From smalamud