, name, academic affiliation, and e-mail in the abstract submission. Abstracts must be submitted through EasyAbstracts (EasyAbs): http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/HLS2011 All submissions must be received by May 20, 2011. Pre-Conference Workshop: Title:New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics As part of the 2011 HLS at the University of Georgia, we will also be hosting a workshop entitled /New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics /on Thursday, October 6^th . The workshop will be aimed at highlighting new analytical developments in linguistics, including (but not limited to) experimental and quantitative techniques. The papers selected will be grouped according to the area of focus of the research and/or the nature of the methodological innovation employed. Presenters areencouraged to submit proposals that concentrate on providing introductory overviews and brief 'hands-on' tutorials of current methodological tools (e.g., methods for statistical analysis or software for psycholinguistic experimentation) for workshop attendees. As the methodologies utilized in linguistic studies continue to include a broader range of training in quantitative and experimental techniques, we are using this workshop at the 2011 HLS as a means of providing a forum for discussing best practices in the field.Facilities for conducting workshop-style presentations will be available for this workshop. All submissions for the conference workshop must be received by May 20, 2011 and should follow the same guidelines as the papers for the general sessions. In submitting an abstract for the conference workshop via EasyAbs, please be sure to indicate that the abstract is intended for the "Special Session". Any questions regarding abstracts for the conference workshop can be sent to hls2011 at uga.edu . Organizing Committee: Sarah Blackwell Timothy Gupton Chad Howe Margaret Quesada Diana Ranson From copelan at rice.edu Sat Apr 2 18:07:05 2011 From: copelan at rice.edu (copelan at rice.edu) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 13:07:05 -0500 Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: This might be of interest to Funknetters, a new book--a novel--by an old Funknet hand Tom Givon. Hedonism & fun & games crash on the rocks of Vietnam & radical politics in the late 1960s. Check it out on the Website /www.whitecloudpublishing.com/. It's a great read! From dedaicm at georgetown.edu Sun Apr 3 12:45:14 2011 From: dedaicm at georgetown.edu (dedaicm at georgetown.edu) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 08:45:14 -0400 Subject: Of general interest to linguistics: a new novel by Thomas Givon In-Reply-To: <20110402130856.14864n9f2d8p8oc8@webmail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Congratulations to TG for publishing a novel! I have a (somewhat) related question. I recently translated a novel written by a cult Croatian author Slobodan Novak. It has been a year since I started trying to find a publisher in the US, with no luck thus far. This is not one of those fast selling Larsenian love-and-violence novels, but rather a pensive, philosophical work whose theme is the period just before the dissolution of Yugoslavia seen through the eyes of an elderly professor. I'd be happy to send more information to anybody interested. Does anyone know of an independent, progressive publisher who'd be willing to consider such a novel? Thanks, Mima Dedaic From amnfn at well.com Sun Apr 3 13:08:39 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 06:08:39 -0700 Subject: Of general interest to linguistics: a new novel by Thomas Givon In-Reply-To: <20110403084514.AJM12002@mstore-prod-1.pdc.uis.georgetown.edu> Message-ID: I run a small press: http://www.inverteda.com/ --Aya On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, dedaicm at georgetown.edu wrote: > Congratulations to TG for publishing a novel! > I have a (somewhat) related question. I recently translated a novel written by a cult Croatian author Slobodan Novak. It has been a year since I started trying to find a publisher in the US, with no luck thus far. This is not one of those fast selling Larsenian love-and-violence novels, but rather a pensive, philosophical work whose theme is the period just before the dissolution of Yugoslavia seen through the eyes of an elderly professor. I'd be happy to send more information to anybody interested. Does anyone know of an independent, progressive publisher who'd be willing to consider such a novel? > Thanks, > Mima Dedaic > > From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 4 17:26:30 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:26:30 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Putnam - Studies on German-Language Islands Message-ID: Studies on German-Language Islands Edited by Michael T. Putnam The Pennsylvania State University Studies in Language Companion Series 123 2011. xii, 477 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0590 2 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 e-Book 978 90 272 8740 3 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 The contributions in this volume present cutting-edge theoretical and structural analyses of issues surrounding German-language islands, or Sprachinseln, throughout the world. The individual topics of study in this volume focus on various aspects of these German-language islands such as (but not limited to) phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of these languages under investigation. Collectively, the body of research contained in this volume explores significantly under-researched topics in the fields of language contact and language attrition and illustrates how this on-going research can be enhanced through the application of formal theoretical frameworks and structural analyses. Table of contents Table of contents i?viii Acknowledgements vii?viii List of abbreviations ix?x List of contributors xi?xii Why study Sprachinseln from generative or structural perspectives? Introductory remarks Michael T. Putnam 1?10 Section 1. Phonetics & Phonology 11?64 On final laryngeal distinctions in Wisconsin Standard German Renee Remy 13?32 Past participles in M?cheno: Allomorphy, alignment and the distribution of obstruents Birgit Alber 33?64 Section 2. Morphology & Lexical studies 65?162 Plautdietsch gender: Between Dutch and German Annemarie Toebosch 67?110 Anaphors in contact: The distribution of intensifiers and reflexives in Amana German Michael T. Putnam 111?128 Lexical developments in Texas German Hans C. Boas and Marc Pierce 129?150 Gender assignment of English loanwords in Pennsylvania German: Is there a feminine tendency? B. Richard Page 151?162 Section 3. Syntax I - Verb clusters 163?230 Synchrony and diachrony of verb clusters in Pennsylvania Dutch Mark L. Louden 165?186 Looking for order in chaos: Standard convergence and divergence in Mennonite Low German G?z Kaufmann 187?230 Section 4. Syntax II - The syntax of Cimbrian German 231?368 Spoken syntax in Cimbrian of the linguistic islands in Northern Italy- and what they (do not) betray about language universals and change under areal contact with Italo-Romance Werner Abraham 233?278 Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP Andrea Padovan 279?300 Hidden verb second: The case of Cimbrian G?nther Grewendorf and Cecilia Poletto 301?346 Revisiting the Wackernagelposition: The evolution of the Cimbrian pronominal system Ermenegildo Bidese 347?368 Section 5. Syntax III - The syntax of Pennsylvania German 369?412 Changes in frequency as a measure of language change: Extraposition in Pennsylvania German Gesche Westphal Fitch 371?384 From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania German fer?zu construction Kersti B?rjars and Kate Burridge 385?412 Section 6. Pragmatics & Conversation analysis 413?474 Word choice, turn construction, and topic management in German conversation: Adverbs that are sensitive to interactional positioning Emma Betz 415?454 Texas German discourse pragmatics: A preliminary study of the English-origin discourse markers of course, see, and now Hunter Weilbacher 455?474 Index 475?478 ?I do not know any area where descriptive work has as long or as consistently remained separate from theoretical work as in the study of colonial German varieties. In recent years, individual studies have begun to bridge that gap, but this volume is the first to achieve that fully, across wide-ranging theoretical frameworks, colonial varieties and subfields of linguistics.? Joseph Salmons, University of Wisconsin-Madison -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Mon Apr 4 17:28:54 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:28:54 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Hieda et al. - Geographical Typology and Linguistic Areas Message-ID: Geographical Typology and Linguistic Areas With special reference to Africa Edited by Osamu Hieda, Christa K?nig and Hirosi Nakagawa Tokyo University of Foreign Studies / University of Cologne / Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 2 2011. vi, 321 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0769 2 / EUR 95.00 / USD 143.00 Is Africa a linguistic area (Heine & Leyew 2008)? The present volume consists of sixteen papers highlighting the linguistic geography of Africa, covering, in particular, southern Africa with its Khoisan languages. A wide range of phenomena are discussed to give an overview of the pattern of social, cultural, and linguistic interaction that characterizes Africa's linguistic geography. Most contributors to the volume discuss language contact and areal diffusion in Africa, although some demonstrate, with examples from non-African linguistic data, including Amazonian and European languages, how language contact may lead to structural convergence. Others investigate contact phenomena in social-cultural behavior. The volume makes a large contribution toward bringing generalized theory to data-oriented discussions. It is intended to stimulate further research on contact phenomena in Africa. For sale in all countries except Japan. For customers in Japan: please contact Yushodo Co. Table of contents Message from the President Ikuo Kameyama 1 Center for Corpus-based Linguistics and Language Education Makoto Minegishi 3 Introduction Christa K?nig 7 Section 1 Areal Features and Linguistic Areas: Contact-induced Change and Geographical Typology Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald 13 Areas of Grammaticalization and Geographical Typology Bernd Heine 41 Case Marking and Linguistic Geography Christa K?nig 67 Can Ethiopian Languages be Considered Languages in the African Linguistic Area? The Case of Highland East Cushitic, particularly Sidaama and Kambaata Kazuhiro Kawachi 91 Proto-Bantu and Proto-Niger-Congo: Macro-areal Typology and Linguistic Reconstruction Tom G?ldemann 109 Section 2 Explaining Convergence and the Formation of Linguistic Areas Yaron Matras 143 Is Kumam a Creole Language? A Mechanism of Linguistic Convergence in the Southern Lwo Area Osamu Hieda 161 The Continuum of Languages in West Tanzania Bantu: A Case Study of Gongwe, Bende, and Pimbwe Yuko Abe 177 Patterns of Linguistic Convergence in the Khoe-speaking Area of Southern Africa Rainer Vossen 189 Tense and Aspect in Khoesan: The case of Ju/'hoansi Budzani Gabanamotse-Mogara 201 Section 3 Ritual Pathways: Contact in a Framework of Difference, Imitation and Alterity Anne Storch 213 The Eastern Kalahari Khoe: A Focus on Inter-Khoisan Ethno-language Dynamics around the Makgadikgadi Salt Pans of Botswana Andy Chebanne 233 Language Contact and Social Change in North-central Namibia: Socialization via Singing and Dancing Activities among the !Xun San Akira Takada 251 Two Types of Kinship Classifi cation Found among the Khoe Languages ? Relative and Absolute Calculations in Determining the Seniority among Classifi catory Siblings Hitomi Ono 269 A First Report on G|ui Ideophones Hirosi Nakagawa 279 Section 4 Noun-Modifi er Order in Africa Matthew S. Dryer 287 Index of Authors 313 Index of Languages, Language Families and Areas 315 Index of Subjects 318 Contributors 321 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From jrubba at calpoly.edu Tue Apr 5 01:58:34 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 18:58:34 -0700 Subject: Book suggestions? Message-ID: Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989. Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 02:59:12 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:59:12 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Hello, all, I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. My two main questions: (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. ?David Tuggy From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Tue Apr 5 03:11:09 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:11:09 -0600 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. Lise Menn On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a > group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal > entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal > entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where > something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each > called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her > (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl > (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask > after Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the > plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the > word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker > for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel > their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard- > plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? > E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other > such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that > count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any > noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps > only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is > associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language > *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any > language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an > associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 03:19:02 2011 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:19:02 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <133DFF35-7336-43B9-9B83-89863D751E65@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. Japanese = boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' Thai= phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. phUak tEE = you guys phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. Shoichi -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM To: David Tuggy Cc: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. Lise Menn On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group > of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but > rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It > shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something > like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called > "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for > instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality > of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word > 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an > associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel > their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard- > plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? > E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other > such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? > Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What > about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one > person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with > that person to make the plurality. Does any language > *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language > distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Tue Apr 5 03:24:22 2011 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 20:24:22 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: There is an article on this: Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages have these. You can add them to proper names. Marianne Mithun --On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > From olga at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 04:01:43 2011 From: olga at humnet.ucla.edu (Yokoyama, Olga) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 21:01:43 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <64AC293F9340AE72DC78CCD0@[192.168.7.101]> Message-ID: In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). Olga T. Yokoyama Professor Department of Applied Linguistics University of California, Los Angeles Tel. (310) 825-7694 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 Marianne Mithun Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM To: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals There is an article on this: Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages have these. You can add them to proper names. Marianne Mithun --On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 5 04:03:20 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 00:03:20 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three biblical texts. Something to chew on.... Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 05:33:26 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:33:26 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <26465246.1301976200650.JavaMail.root@wamui-june.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. John Quoting jess tauber : > Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, > -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are > given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative > dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if > this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three > biblical texts. Something to chew on.... > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From robert at vjf.cnrs.fr Tue Apr 5 05:51:00 2011 From: robert at vjf.cnrs.fr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Robert) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:51:00 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8FAB2E57@EM17.ad.ucla.ed u> Message-ID: In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper name to refer to a man and his family like in: "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. St?phane Robert Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga ?crit: >In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms >as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the >19th century Russian peasant letters (by >speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found >a similar phenomenon with a subject personal >name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John >were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > >Olga T. Yokoyama > >Professor > >Department of Applied Linguistics > >University of California, Los Angeles > >Tel. (310) 825-7694 > >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 Marianne Mithun >Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >To: funknet >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > >There is an article on this: > > > >Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology > >of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. > > > >Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages > >have these. You can add them to proper names. > > > >Marianne Mithun > > > >--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy > >wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > > > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > > > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > > > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > > > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > > > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > > > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > > > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > > > > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > > > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > > > > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > > > Samuel and his friends. > > > > > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > > > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > > > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > > > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > > > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > > > Samuel's family/group'. > > > > > > My two main questions: > > > > > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > > > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > > > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > > > interpretation? > > > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > > > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > > > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > > > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > > > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > > > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > > > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > > > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > > > from an associative one? > > > > > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > > > appreciated as well. > > > > > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Tue Apr 5 06:23:22 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 02:23:22 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Well, Yahgan has an even higher animacy dual -a:pai. In pn's only found with 1st and 2nd person. I'm starting to think there are three underlying bases here that evolved from the three numeral terms for 1,2,3. Three in Yahgan is mvtan (v schwa), so -(n)de(i) from that. Two is kvmbai (alternate forms kvmbaibi, kvmbaibai), which would yield -a:pai. There is also a form hvnggvmbai which acts as a reciprocal. u:koali is one, and the definite article -a:ki (which also has an alternate in -a), also used independently to mean 'someone', may have evolved from it. There is a suffix -(n)chi, perhaps further evolved, on nouns which seems to relate to superindividuality (as when one has subordinates), so maybe this too is an associative use? It can be used alone (as when one appeals to the king), or also on possessors in constructions of X-nchi Y-n (Y of X). Still a bit fuzzy here, haven't thought in these terms before. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From comrie at eva.mpg.de Tue Apr 5 07:00:16 2011 From: comrie at eva.mpg.de (Bernard Comrie) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:00:16 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: For the world-wide distribution of some aspects of this phenomenon, see the relevant chapter in WALS, available at http://wals.info/feature/36. Bernard Comrie On 11/04/05 04:59, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group > of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but > rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It > shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something > like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called > "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for > instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the > Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of > which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality > of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word > 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an > associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) > means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a > standard-plural interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. > in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such > things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does > any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about > 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is > speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person > to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative > plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple > speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > -- Prof. Dr. Bernard Comrie Director, Department of Linguistics, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Distinguished Professor of Linguistics, University of California Santa Barbara E-mail: comrie at eva.mpg.de Home page: http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/staff/comrie.php Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Germany tel. +49 341 35 50 315 fax +49 341 35 50 333 Department of Linguistics University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3100 USA fax +1 805 893 7769 A copy of all incoming e-mail is forwarded to my secretary. If you do not wish your message to be read other than by me, please put "private" in the subject box. From twood at uwc.ac.za Tue Apr 5 06:57:53 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:57:53 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301981606.4d9aa9a6b27e6@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not as contracted as is described above. Tahir -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer From ozgun.kosaner at deu.edu.tr Tue Apr 5 07:31:53 2011 From: ozgun.kosaner at deu.edu.tr (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6zg=FCn_KOSANER?=) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:31:53 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: Turkish has this phenomenon too. Turkish plural -lAr can be used as an associative plural. For instance, amca-m-lar uncle-POSSESIVE-PL. my uncles (my uncle and his family/friends) This suffix with this function can be added to proper nouns as weel as common nouns as in kedi-ler cat-PL cats (falidae family of animals) There is also another suffix, albeit not used widely now, in Turkish -gil. It's mostly used in species names such as feline, canine, etc. This suffix again is added to proper names and common names, but used especially with kinship terms. teyze-m-gil-(ler) aunt-POSS-ASSOC.PL. my aunts (my aunt and her family) Ahmet-gil-ler Ahmet-ASSOC.PL-PL Ahmets (Not several Ahmets, but Ahmet and friends) bakla-gil horsebean-ASSOC.PL pulse (horsebean and it kind) I do not remeber any studies on this function of plural suffix and the -gil suffix in Turkish though. Best Regards, ?zg?n Kosaner Ozgun Kosaner Department of Linguistics Dokuz Eylul University Izmir/Turkey ----- Original Message ----- From: "jess tauber" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > Well, Yahgan has an even higher animacy dual -a:pai. In pn's only found > with 1st and 2nd person. I'm starting to think there are three underlying > bases here that evolved from the three numeral terms for 1,2,3. Three in > Yahgan is mvtan (v schwa), so -(n)de(i) from that. Two is kvmbai > (alternate forms kvmbaibi, kvmbaibai), which would yield -a:pai. There is > also a form hvnggvmbai which acts as a reciprocal. u:koali is one, and the > definite article -a:ki (which also has an alternate in -a), also used > independently to mean 'someone', may have evolved from it. There is a > suffix -(n)chi, perhaps further evolved, on nouns which seems to relate to > superindividuality (as when one has subordinates), so maybe this too is an > associative use? It can be used alone (as when one appeals to the king), > or also on possessors in constructions of X-nchi Y-n (Y of X). > > Still a bit fuzzy here, haven't thought in these terms before. > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > > > > __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this is. This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not as contracted as is described above. Tahir __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer > > > > > __________ NOD32 5494 (20101001) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 08:07:40 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:07:40 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9AD96B.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Actually it's even more contracted. I was thinking about it and with a noun ending with a vowel the first schwa would be dropped-- 'Jackie-nem'. John Quoting Tahir Wood : > > > >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > > > This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not > as contracted as is described above. > Tahir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com Tue Apr 5 08:15:30 2011 From: anne_mariedevlin at hotmail.com (anne marie devlin) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:15:30 +0100 Subject: associated plurals Message-ID: I'm not sure if this is also the case. But in northern Hiberno-English, there is the possibility of making a plural of certain pronouns to show 'otherness'. It is most widely heard in youssuns and themuns. The words are formed from local versions of subject and/or object pronouns, i.e. yous (pl you) and them + ones. As far as I know, they are used as both subject and object pronouns e.g. i don't like youssuns and themuns aren't very nice. They can also be used as demonstratives as in 'see themuns over there, they were making fun of me'. I have never come across its us in an inclusive or solidary form e.g. ussuns. AM From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Apr 5 08:27:48 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:27:48 +0300 Subject: associated plurals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Now that you mention it, I have a vague recollection of speakers of Appalachian English saying e.g. 'Tom-ens' with associative meaning, but it might have been on The Beverly Hillbillies or something like that, so you better check it. John Quoting anne marie devlin : > > I'm not sure if this is also the case. But in northern Hiberno-English, > there is the possibility of making a plural of certain pronouns to show > 'otherness'. It is most widely heard in youssuns and themuns. The words are > formed from local versions of subject and/or object pronouns, i.e. yous (pl > you) and them + ones. As far as I know, they are used as both subject and > object pronouns e.g. i don't like youssuns and themuns aren't very nice. > They can also be used as demonstratives as in 'see themuns over there, they > were making fun of me'. I have never come across its us in an inclusive or > solidary form e.g. ussuns. > AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From michel.launey at ird.fr Tue Apr 5 08:35:07 2011 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:35:07 +0200 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <20110405055123.74B2757543D@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: Actually, in the same region (Poitou-Charentes, Centre-west of France) I often heard "chez" (normally a preposition meaning "at X's house"): "Chez Jean viennent ce soir", with the same meaning (Jean and his family) Michel Launey On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 07:51:00 +0200 St?phane Robert wrote: > In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a >masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper >name to refer to a man and his family like in: > "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" > meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". > > I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people >originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't >know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a >vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a >family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. > > St?phane Robert > > > Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga ?crit: >>In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well >>(o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant >>letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a >>similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl >>verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). >> >> >> >>Olga T. Yokoyama >> >>Professor >> >>Department of Applied Linguistics >> >>University of California, Los Angeles >> >>Tel. (310) 825-7694 >> >>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 Marianne >>Mithun >>Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >>To: funknet >>Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> >> >>There is an article on this: >> >> >> >>Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a >>typology >> >>of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: >>1-17. >> >> >> >>Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other >>languages >> >>have these. You can add them to proper names. >> >> >> >>Marianne Mithun >> >> >> >>--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy >> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hello, all, >> >> > >> >> > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have >>called >> >> > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a >>group of >> >> > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but >>rather >> >> > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows >>up >> >> > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like >>_the >> >> > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' >>but >> >> > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her >> >> > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for >>instance, >> >> > >> >> > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >> >> > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the >>Samuel.pl >> >> > >> >> > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask >>after >> >> > Samuel and his friends. >> >> > >> >> > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of >>which >> >> > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality >>of the >> >> > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': >> >> > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative >>plural >> >> > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house >>of >> >> > Samuel's family/group'. >> >> > >> >> > My two main questions: >> >> > >> >> > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an >> >> > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of >> >> > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a >>standard-plural >> >> > interpretation? >> >> > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? >>E.g. in >> >> > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such >>things, >> >> > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any >> >> > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about >>1st and >> >> > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is >>speaker or >> >> > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to >>make the >> >> > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural >>meaning >> >> > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl >>pronoun >> >> > from an associative one? >> >> > >> >> > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would >>be >> >> > appreciated as well. >> >> > >> >> > ?David Tuggy >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > > From eitan.eg at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 08:57:47 2011 From: eitan.eg at gmail.com (E.G.) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:57:47 +0100 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9A8580.2020403@sil.org> Message-ID: Dear David, There's an article on this, focusing on Amharic, with rich data. Olga Kapeliuk, 1989. Appurtenance as a linguistic concept. Folia Linguistica 23/3-4, 341-352. Best, Eitan On 5 April 2011 03:59, David Tuggy wrote: > Hello, all, > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a > group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ > will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice > and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' > In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > Samuel and his friends. > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is > a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes > that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: > _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's > family/group'. > > My two main questions: > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > interpretation? > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my > English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. > silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow > associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural > pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another > group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any > language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any > language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative > one? > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > appreciated as well. > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > -- Eitan Grossman Martin Buber Society of Fellows Hebrew University of Jerusalem From caron.bernard at yahoo.fr Tue Apr 5 09:17:49 2011 From: caron.bernard at yahoo.fr (Bernard Caron) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 10:17:49 +0100 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20110405073806.0381a798@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Sans oublier en haoussa le pronom 3PL 'su' utilis? comme pr?-d?terminant devant un nom propre e.g. 'su Musa', signifiant 'Musa et al' Bernard CARON #13, Nagwamase Crst A.B.U. Zaria NIGERIA (++234 802 60 80 553) 12, Villa d'Amont 94800 Villejuif FRANCE (++336 65 55 94 25) -----Message d'origine----- De?: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] De la part de St?phane Robert Envoy??: mardi 5 avril 2011 06:51 ??: funknet Objet?: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper name to refer to a man and his family like in: "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. St?phane Robert Le 06:01 05/04/2011,Yokoyama, Olga ?crit: >In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms >as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the >19th century Russian peasant letters (by >speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found >a similar phenomenon with a subject personal >name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John >were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > >Olga T. Yokoyama > >Professor > >Department of Applied Linguistics > >University of California, Los Angeles > >Tel. (310) 825-7694 > >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 Marianne Mithun >Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:24 PM >To: funknet >Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > >There is an article on this: > > > >Corbett, Grevill and Marianne Mithun. 1996. Associative forms in a typology > >of number systems: evidence from Yup'ik. Journal of Linguistics 32: 1-17. > > > >Central Alaska Yup'ik Eskimo, and Central Pomo, among many other languages > >have these. You can add them to proper names. > > > >Marianne Mithun > > > >--On Monday, April 04, 2011 9:59 PM -0500 David Tuggy > >wrote: > > > > > Hello, all, > > > > > > I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called > > > "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of > > > items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather > > > a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up > > > dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the > > > Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but > > > rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her > > > bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, > > > > > > New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. > > > yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl > > > > > > Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after > > > Samuel and his friends. > > > > > > Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which > > > is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the > > > 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': > > > sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural > > > in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of > > > Samuel's family/group'. > > > > > > My two main questions: > > > > > > (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an > > > associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of > > > English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural > > > interpretation? > > > (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in > > > my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, > > > e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any > > > language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and > > > 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or > > > addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the > > > plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning > > > for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun > > > from an associative one? > > > > > > Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be > > > appreciated as well. > > > > > > ?David Tuggy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6016 (20110405) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Tue Apr 5 10:16:22 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoff Nathan) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:16:22 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301990860.4d9acdcc4bf44@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: The 'suffix' -n them, or even nem was also common in white Southern Ontario English when I was growing up in the fifties-sixties, only attached to proper names. A French colleague (originally from Morocco) with whom Margaret Winters and I socialized used to refer to us as 'les Margaret', so it's probably pretty widespread in French too. Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: john at research.haifa.ac.il To: "Tahir Wood" Cc: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 4:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Actually it's even more contracted. I was thinking about it and with a noun ending with a vowel the first schwa would be dropped-- 'Jackie-nem'. John Quoting Tahir Wood : > > > >>> 4/5/2011 7:33 am >>> > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > > > This is very common in colloquial South African English, although perhaps not > as contracted as is described above. > Tahir > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From swellsj at bgsu.edu Tue Apr 5 13:09:23 2011 From: swellsj at bgsu.edu (Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:09:23 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals Message-ID: >We had this in rural Michigan also at least when I was growing up: -n them worked for given names only though; family names used to have the /s/ suffix. For what it's worth, I remember my mother writing a list of people who would attend a family gathering, and all the families coming were listed by first name but with a possessive suffix: Kurt's and Kent's would be there. After that, I think I didn't hear that suffix as plural any longer. I also have heard this in Mexican and Puerto Rican Spanish: Los Martinez, for example. Sheri From edith at uwm.edu Tue Apr 5 13:24:49 2011 From: edith at uwm.edu (Edith A Moravcsik) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:24:49 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I strongly and enthusiastically recommend Guy Deutscher's wonderful books: 1/ The unfolding of language. An evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention. 2005. New York: Henry Holt. 2/ Through the language glass. Why the world looks so different in other languages. 2010. New York: Henry Holt. Best, Edith Moravcsik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johanna Rubba" To: "The LINGUIST Discussion List" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Monday, April 4, 2011 8:58:34 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989. ?Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From mischlerj at nsula.edu Tue Apr 5 13:35:29 2011 From: mischlerj at nsula.edu (James J. Mischler) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:35:29 -0500 Subject: Book suggestions? In-Reply-To: <429318059.1645005.1302009889561.JavaMail.root@mail03.pantherlink.uwm.edu> Message-ID: Johanna, I recommend "Language Myths," edited by Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill. I have used it as a supplementary text in an introduction to linguistics class, and it worked well. The text is written for those who have not studied linguistics. Each chapter is written by a linguist and discusses an issue that is important to understanding how language works. Jim Mischler, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Northwestern State University of Louisiana Natchitoches, LA 71497 USA mischlerj at nsula.edu ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Edith A Moravcsik [edith at uwm.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:24 AM To: Johanna Rubba Cc: The LINGUIST Discussion List; funknet at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? I strongly and enthusiastically recommend Guy Deutscher's wonderful books: 1/ The unfolding of language. An evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention. 2005. New York: Henry Holt. 2/ Through the language glass. Why the world looks so different in other languages. 2010. New York: Henry Holt. Best, Edith Moravcsik ----- Original Message ----- From: "Johanna Rubba" To: "The LINGUIST Discussion List" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Monday, April 4, 2011 8:58:34 PM Subject: [FUNKNET] Book suggestions? Hi, Apologies to anyone who gets this twice. I routinely have my undergraduates in certain classes read linguistics-related books beyond the course text. My list of choices is getting seriously dated. What I'm looking for are books that are intended for a general audience of *non-linguists*. We have no linguistics major at Cal Poly, and most of my students are taking a linguistics course because it is required. Most of my students are not as strong readers of linguistics books as students at R1 institutions. Pinker's Language Instinct would be too hard for most of my undergraduates, for instance. Here are a few of the titles I list, to give you an idea of level: Schane, Sanford. 2006. Language and the Law. O'Grady, William. 2005. How Children Learn Language. Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1999. Proper English: Myths and misunderstandings about language. Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Stopping America's war of words. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English: Dialects and Variation. Bailey, Richard. l991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Hughes, Geoffrey. 1989. Words in time: a social history of the English vocabulary. As you can see, the topic range is pretty wide open. I'm especially interested in a few *current* books on language and the Internet. Unless the book is timeless or a real classic, the date shouldn't be before about 2000 (though Internet books should be much more recent). I'll happily post a summary to the list. Thank you! Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu Tel.: 805.756.2184 Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596 Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374 URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba -- Edith A. Moravcsik Professor Emerita of Linguistics Department of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413 USA From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:04:50 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:04:50 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <133DFF35-7336-43B9-9B83-89863D751E65@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can?t be interpreted as a plural, it?s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by ?agreement? only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n?em or even full phrases like ?and those associated with her? in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. ?dt On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) > to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't > be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > >> Hello, all, >> >> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called >> "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group >> of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but >> rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It >> shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something >> like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called >> "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her >> bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for >> instance, >> >> New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the >> Samuel.pl >> >> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask >> after Samuel and his friends. >> >> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of >> which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the >> plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word >> 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an >> associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) >> means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >> >> My two main questions: >> >> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an >> associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of >> English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a >> standard-plural interpretation? >> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. >> in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such >> things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does >> any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about >> 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is >> speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that >> person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an >> associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a >> 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >> >> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be >> appreciated as well. >> >> ?David Tuggy > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:10:46 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:10:46 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C3807@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks for the reply and the data. -tachi is always associative ?have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does boku-ra ever clearly mean ?I and the other speakers?, i.e. does the -ra mean ?the group associated with me by also being speakers?? Does tanaka-ra ever mean ?the group of people all called Tanaka?? ?David T On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > Japanese = > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > Thai= > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > phUak tEE = you guys > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > Shoichi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > To: David Tuggy > Cc: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:15:27 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:15:27 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8FAB2E57@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: The Russian examples sound like what I was looking directly for: plural morphology of some sort used with associative meaning. Plus the added beauty of lack of overt plural affixation, with the plurality only showing up in ?agreement?. Thanks! ?David T On 4/4/2011 11:01 PM, Yokoyama, Olga wrote: > In Japanese, you can add them to kinship terms as well (o-kaa-san-tachi 'mother et al'). In the 19th century Russian peasant letters (by speakers of North Russian dialect)) I have found a similar phenomenon with a subject personal name in sg but with pl verb agreement (e.g. John were, meaning 'John and wife were'). > > > > Olga T. Yokoyama > > Professor > > Department of Applied Linguistics > > University of California, Los Angeles > > Tel. (310) 825-7694 > > Fax (310) 206-4118 > > http://www.appling.ucla.edu > > > > > > > > > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:20:06 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:20:06 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <1301981606.4d9aa9a6b27e6@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: -en-em (or -?n-em or however you spell it) would be a dedicated associative marker, right? Or is it ever used as a plural? E.g. does Jackie-en-em ever mean "those named Jackie", or horse-en-em mean ?horses?? (Thanks to all who reported this one: I won't respond on-list to you all.) ?David T On 4/5/2011 12:33 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I've heard Black Americans use a reduced form of 'and them' (pronounced > schwa-n-schwa-m) suffixed to names with an associative-type meaning > (Jackie-en-em='Jackie and the people with her'). I don't know how common this > is. > John > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > >> Dunno if this works, but Yahgan has a high-animacy dual suffix on nominals, >> -(n)de:(i) which is also sometimes found when only singular nominals are >> given. I've been trying to figure this out recently. Perhaps an associative >> dual? There is also a high-animacy plural, -(n)daian, but I don't know if >> this works associatively, but it might given things I've seen in the three >> biblical texts. Something to chew on.... >> >> Jess Tauber >> phonosemantics at earthlink.net >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From david_tuggy at sil.org Tue Apr 5 23:23:05 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 18:23:05 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20110405073806.0381a798@vjf.cnrs.fr> Message-ID: Thanks for the data. The stipulation of use where the reference to the person is obvious is certainly (and certainly naturally) true of Orizaba Nawatl as well. ?David T On 4/5/2011 12:51 AM, St?phane Robert wrote: > In French too, some people use the plural definite article with a > masculine (probably as an heritage of the Napoleonian code!) proper > name to refer to a man and his family like in: > "Les Jean(s ?) viennent ce soir" > meaning "Jean, his wife and kids". > > I don't use this construction but I have heard it from people > originating form Western part of France (Charentes-Poitou); I don't > know if it is regionally or socially connotated but for me it has a > vague popular connotation. It seems to be more commonly used inside a > family where the reference to the person ("Jean") is obvious. > > St?phane Robert > From gmodica at fh.seikei.ac.jp Tue Apr 5 23:34:45 2011 From: gmodica at fh.seikei.ac.jp (Guy Modica) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:34:45 +0900 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA176.6000906@sil.org> Message-ID: Let me add that -tachi can be added to any noun, including *teacher*, which yields sensei-tachi. A pack of dogs can be referred to as inu-tachi. Though come to think of it, I don't remember ever hearing inanimate nouns suffixed in this way - Fukushima-tachi or baseball-tachi - though they may be possible. Judging from some of the tentativeness of the assertions, and the rudimentary questions being asked, perhaps having a native speaker weigh in on the Japanese data would be fruitful. And I am not. Guy Modica Tokyo On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, David Tuggy wrote: > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative ?have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean ?I and the other speakers?, i.e. does the -ra mean > ?the group associated with me by also being speakers?? Does tanaka-ra ever > mean ?the group of people all called Tanaka?? > > ?David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > >> Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as >> well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. >> >> Japanese = >> boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' >> >> Thai= >> phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. >> phUak tEE = you guys >> phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. >> >> Shoichi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM >> To: David Tuggy >> Cc: funknet >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to >> personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be >> interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> >> > > From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Apr 5 23:44:48 2011 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:44:48 -0700 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA176.6000906@sil.org> Message-ID: (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. Gakusee-tachi = students Gakusee-ra = students (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative meaning emerges) (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, colleagues) This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful relationship with the speaker. (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. Shoichi Iwasaki -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM To: funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals Thanks for the reply and the data. -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? -David T On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > Japanese = > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > Thai= > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > phUak tEE = you guys > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > Shoichi > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > To: David Tuggy > Cc: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > Lise Menn > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > From thompsoc at ipfw.edu Tue Apr 5 23:44:56 2011 From: thompsoc at ipfw.edu (Chad Thompson) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:44:56 -0400 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9BA012.8040100@sil.org> Message-ID: I've heard the Old Order Amish around referring to entire families by the plural of the head of the household, as in "I saw the Steves" to mean I saw Steve and his family. On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:04 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can?t be interpreted as a plural, it?s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by ?agreement? only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n?em or even full phrases like ?and those associated with her? in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. > > ?dt > > On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> >>> Hello, all, >>> >>> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, >>> >>> New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >>> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl >>> >>> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. >>> >>> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >>> >>> My two main questions: >>> >>> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? >>> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots & pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >>> >>> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. >>> >>> ?David Tuggy >> > From david_tuggy at sil.org Wed Apr 6 02:08:07 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 21:08:07 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C381D@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, that?s helpful, and very clear now. One further comment: I wasn't clear in asking 'does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?' I should have said 'associated with me by being speakers/emitters of the present communication.' I was supposing the defining characteristic of the stem boku is (as is generally taken to be definitional for 1psg) 'speaker/emitter of the present communication'. I wouldn't have expected just any speaker to be thereby associated with me, but anyone else speaking the same message with me at this moment would likely be?that would easily be taken as "a meaningful relationship." (Of course if construed at all closely it is an uncommon relationship as well, which is why 1ppl does not often mean 'multiple speakers'.) ?David T On 4/5/2011 6:44 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. > > Gakusee-tachi = students > Gakusee-ra = students > > (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative meaning emerges) > > > (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, colleagues) > This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. > > "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful relationship with the speaker. > > (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. > > Shoichi Iwasaki > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM > To: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra > mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does > tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? > > -David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: >> Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. And many other Asian languages can do it too. >> >> Japanese = >> boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) >> >> tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' >> >> Thai= >> phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. >> phUak tEE = you guys >> phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. >> >> Shoichi >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn >> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM >> To: David Tuggy >> Cc: funknet >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals >> >> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >> Lise Menn >> >> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >> > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Apr 6 07:46:46 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:46:46 +0300 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <43E67E54296D924AA49FB52FF45748AD1E8F1C381D@EM17.ad.ucla.edu> Message-ID: But so this is not misunderstood--in usage (1), -tachi is by no means obligatory as a plural marker. 'gakusee' can also be 'students', not just 'student'. Gakuseetachi is only used in particular circumstances (which a native speaker could explain better than me). On the other hand, some sort of plural marking IS obligatory in usage (2), otherwise the reference would be understood to be singular. John Quoting "Iwasaki, Shoichi" : > (1) -tachi and -ra can be a plural marker. > > Gakusee-tachi = students > Gakusee-ra = students > > (Only when the noun/pronoun is identifiable/definite animate, the associative > meaning emerges) > > > (2) boku-ra; boku-tachi = I and my associates (e.g. friends, family members, > colleagues) > This could also work inclusively ("I and you") just like English 'we'. > > "does the -ra mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"?" > --> I don't think so. Just by being another speaking body does not seem to > qualify one as an associate. An associate must have more meaningful > relationship with the speaker. > > (3) " Does tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"?" --> > No, because "Tanaka" is identifiable/definite. > > Shoichi Iwasaki > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of David Tuggy > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 4:11 PM > To: funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > Thanks for the reply and the data. > > -tachi is always associative -have I got that right? Is -ra also? Does > boku-ra ever clearly mean "I and the other speakers", i.e. does the -ra > mean "the group associated with me by also being speakers"? Does > tanaka-ra ever mean "the group of people all called Tanaka"? > > -David T > > > On 4/4/2011 10:19 PM, Iwasaki, Shoichi wrote: > > Lise is right about Japanese, but 'tachi' can be added to pronouns as well. > And many other Asian languages can do it too. > > > > Japanese = > > boku-ra; boku-tachi (boku=I, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > > > kimi-ra; kimi-tachi (kimi=you, -tachi, -ra = associative plural suffix) > > > > tanaka-ra, tanaka-tachi (tanaka = family name, ...), 'Tanaka and the gang' > > > > Thai= > > phUak chan (phUak = group, chan = I) Me and my friends/siblings etc. > > phUak tEE = you guys > > phUak Aew (phUak = group, Aaw = (nick name))= Aew and her friends etc. > > > > Shoichi > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Lise Menn > > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 8:11 PM > > To: David Tuggy > > Cc: funknet > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Associative plurals > > > > Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to > personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be > interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. > > Lise Menn > > > > On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From Keith_Slater at sil.org Wed Apr 6 15:48:53 2011 From: Keith_Slater at sil.org (Keith Slater) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:48:53 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this aspect of it down pretty well. For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally included). However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I would get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people named "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to resort to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in which case it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet another strategy). So context is very important, and application of the pattern is actually pretty limited. Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might have been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. Keith On 4/5/2011 6:44 PM, Chad Thompson wrote: > I've heard the Old Order Amish around referring to entire families by the plural of the head of the household, as in "I saw the Steves" to mean I saw Steve and his family. > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:04 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > >> Yes, a good example of an associative. But if, as you say, it can?t be interpreted as a plural, it?s a bit different from the OrizabaNawatl case, where the plural and the associative are morphologically identical. (Normal ON plurals, I failed to note, also allow marking by ?agreement? only with no nominal suffix, in many cases.) -tachi would be analogous to English suffixes like those mentioned by other posters -n?em or even full phrases like ?and those associated with her? in that it gives an associative meaning without so forcibly suggesting that this is the same thing as a normal plural. >> >> ?dt >> >> On 4/4/2011 10:11 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >>> Japanese -tachi would be an example - added only (as I understand it) to personal names, and meaning 'X and those accompanying X'. It can't be interpreted as a plural, to the best of my knowledge. >>> Lise Menn >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 8:59 PM, David Tuggy wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, all, >>>> >>>> I'm interested in a phenomenon that I understand some to have called "associative plurality", in which a plural does not designate a group of items all properly designated by the pluralized nominal entity but rather a group of items associated with such a nominal entity. It shows up dramatically in pluralized personal names, where something like _the Alices_ will mean not 'the group of people each called "Alice"' but rather 'Alice and those associated with her (i.e. her bunch/family/team/crew/party/etc.)' In Orizaba Nawatl (nlv), for instance, >>>> >>>> New?itzeh n ichpopochtih koxamo tlahtlaniskeh inka n Samueltih. >>>> yonder.they.come the girl.pl whether they.will.ask with.them the Samuel.pl >>>> >>>> Those girls that are coming over there are probably going to ask after Samuel and his friends. >>>> >>>> Here girl.pl is a normal plural, meaning 'group of people each of which is a girl', but Samuel.pl is associative. Note too the plurality of the 'agreement-marker' postpositional object in the word 'with.them': sometimes that kind of thing is the only marker for an associative plural in Orizaba: _Samuel inkal_ (Samuel their.house) means 'the house of Samuel's family/group'. >>>> >>>> My two main questions: >>>> >>>> (1) How widespread a phenomenon is this? What languages allow an associative plural for proper names? (Are there any varieties of English/Spanish/etc. that allow it?) Do they also allow a standard-plural interpretation? >>>> (2) What other kinds of nominal entities show something similar? E.g. in my English _dishes_ often means 'dishes [= plates] and other such things, e.g. silverware, glasses, pots& pans'; does that count? Does any language allow associative plurals for just any noun? What about 1st and 2nd person plural pronouns, where perhaps only one person is speaker or addressee, but another group is associated with that person to make the plurality. Does any language *not* allow an associative plural meaning for them? Does any language distinguish a 'multiple speaker' 1pl pronoun from an associative one? >>>> >>>> Pointers to any good discussions of this in the literature would be appreciated as well. >>>> >>>> ?David Tuggy From david_tuggy at sil.org Thu Apr 7 00:16:01 2011 From: david_tuggy at sil.org (David Tuggy) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:16:01 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9C8B65.5090201@sil.org> Message-ID: Note that this is a more restricted phenomenon than the Orizaba Nawatl one in that, at least as far as we have been told, family is the only group so named. It may be the designated group in ON, but a team, group of friends, group united by work (especially if the named person is the employer and the others his employees), political party (especially if the named person is the current main candidate), etc., may also be designated. Especially in this last use (a political party), where a candidate?s surname may function as a proper name, surnames sometimes enter into the construction: e.g. the Baracks or the Obamas might be the same group as the Democrats. The "not universally applied" strictures are the same as for use of proper names in general, are they not? If I understand correctly, in your circle the sentence "Bob just rode by" would usually need no further clarification, but "John just rode by" (or "I saw John") would likely prompt the question "John who?" So, as you say, "context is important", and use of a single given name, sans surname or other additional identifier, "is actually pretty limited." ?David T On 4/6/2011 10:48 AM, Keith Slater wrote: > In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. > I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this aspect > of it down pretty well. > > For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve > and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally > included). > > However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" > it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a > relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I would > get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people named > "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to resort > to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in which case > it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet another > strategy). So context is very important, and application of the > pattern is actually pretty limited. > > Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an > apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always > analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might have > been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. > > Keith > From Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr Fri Apr 8 14:03:47 2011 From: Florence.Chenu at univ-lyon2.fr (Florence Chenu) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:03:47 +0200 Subject: AFLiCo IV Universit=?iso-8859-1?Q?=E9_?=Lyon 2, France, 24-27 mai 2011 Message-ID: CALL FOR PARTICIPATION French Cognitive Linguistics Association : Fourth International Conference (AFLiCo IV) University of Lyon, France, 24th-27th May 2011 'Cognitive Linguistics and Typology: Language diversity, variation and change ' http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/ Program : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/PageWeb/pdf/AFLiCo_IV_pr g_FR.pdf INVITED SPEAKERS Dani?le DUBOIS (University of Paris 6, France), ?Sentir? et ?dire? : s?mantique des sens Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia), Grammatical diversity and social cognition Harriet JISA (University of Lyon 2, France), Information structure in narrative texts: a crosslinguistic developmental study Maarten LEMMENS (University of Lille 3, France), Inter- and intralanguage variation in the domain of static location verbs Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, United States), Syntactic Innovation and Grammar Evolution: The Role of Constructions Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom), Sign Language Typology - New evidence from sign languages in village communities CONFERENCE THEME: This conference brings together linguists engaged in cognitively-oriented research with those working in a functional-typological framework on cross-linguistic variation and on language description. The emphasis is on (1) language diversity of both spoken and signed languages; (2) inter- and intra-linguistic variation; (3) language change. The conference includes a variety of methodological approaches and a wide range of spontaneous and elicited data, including spoken and written corpora, fieldwork data, and experimental data. The languages of the conference are English and French. Registration deadline : APRIL 29th 2011 ************************************************** ********************** APPEL ? PARTICIPATION Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive : 4?me conf?rence internationale (AFLiCo IV), Universit? Lyon 2, Campus Berges du Rh?ne, France, 24-27 mai 2011 'Linguistique cognitive et Typologie : Diversit?, variation et changement linguistique ' http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/ Programme : http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/colloques/AFLiCo_IV/PageWeb/pdf/AFLiCo_IV_pr g_FR.pdf CONF?RENCIERS INVIT?S : Dani?le DUBOIS (Universit? Paris 6, France), ?Sentir? et ?dire? : s?mantique des sens Nick EVANS (ANU College of Asia-Pacific, Australia), Grammatical diversity and social cognition Harriet JISA (University Lyon 2, France), Information structure in narrative texts: a crosslinguistic developmental study Maarten LEMMENS (University Lille 3, France), Inter- and intralanguage variation in the domain of static location verbs Laura MICHAELIS (University of Colorado, Boulder, United States), Syntactic Innovation and Grammar Evolution: The Role of Constructions Ulrike ZESHAN (University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom), Sign Language Typology - New evidence from sign languages in village communities TH?ME DE LA CONFERENCE : Cette conf?rence rassemblera des linguistes travaillant dans le domaine de la linguistique cognitive et/ou dans le domaine de la linguistique fonctionnelle-typologique sur la variation inter-linguistique et la description des langues. L?accent du colloque sera mis sur (1) la diversit? des syst?mes linguistiques aussi bien oraux que sign?s, (2) la variation qui s?op?re sur les plans inter- et intra- linguistiques et (3) les changements des syst?mes linguistiques. La conf?rence pr?sente une vari?t? d?approches m?thodologiques et un ?ventail important de donn?es spontan?es ou ?licit?es incluant des corpus oraux et ?crits, des donn?es de terrain et des donn?es exp?rimentales. Les langues de la conf?rence sont l?anglais et le fran?ais Date limite pour les inscriptions : 29 avril 2011 ****************************************** From jleitao at fpce.uc.pt Tue Apr 12 17:21:06 2011 From: jleitao at fpce.uc.pt (jleitao at fpce.uc.pt) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:21:06 +0200 Subject: Anaphora Conference DAARC2011, Faro/Portugal, *2ND CFP* Message-ID: [apologies for multiple copies] ** SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS ** DAARC2011 The 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium Faro, Portugal hosted by the University of Lisbon October 6-7, 2011 http://daarc2011.clul.ul.pt Anaphora is a central topic in the study of natural language and has long been the object of research in a wide range of disciplines such as theoretical, corpus and computational linguistics, philosophy of language, cognitive science, psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology. On the other hand, the correct interpretation of anaphora has played an increasingly vital role in real-world natural language processing applications, including machine translation, automatic abstracting, information extraction and question answering. As a result, the processing of anaphora has become one of the most productive topics of multi- and inter-disciplinary research, and has enjoyed increased interest and attention in recent years. In this context, the Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquia (DAARC) have emerged as the major regular forum for presentation and discussion of the best research results in this area. Initiated in 1996 at Lancaster University and taken over in 2002 by the University of Lisbon, and moving out of Europe for the first time in 2009, to Goa, India, the DAARC series established itself as a specialised and competitive forum for the presentation of the latest results on anaphora processing, ranging from theoretical linguistic approaches through psycholinguistic and cognitive work to corpus studies and computational modelling. The eighth Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium (DAARC2011) will take place in Faro, Portugal, in October 6-7, 2011. We would like to invite anyone currently researching in the areas of discourse anaphora and anaphor resolution, from any methodological perspective or framework, to submit a paper to DAARC2011, including submissions presenting a thorough discussion of a system and results obtained in the context of competitive evaluations, with general interest or impact for the progress of the area. The closing date for submission is June 1, 2011. Notification of acceptance will be sent by July 15, 2011. Final versions of selected papers to be included in the proceedings are expected by September 15, 2011. A selection of best papers will be published by Springer, at the ISI indexed LNAI-Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence series. The remainder papers will be published in the conference Proceedings with an ISBN printed by Edi??es Colibri. For details on the submission procedure and other relevant info on the colloquium visit its website at: http://daarc2011.clul.ul.pt Program Committee: Sergey Avrutin, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Sivaji Bandopadhyaya, Jadavpur University, India Patricio Martinez Barco, University of Alicante, Spain Peter Bosch, University of Osnabrueck, Germany Ant?nio Branco, University of Lisbon, Portugal Francis Cornish, University Toulouse-Le Mirail, France Dan Cristea, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Ia?i, Romania Robert Dale, Macquarie University, Australia Jeanette Gundel, University Minnesota, USA Laura Hasler, University of Strathclyde, UK Lars Hellan, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway Iris Hendrickx, University of Lisbon, Portugal Graeme Hirst, University Toronto, Canada Anke Holler, University of Goettingen, Germany V?ronique Hoste, University College Gent, Belgium Elsi Kaiser, University Southern California, USA Andrew Kehler, University of California, San Diego, USA Andrej Kibrik, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia Sobha L., AU-KBC Research Centre, India Jos? Leit?o, University of Coimbra, Portugal Fons Maes, Tilburg University, The Netherlands Ruslan Mitkov, University Wolverhampton, UK Costanza Navarretta, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Vincent Ng, University of Texas at Dallas, USA Constantin Orasan, University Wolverhampton, UK Maria Mercedes Pi?ango, Yale University, USA Massimo Poesio, University of Essex, UK Georgiana Puscasu, University Wolverhampton, UK Marta Recasens, University of Barcelona, Spain Eric Reuland, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Petra Schumacher, University of Mainz, Germany Veselin Stoyanov, Johns Hopkins University, USA Roland Stuckardt, University Frankfurt am Main, Germany Joel Tetreault, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, USA Renata Vieira, Pontif?cia Universidade do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Jos van Berkum, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands Klaus von Heusinger, Konstanz University, Germany Organisers: Ant?nio Branco, University of Lisbon, Portugal Iris Hendrickx, University of Lisbon, CLUL, Portugal Ruslan Mitkov, University of Wolverhampton, UK Sobha L., Anna University Chennai, India From Keith_Slater at sil.org Wed Apr 13 16:06:48 2011 From: Keith_Slater at sil.org (Keith Slater) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:06:48 -0500 Subject: Associative plurals In-Reply-To: <4D9D0241.5080007@sil.org> Message-ID: Yes, you are right, the plural form is no less ambiguous than the proper name that it's attached to. Or rather, it can only be attached to proper names that are sufficiently unambiguous. Keith On 4/6/2011 7:16 PM, David Tuggy wrote: > Note that this is a more restricted phenomenon than the Orizaba Nawatl > one in that, at least as far as we have been told, family is the only > group so named. It may be the designated group in ON, but a team, > group of friends, group united by work (especially if the named person > is the employer and the others his employees), political party > (especially if the named person is the current main candidate), etc., > may also be designated. Especially in this last use (a political > party), where a candidate?s surname may function as a proper name, > surnames sometimes enter into the construction: e.g. the Baracks or > the Obamas might be the same group as the Democrats. > > The "not universally applied" strictures are the same as for use of > proper names in general, are they not? If I understand correctly, in > your circle the sentence "Bob just rode by" would usually need no > further clarification, but "John just rode by" (or "I saw John") would > likely prompt the question "John who?" So, as you say, "context is > important", and use of a single given name, sans surname or other > additional identifier, "is actually pretty limited." > > ?David T > > > On 4/6/2011 10:48 AM, Keith Slater wrote: >> In the Mennonite community where I now live, this is still practiced. >> I'm an adult learner of this dialect, but I think I've got this >> aspect of it down pretty well. >> >> For us, there is no article, so we say "I saw Steves" meaning Steve >> and his family, or just Steve and his wife (children are optionally >> included). >> >> However, it's not universally applied. If I were to say "I saw Bobs" >> it would be clear, because in my circle everybody knows which Bob (a >> relative) I would be referring to. But if I said "I saw Johns" I >> would get questioned, because my family relates to multiple people >> named "John" and this wouldn't be specific enough. There we'd have to >> resort to last name (unless it was Yoder, Hostetler or Miller, in >> which case it would be ambiguous again and we'd have to go to yet >> another strategy). So context is very important, and application of >> the pattern is actually pretty limited. >> >> Someone reported earlier that the names were written with an >> apostrophe, so "Steve's". This surprised me because I have always >> analyzed it as the plural and never even considered that it might >> have been possessive. I can't remember seeing it written before. >> >> Keith >> > > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 19:12:19 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:12:19 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news Message-ID: Hi all, Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear reactions. Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph Greenberg. Are the rules of language encoded in our genes, or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature. The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four language families and found that each of the families followed its own idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are driven by culture rather than innate preferences. The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam Chomsky's generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story Cheers, Shannon From dan at daneverett.org Thu Apr 14 19:20:38 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:20:38 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a very worthwhile read. Dan On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > reactions. > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > Greenberg. > Are the rules of language encoded in our > genes, > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > journal Nature. > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > Chomsky's > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > Cheers, > Shannon > From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 19:31:24 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:31:24 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news In-Reply-To: <57DF69D7-6228-469E-B9E6-8465FD5756B9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Thanks Dan, I managed to get the link to the original article Evolved structure of language shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals and there is also a similar (to the LA Times) but perhaps more informative general article at Nature Newswith some "sober" reflection from Martin towards the end. Cheers, Shannon On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Everett wrote: > > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization ( http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > genes< http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/human-body/genes-chromosomes-HHA000024.topic >, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > Chomsky< http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/noam-chomsky-PECLB000974.topic>'s > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over others. > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Apr 14 23:03:46 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:03:46 -0400 Subject: Nature article in the news Message-ID: Here is a link to the online paper, gotten by following links on Dunn's MPI pages: http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:95245:13/component/escidoc:848596/Dunn_nature09923.pdf Jess Tauber From clements at indiana.edu Fri Apr 15 01:40:37 2011 From: clements at indiana.edu (Clements, Joseph Clancy) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:40:37 +0000 Subject: Language Universals in the news Message-ID: This might be of interest to some: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700 Clancy Clements From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Fri Apr 15 02:09:03 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:09:03 -0400 Subject: Language Universals in the news In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What? Both God and Chomsky usurped by evolution? ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Clements, Joseph Clancy wrote: > This might be of interest to some: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13049700 > > Clancy Clements From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Fri Apr 15 10:03:12 2011 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:03:12 +0200 Subject: Workshop on "Gradualness in change and its relation to synchronic variation and use" Pavia, 30-31 May 2011 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/ The detailed program is now online! https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/program ------------------------ 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. You can find the detailed program below and on the website: https://sites.google.com/site/workshoppavia2011/program ---------------------------- DAY 1 ? 30th May 9.00-9.30 Opening Elisa Romano, Dean of the Faculty of Arts Marco Mancini, University of Tuscia (main coordinator of the PRIN project) 9.30-10.20 Plenary Graeme Trousdale (Edinburgh)- Constructionalization and gradual change 10.20-11.00 Muriel Norde & Karin Beijering, (Groningen) & Gudrun Rawoens (Ghent) - From matrix to sentence adverb or vice versa? The history of Swedish kanske ?maybe? Lien De Vos (Li?ge) - On the use of gender-marked personal pronouns: the emergence of a new system in Southern Dutch? 11.00-11.30 Coffee break 11.30-12.10 Van de Pol Nikki & Hubert Cuyckens (Leuven) - Present-day English absolutes: a multiple-source construction? Melanie Uth (K?ln) - The diachrony of the French -age suffixation in a moderately emergentist framework 12.10-12.50 Plenary ? PRIN project Chiara Fedriani, Gianguido Manzelli, Paolo Ramat (Pavia) - Expressions for physical and mental states in the Circum-mediterranean languages: contact-induced and/or autonomous parallelisms? 12.50-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.10 Plenary - PRIN project Elisabetta Magni (Bologna) - Synchronic gradience and language change in Latin genitive constructions 15.10-15.50 Oliver Currie (Ljubljiana) - Gradual change and continual variation: the history of a verb-initial construction in Welsh Bji?rn Wiemer (Mainz) - Different roads toward the rise of evidential modification and diachronic explanations for their variation and areal biases in Europe 15.50-16.20 Coffee break 16.20-17.00 H?l?ne Margerie (Bordeaux) - An analogy-based account of the rise of a complex network of resultative and degree construction Dimitra Melissaroupoulou (Patras) - Gradualness in analogical change as a complexification stage in a language simplification process: a case study from Greek dialects 17.00-17.40 Regina Pustet (M?nich) - From canonical coordination to switch-reference: a typological continuum? Melani Wratil (Duesseldorf, Jena) - Double Agreement in the Alpine Languages: An Intermediate Stage in the Development of Inflectional Morphemes 17.40-18.30 Plenary Olga Fischer (Amsterdam) - Against unidirectionality in grammaticalization: the influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change 20.15 Social Dinner ------ DAY 2 ? 31st May 9.00-9.50 Plenary Johan van der Auwera (Antwerp) - On diachronic semantic maps 9.50-10.30 David Willis (Cambridge) - Cyclic change in the distribution of indefinites in negative polarity environments Barbara Egedi (Budapest) - Grammatical encoding of referentiality in the history of Hungarian 10.30-11.10 Steve Disney (Plymouth) - Variation in the form Be Meant to: what it is and where it comes from. Mads Christiansen (Aarhud) - Between Syntax and Morphology. On the Diachrony of Cliticization of Preposition and Article in German 11.10-11.40 Coffee break 11.40-12.20 Caterina Guardamagna(Lancaster) - Synchronic variation and grammaticalisation: gradience and gradualness in two Italian evidential expressions (dice and secondo NP). Chiara Semplicini (Perugia) - Synchronic variation and grammatical change: the case of Dutch double gender nouns 12.20-13.00 Plenary - PRIN project Luca Lorenzetti (Cassino) - Graphic interference in late and medieval Latin epigraphy of Tripolitania 13.00-14.30 Lunch 14.30-15.10 Plenary - PRIN project Alessandro De Angelis (Messina) - ?Binding Hierarchy? and peculiarities of the verb ?potere? in some Southern Calabrian varieties 15.10-15.50 Evie Couss? (Ghent) - Reanalysis or thinking outside the box? Assessing the historical development of the have perfect in Dutch Liesbeth Degand (Louvain) - Speech as the driving force of semantic change: On the rise of metadiscursive markers in French 15.50-16.20 Coffee break 16.20-17.00 Lennart Bierkandt & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko & Balthasar Bickel (Leipzig) - Synchronic variation and diachronic trends in the alignment of Kiranti agreement Miriam Voghera(Salerno) - A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: the emergence of gradient tipo in the Italian language. 17.00-17.40 Athanasios Giannaris (Athens) - Grammaticalization through analogy: the formation of participial periphrases in Ancient Greek Henrik Rosenkvist & Sanna Sk?rlund (Lund) - Grammaticalization in the Present ? the Changes of Modern Swedish typ 17.40-18.30 Plenary B?atrice Lamiroy (University of Leuven) - The pace of grammaticalization in Romance languages ------------------ There is NO REGISTRATION FEE! However, for organizational reasons we need to be able to estimate the number of participants, so please register sending an e-mail to gradualness.workshop (at) gmail.com by the 15th of May 2011. Thank you! 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, please write to gradualness.workshop at gmail.com --- Caterina Mauri Dept. of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics University of Pavia Strada Nuova 65 27100 Pavia Italy Email: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Homepage: http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/docenti.php?&id=1114 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Apr 16 09:16:10 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:16:10 +0300 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <57DF69D7-6228-469E-B9E6-8465FD5756B9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? John Quoting Daniel Everett : > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a > Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ > are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The > Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization > (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a > very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > > genes, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > > Chomsky's > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over > others. > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 16 12:12:14 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 05:12:14 -0700 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: One of my former interns sent me a reference to this, but it was in the general press and not an academic article. If anyone does have access to the article itself, I would be very interested in reading it. I think the idea was, according to the write up for the public, that changes in syntax, morphology and phonology are historical, and can be seen as step-wise accumulations, and are not explained by Chomskyan theory as being motivated by language internal causes. Also that language changes as culture changes. --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist > from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human > language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken > because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial > reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to > believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY > discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe > at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that > real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that > traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? > Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? > John > > > > > > > Quoting Daniel Everett : > >> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >> >> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a >> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ >> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization >> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a >> very worthwhile read. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to >>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>> reactions. >>> >>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers >>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that >>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? >>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>> Greenberg. >>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>> >> > genes, >>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>> >>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for >>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>> journal Nature. >>> >>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four >>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are >>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>> >>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>> >> > Chomsky's >>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules >>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >> others. >>> >>> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Shannon >>> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From elc9j at virginia.edu Sat Apr 16 13:22:38 2011 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:22:38 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The article is Quentin D. Atkinson, "Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa". Science 332, 346 (2011). Available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/346.full but probably requires a library subscription to access the full text. Ellen On 4/16/2011 8:12 AM, A. Katz wrote: > One of my former interns sent me a reference to this, but it was in > the general press and not an academic article. If anyone does have > access to the article itself, I would be very interested in reading it. > > I think the idea was, according to the write up for the public, that > changes in syntax, morphology and phonology are historical, and can be > seen as step-wise accumulations, and are not explained by Chomskyan > theory as being motivated by language internal causes. > > Also that language changes as culture changes. > > --Aya > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > >> I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a >> biologist >> from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming >> that human >> language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are >> spoken >> because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my >> initial >> reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was >> difficult to >> believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a >> Ph.D. in ANY >> discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references >> to Don Ringe >> at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that >> real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed >> to be, that >> traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological >> mergers??? >> Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Daniel Everett : >> >>> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >>> >>> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: >>> Language as a >>> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The >>> folks in NZ >>> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >>> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and >>> Civilization >>> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and >>> looks to be a >>> very worthwhile read. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a >>>> chance to >>>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>>> reactions. >>>> >>>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues >>>> Researchers >>>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and >>>> conclude that >>>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans >>>> create ? >>>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>>> Greenberg. >>>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>>> >>> >> genes, >> >>>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>>> >>>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are >>>> hard-wired for >>>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>>> journal Nature. >>>> >>>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for >>>> four >>>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language >>>> choices are >>>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>>> >>>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>>> >>> >> Chomsky's >> >>>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering >>>> rules >>>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >>> others. >>>> >>>> >>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Shannon >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University >> >> -- Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Sat Apr 16 17:59:43 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoff Nathan) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:59:43 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I was also somewhat surprised by this article, because the data seemed a little bit odd. Hasn't anyone looked at a phoneme inventory for any of the Salish languages? They're about as far away from southern Africa as you can get (it's 10,000 miles, or 16,000 km from Capetown to Vancouver, according to a random internet search). And the inventories of some of the Caucasian languages are pretty impressive too. Tbilisi is about 5000 miles from Capetown. I assume the premise is a little better based than the description in the press. Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: john at research.haifa.ac.il To: "Daniel Everett" Cc: "s.t. bischoff" , funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:16:10 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers??? Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? John Quoting Daniel Everett : > Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. > > My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a > Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in NZ > are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The > Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization > (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a > very worthwhile read. > > Dan > > > > On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to > > track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear > > reactions. > > > > Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers > > construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that > > cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create ? > > contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph > > Greenberg. > > Are the rules of language encoded in our > > > genes, > > or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? > > > > Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for > > languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is > > challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the > > journal Nature. > > > > The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four > > language families and found that each of the families followed its own > > idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are > > driven by culture rather than innate preferences. > > > > The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam > > > Chomsky's > > generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules > > for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. > > Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over > others. > > > > > http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story > > > > Cheers, > > Shannon > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sat Apr 16 18:13:10 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:13:10 -0600 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302967673.4da9b57955b87@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Absolutely, John, ****in'-insane-ridiculous; especially now that Ellen Contini-Morava has sent me the original. An ignoramus who knows nothing of language change, and does not understand the radical difference between genetic evolution, where multiple, in-sequence developmental stages are preserved virtually intact in the genome, and historical language change, where phonological and grammatical systems undergo repeated RE-CYCLING, are ground down to zero, and then start all over again (and again, and again)--often along rather different typological dimensions. What worries me most, I suppose, are esteemed colleagues in linguistics who should surely know better and still seem to encourage this kind of nonsense. To allow ignorami from other fields to trash our discipline and peddle their shoddy wares to gullible media babblers like Nicholas Wade is truly self-defeating. But--to quote Paddy Shaemus O'Sullivan ("Weep Not My Children", 1959)--Weep not, my children, for I still amused. Cheers, TG ============= On 4/16/2011 9:27 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Meaning what? You agree it's ridiculous? > John > > > Quoting Tom Givon: > >> Right on! TG >> >> ============== >> >> >> On 4/16/2011 3:16 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: >>> I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a >> biologist >>> from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that >> human >>> language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken >>> because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my >> initial >>> reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult >> to >>> believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in >> ANY >>> discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don >> Ringe >>> at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that >>> real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, >> that >>> traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological >> mergers??? >>> Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts? >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quoting Daniel Everett: >>> >>>> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff. >>>> >>>> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as >> a >>>> Cultural Tool) will be out from Random House in early 2012. The folks in >> NZ >>>> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The >>>> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization >>>> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to >> be a >>>> very worthwhile read. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance >> to >>>>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear >>>>> reactions. >>>>> >>>>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers >>>>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that >>>>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create >> ? >>>>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph >>>>> Greenberg. >>>>> Are the rules of language encoded in our >>>>> > genes, >>>>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context? >>>>> >>>>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired >> for >>>>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is >>>>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the >>>>> journal Nature. >>>>> >>>>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four >>>>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own >>>>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are >>>>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences. >>>>> >>>>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam >>>>> > Chomsky's >>>>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules >>>>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H. >>>>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over >>>> others. >> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Shannon >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> 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 wcroft at unm.edu Sat Apr 16 19:19:19 2011 From: wcroft at unm.edu (Bill Croft) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 13:19:19 -0600 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: <1302945370.4da95e5a9c858@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long abstract for the real paper. A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in context of what the paper actually says: "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a language through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme inventory data describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not entail that phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial founder effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are shown to be significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of global variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic diversity." (supplementary materials, p. 11) "In a general linear model, language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic diversity (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in phonemic diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, p<0.001). This level of conservation within major language families indicates that robust statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many millennia and could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." (supplementary materials, p. 7) In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution of this typological trait. Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. Bill From amnfn at well.com Sat Apr 16 19:53:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:53:41 -0700 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to noise in the signal? --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long > abstract for the real paper. > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > context of what the paper actually says: > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a > language > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > inventory data > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > entail that > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > founder > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > shown to be > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of > global > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic > diversity." > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > "In a general linear model, > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > diversity > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > phonemic > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > p<0.001). > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > robust > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > millennia and > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution > of this typological trait. > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > Bill > > From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Sat Apr 16 20:11:09 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 22:11:09 +0200 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Atkinson says: "Human genetic and phenotypic diversity declines with distance from Africa, as predicted by a serial founder effect in which successive population bottlenecks during range expansion progressively reduce diversity, underpinning support for an African origin of modern humans" and "If phoneme distinctions are more likely to be lost in small founder populations, then a succession of founder events during range expansion should progressively reduce phonemic diversity with increasing distance from the point of origin, paralleling the serial founder effect observed in population genetics". -- It is possible that there is such a founder effect in phonology, but if it exists, it is not parallel to the genetic founder effect. In a genetic bottleneck, interindividual variation in the gene pool is reduced due to the small size of the population. But the number of phonemes has nothing to do with interindividual variation. Perhaps we would have a parallel if the average number of allophones per phoneme decreased in a founder event. If the number of phonemes is reduced, that would rather correspond to the loss of genes. - ?sten -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] F?r A. Katz Skickat: den 16 april 2011 21:54 Till: Bill Croft Kopia: Funknet ?mne: Re: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to noise in the signal? --Aya On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials - > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a long > abstract for the real paper. > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out languages > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > context of what the paper actually says: > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect past > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes driving > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, and > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in a > language > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > inventory data > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > entail that > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > founder > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > shown to be > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% of > global > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected to > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in phonemic > diversity." > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > "In a general linear model, > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > diversity > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > phonemic > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > p<0.001). > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > robust > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > millennia and > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of many > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of the > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article states > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic diversity > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite large, > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical distribution > of this typological trait. > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder populations > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the explanation > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on pp. > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to exist > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number of > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to read > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > Bill > > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Sat Apr 16 21:28:57 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:28:57 -0400 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? Message-ID: It would be interesting to know how the mapping of phoneme/gene diversity correlates with language internal distribution of semiotic resources (manual/body/facial gestures, analytically transparent sound symbolism, different morphosyntactic types, etc.). Would there be remnant signals here as well? The largest ideophone inventories tend to be found in Sub-Saharan African areas (though much rarer in 'Khoisan' itself), and in South, Southeast, and East Asia (with Uralic and Basque in Europe), and on into Oceania. Smaller but still significant sets are found in Mesoamerica and northern South America. Augmentative-diminutive shifting is much more popular around the Pacific Rim, but also is found in a number of East African Bantu languages, in South Asia, and Basque. Root-level transparency can be found in a number of Khoisan languages- this is neither ideophonic nor augmentative-diminutive in nature, but seems to be differentially fused form-internal derivation. Some has to do with the level of moisture depicted, in an environment famous for easily obtainable water resources (and these have shifted around within Africa over many thousands of years), instrumental actions (for ex. one piece following clicks commonly associates with squeezing out contents from tubes, such as waste matter from intestines), general areas of an abstracted 'body' (dorsal, ventral and caudal, rostral), and so on. The latter is interesting in comparison to similar true morphology found in many Andaman languages. One never sees things like this in normal ideophones. Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Apr 17 06:51:07 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 09:51:07 +0300 Subject: Origins of human language in Southern Africa? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There are so many problems with Atkinson's claims that it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, you can't just point out statistical patterns without some connection to reality--arguments about ambiguity are just irrelevant. I am extremely familiar with sociolinguistic research on ongoing phonological changes, including gaining or losing phonemic distinctions, and I have never heard of a change motivated by or prevented by considerations of ambiguity. Of those cases for which some motivation can be identified, the main reason for change is language contact, e.g. Ashkenazic Jews couldn't pronounce the Hebrew pharyngeals so they got lost, and now Sephardic Israelis are losing the pharyngeals as well, immigrants to Hawaii from e.g. China and Japan couldn't pronounced the English dental fricatives so they turned into stops, etc. In some cases phonemes are simply borrowed from another language (e.g. the English postalveolar voiced fricative from French). For many changes, the motivation isn't clear but has no connection with ambiguity--for example the English velar nasal became a phoneme rather than an allophone of /n/ when the velar stop stopped being pronounced in final position--who knows why? Short a has divided into two phonemes in the northeastern US (so that e.g. in NYC the vowel in 'dad' and 'bad' are different) but not in the Midwest--who knows why? None of these have anything to do with ambiguity. It's possible to identify cases in which an ambiguity argument can be made (and in some cases IS made by people who don't know any better)--for example by saying that the phoneme split in the northeastern US helps to distinguish between 'can' and 'can't' considering that the t is often not pronounced or reduced to a barely-perceivable glottal stop--but this can hardly explain an entire phonemic category. Apart from this, there is the entire question about 'what is a language?' In some cases, languages are defined very narrowly, resulting in smaller numbers of speakers; in other cases, languages are defined very broadly, resulting in greater numbers of speakers. When a language is defined more broadly, phonological analyses will in some cases require more phonemes. For example, if one were to consider the Arabic spoken in Haifa to be a language rather than a dialect of a larger language, it would have fewer phonemes because of mergers between dental fricatives and stops and also between the voiceless uvular stop and the glottal stop--but since it's considered to be a dialect of a larger language, the [q] and the dental fricatives are considered to be 'underlying' different phonemes. This has nothing to do with anything that Atkinson mentions. John Quoting ?sten Dahl : > Atkinson says: > "Human genetic and phenotypic diversity declines with distance from Africa, > as predicted by a > serial founder effect in which successive population bottlenecks during range > expansion > progressively reduce diversity, underpinning support for an African origin of > modern humans" > and > "If phoneme distinctions are more likely to be lost in small founder > populations, then a succession > of founder events during range expansion should progressively reduce phonemic > diversity with increasing > distance from the point of origin, paralleling the serial founder effect > observed in population genetics". > > -- It is possible that there is such a founder effect in phonology, but if it > exists, it is not parallel to the genetic founder effect. In a genetic > bottleneck, interindividual variation in the gene pool is reduced due to the > small size of the population. But the number of phonemes has nothing to do > with interindividual variation. Perhaps we would have a parallel if the > average number of allophones per phoneme decreased in a founder event. If the > number of phonemes is reduced, that would rather correspond to the loss of > genes. > > - ?sten > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr?n: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu > [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] F?r A. Katz > Skickat: den 16 april 2011 21:54 > Till: Bill Croft > Kopia: Funknet > ?mne: Re: [FUNKNET] Origins of human language in Southern Africa? > > Much of what you explain here makes a great deal of sense, but is the > assumption really that the original phonetic inventory was small, and that it > increased over time. I would think it would be the other way around. > > Wouldn't a larger number of interlocutors level phonetic distinctions due to > noise in the signal? > > > > --Aya > > > > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Bill Croft wrote: > > > I have just read Atkinson's article, including the supplementary materials > - > > the supplementary materials for a Science or Nature article are essential > > reading, because the actual article is too short to be more than just a > long > > abstract for the real paper. > > > > A number of linguists, here on Funknet just now but also in the comments > > section of the NY Times article by Nicholas Wade, have pointed out > languages > > that are at a substantial distance from Africa but have large phoneme > > inventories as evidence against the hypothesis. It is worth putting this in > > context of what the paper actually says: > > > > "We expect the number of phonemes present in a language today to reflect > past > > phoneme inventory size, combined with complex group dynamic processes > driving > > relative rates of merging, splitting and borrowing of phonemes. Many > > factors are likely to influence the rates at which these processes occur, > and > > their relative rates will determine the trajectory of phonemic diversity in > a > > language > > through time." (supplementary materials, p. 8) > > > > "It is worth noting that fitting a serial founder effect model to phoneme > > inventory data > > describes an inherently stochastic (probabilistic) process and does not > > entail that > > phonemic diversity is entirely determined by population size via a serial > > founder > > effect. Distance from the best-fit origin in Africa and population size are > > shown to be > > significant predictors of phonemic diversity, explaining approximately 30% > of > > global > > variation, but other sociolinguistic processes and more recent population > > movements clearly also play a role. Neither of these factors are expected > to > > systematically bias results to produce the observed global cline in > phonemic > > diversity." > > (supplementary materials, p. 11) > > > > "In a general linear model, > > language family as a factor explains 50% of the variance in phonemic > > diversity > > (adjusted r-squared=0.502, df=49, p<0.001) and 48% of the variance in > > phonemic > > diversity across the largest 10 families (adjusted r-squared=0.476, df=9, > > p<0.001). > > This level of conservation within major language families indicates that > > robust > > statistical patterns in global phonemic diversity can persist for many > > millennia and > > could plausibly reflect a time scale on the order of the African exodus." > > (supplementary materials, p. 7) > > > > In other words, Atkinson argues that distance from Africa is only one of > many > > factors accounting for phoneme inventory size, and explains only part of > the > > variance in phoneme inventory size. The conclusion of the main article > states > > that distance from Africa explains 19% of the variation in phonemic > diversity > > (p. 348). Population size (also documented by Hay & Bauer, Language 2007) > > explains another part, and language family explains yet another, quite > large, > > part of variation in phoneme inventory size. These statistical models are > > examples of the competing motivation models that many functionalists argue > > for. The point of the article is that there is still a signal of an African > > phylogenetic origin of modern human language in the geographical > distribution > > of this typological trait. > > > > Atkinson offers an explanation based on the small size of founder > populations > > leading to the reduction of phoneme inventories, in turned based on the > > correlation between population size and phoneme inventory. So the > explanation > > is in turn based on whatever explanation is offered for the latter > > correlation. That is the most interesting and most problematic part of the > > whole story, in my opinion. Atkinson presents an implausible explanation on > > p. 3 of the supplementary materials, but the more extended discussion on > pp. > > 8-10 is better. Hay and Bauer do not endorse any specific explanation, but > > suggest that in small social networks context allows more ambiguity to > exist > > (hence fewer phonemes are necessary), and exposure to a larger number of > > interlocutors may enhance the creation and maintenance of a larger number > of > > phonemic distinctions, citing respectively social network theories and > > frequency- and exemplar-based theories of phonology. > > > > Atkinson's conclusion seems reasonable to me. The statistical signal seems > > robust, even if we have difficulty in explaining it. I encourage you to > read > > the article and supplementary materials and judge for yourself. > > > > Bill > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From wcroft at unm.edu Tue Apr 19 18:24:47 2011 From: wcroft at unm.edu (Bill Croft) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:24:47 -0600 Subject: Atkinson on phoneme inventories in Science Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I was asked to repost this from Lingtyp to Funknet. It is mostly to do with the Atkinson paper in Science that has been discussed her on Funknet, but also a paper by Dunn et al. that appeared in Nature last week. There has been some discussion of both papers on Lingtyp, which is referred to in this post. Although I think this post can be followed as is, I encourage interested parties to look at the cited posts on Lingtyp for clarification (http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A0=LINGTYP). Atkinson argues for the existence of two correlations in a global sample of phoneme inventories: a correlation between size of phoneme inventory and distance from Africa, and a correlation between size of phoneme inventory and size of the population of the speech community. Atkinson needs the latter, phoneme-population correlation to justify his founder-effect explanation for the former correlation. The phoneme-population correlation was also identified by Hay and Bauer (2007). (Hay and Bauer also test Pericliev's [2004] data and found, pace Pericliev, that the correlation is also strong in his sample [Hay and Bauer 2007:397].) Johanna Nichols reports in her post a tentative result from her sample: she reports that the global correlation is present, but a division of the sample into large areas shows that the correlation does not exist, or is even negative, in some of the areas. On this basis, Johanna writes, "If there is really a correlation between population size and phoneme inventory size (or anything else), it should hold within areas as well as worldwide." She concludes that the global phoneme-population correlation is an artifact of population sizes in Eurasia and Africa, and areality in Africa plus neighboring regions. Interestingly, with Dunn et al., the shoe is on the other foot with respect to global correlations and correlations in subpopulations. Here it is Dunn et al. who argue against the global word-order correlations manifested in Greenbergian word order universals. Dunn et al. argue that a correlation between various pairs of word orders are supported in some language families but not others. Hence word-order correlations are lineage-specific (and culture-specific) rather than universal in the Greenbergian sense. Dunn et al. divide the global sample into phylogenetic subpopulations rather than areal subpopulations, but the point is the same. (There are two differences between Dunn et al.'s analysis and the Greenberg universals: the Greenberg universals are synchronic, while Dunn et al's data is a sample of diachronic word order changes; and the model that Dunn et al. tests is not the model implied by Greenbergian universals. While these differences are important, as I argued in my post on their paper, I believe they aren't relevant to the point being made here.) And in the case of Dunn et al., Matthew Dryer argued in a post that the lineage-specific correlations are random effects and the globally identified Greenbergian word-order correlations are real. I asked a couple of physicists with whom I collaborate about what to think of global correlations when those correlations are not found in most or all of the subpopulations that the data may be partitioned into (areal, phylogenetic, etc.). They both stated that a global correlation is statistically valid even if the same correlation does not exist in all the partitioned subpopulations. This situation may arise when negative correlations or noncorrelations in some subpopulations are more than compensated for by positive correlations in other subpopulations, so that the global effect is a positive correlation. (One of them further added that another possible reason is that the subpopulation samples may be too small to provide a significant correlation one way or the other.) When pressed further about why a global correlation would not lead to the same correlations in (large enough) subpopulations, the response was that, in the simplest case, X is dependent not only on Y but also on a factor Z that varies considerably from subpopulation to subpopulation; and that one would expect the same correlations in the subpopulations if and only if most of the observed variation in X is due to Y. In fact, this is not the case for the phoneme-population correlation: Atkinson shows that language family membership, which clearly varies by region, accounts for the greatest amount of variance for phoneme inventory size. But the other correlations still hold globally when combined with this factor (Atkinson, supplementary materials, pp. 5-6). So it appears that the global phoneme-population and word-order correlations are valid, that is, there is a factor (or factors) Y that needs to be accounted for; but there is apparently also a factor or factors Z that lead to areal- and/or phylogeny-specific differences in the linguistic patterns. Of course, correlation is not causation, as we all know. We have to find an explanatory framework that allows us to say that when X correlates with Y (and Z), there is a causal connection between X and Y (and Z). One problem with the global phoneme-population correlation is that there is no satisfactory explanation for it: even the linguists who found the correlation have only a few suggestions that they do not consider to be strong enough to offer as an explanation. Conversely, there is no obvious explanation why word-order correlations might be lineage- or culture-specific. For example, no cultural reason easily comes to mind why Proto-Indo-Europeans and their descendants couple verb-object and adposition-noun order, but Proto-Uto-Aztecans and their descendants do not. Nor is there an obvious culture-specific nonlinguistic behavior that might be causally connected to word-order patterns in the way that spatial cognition has been shown to be connected to linguistic spatial frames of reference by Levinson and his colleagues. Bill Hay, Jennifer and Laurie Bauer. 2007. Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83.388-400. Pericliev, Vladimir. 2004. There is no correlation between the size of a community speaking a language and the size of the phonological inventory of that language. Linguistic Typology 8.376-83. From langconf at bu.edu Wed Apr 20 17:30:31 2011 From: langconf at bu.edu (BUCLD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:30:31 -0400 Subject: BU Conference on Language Development- Abstract submissions now open Message-ID: THE 36th ANNUAL BOSTON UNIVERSITY CONFERENCE ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Abstract submissions are now open NOVEMBER 4-6, 2011 Keynote Speaker: Sandra Waxman, Northwestern University "What's in a word? Links between linguistic and conceptual organization in infants and young children" Plenary Speaker: Cornelia Hamann, University of Oldenburg "Bilingual development and language assessment" Lunch Symposium: "Morphology in second language acquisition and processing" Harald Clahsen, University of Essex/University of Potsdam Holger Hopp, University of Mannheim Donna Lardiere, Georgetown University Silvina Montrul (organizer), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Submissions that present research on any topic in the fields of first and second language acquisition from any theoretical perspective will be fully considered. Eligible topics include: Bilingualism, Cognition and Language, Creoles and Pidgins,Dialects, Discourse and Narrative, Gesture, Hearing Impairment and Deafness, Input and Interaction, Language Disorders, Linguistic Theory, Neurolinguistics, Pragmatics,Pre-linguistic Development, Reading and Literacy, Signed Languages, Sociolinguistics, and Speech Perception and Production. A suggested format and style for abstracts is available at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/abstracts/abstract-format/ We have begun accepting abstract submissions. Please check http://www.bu.edu/bucld/ for a link to the submission form and any important updates. DEADLINE: All submissions must be received by 8:00 PM EDT, May 15, 2011. FURTHER INFORMATION General conference information is available at: http://www.bu.edu/bucld/ Boston University Conference on Language Development 96 Cummington Street, Room 244 Boston, MA 02215 U.S.A. Questions about abstracts should be sent to abstract at bu.edu From language at sprynet.com Sun Apr 24 10:00:22 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 06:00:22 -0400 Subject: The Singularity and Universal Grammar... Message-ID: With all respect to everyone on FUNKNET, I would like to call your attention to the following article on AI from yesterday's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/us/24bcstevens.html I realize that I may be making myself even less likable than heretofore, but I find many parallels between the sense of this article and the recent history of linguistics. After all, MT has usually been regarded as a branch of AI and has intermittently been heralded as a major goal of linguistic research. As I wrote eleven years ago under Reason 41 of my 44 Reasons piece: 41. The question of whether TGG is in fact a linguistic theory at all or has rather become something far closer to a religious cult. It certainly puts forward what appear to be cult-like beliefs and specializes in a form of compulsory indoctrination for all who wish to join its inner precincts. With best wishes to everyone! alex ******************************* Language design follows no particular pattern--it simply spreads out to fit the reality around it and serve the purposes of the people who use it. ******************************* The principal purpose of language is not communication but to persuade ourselves that we know what we are talking about, when quite often we do not. ******************************* From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Mon Apr 25 18:32:52 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:32:52 -0700 Subject: New Publication: Blackwel's "A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology" Message-ID: A new publication--possibly of interest: David Kronenfeld Cover image for product 1405187786 A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology David B. Kronenfeld (Editor), Giovanni Bennardo (Editor), Victor C. de Munck (Editor), Michael D. Fischer (Editor) ISBN: 978-1-4051-8778-7 Hardcover 624 pages May 2011, Wiley-Blackwell For more information, go to http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187786.html -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Mon Apr 25 18:42:23 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:42:23 -0700 Subject: A new publication--possibly of interest:--resend without the "noise" Message-ID: Resend without the "noise"--I hadn't realized that the copied graphics would not work ! Sorry. David A new publication--possibly of interest: Blackwell's /*A Companion to Cognitive Anthropology*/ Edited by David B. Kronenfeld, Giovanni Bennardo, Victor C. de Munck, and Michael D. Fischer ISBN: 978-1-4051-8778-7 May 2011, Wiley-Blackwell For more information, go to http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187786.html -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 emaildavid.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From akrofiansah at hotmail.com Sun Apr 3 22:21:52 2011 From: akrofiansah at hotmail.com (Mercy) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:21:52 +0000 Subject: CFP: 2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium In-Reply-To: <4D95D28B.70404@uga.edu> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad On Apr 1, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Chad Howe wrote: > **We apologize for cross-listings.** > > ************************************* > *2011 Hispanic Linguistics Symposium* > Location:University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA > Dates:October 6-9, 2011 > Meeting Email: /hls2011 at uga.edu/// > Meeting URL: http://www.hls2011.uga.edu > Call Deadline: 20-May-2011 > Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics > Subject Language: Portuguese, Spanish > ************************************* > > Meeting Description: > Papers are invited in any area of Hispanic Linguistics and Language Acquisition and in any theoretical or quantitative framework. Additional information regarding associated workshops or special sessions will be provided on the conference website: > http//www.hls2011.uga.edu. > > Invited Speakers: > Jos? del Valle (The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)) > Kimberly Geeslin (Indiana University) > Paula Kempchinsky (University of Iowa) > > Papers may be delivered in English, Portuguese or Spanish. Authors may submit up to two abstracts, one individual and one joint. The body of the abstract must be no more than one page in length with a second page reserved for examples and references. Abstracts must clearly present a specific thesis statement and include a description of topic, approach, and conclusions. To preserve anonymity during the review process, authors should not include their names or otherwise reveal their identity anywhere in the abstract. Please specify the title of the paper, area of research, name, academic affiliation, and e-mail in the abstract submission. > > Abstracts must be submitted through EasyAbstracts (EasyAbs): > http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/HLS2011 > > All submissions must be received by May 20, 2011. > > Pre-Conference Workshop: > Title:New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics > > As part of the 2011 HLS at the University of Georgia, we will also be hosting a workshop entitled /New Methods in Hispanic Linguistics /on Thursday, October 6^th . The workshop will be aimed at highlighting new analytical developments in linguistics, including (but not limited to) experimental and quantitative techniques. The papers selected will be grouped according to the area of focus of the research and/or the nature of the methodological innovation employed. Presenters areencouraged to submit proposals that concentrate on providing introductory overviews and brief 'hands-on' tutorials of current methodological tools (e.g., methods for statistical analysis or software for psycholinguistic experimentation) for workshop attendees. As the methodologies utilized in linguistic studies continue to include a broader range of training in quantitative and experimental techniques, we are using this workshop at the 2011 HLS as a means of providing a forum for discussing best practices in the field.Facilities for conducting workshop-style presentations will be available for this workshop. > > All submissions for the conference workshop must be received by May 20, 2011 and should follow the same guidelines as the papers for the general sessions. In submitting an abstract for the conference workshop via EasyAbs, please be sure to indicate that the abstract is intended for the "Special Session". Any questions regarding abstracts for the conference workshop can be sent to hls2011 at uga.edu . > > Organizing Committee: > Sarah Blackwell > Timothy Gupton > Chad Howe > Margaret Quesada > Diana Ranson >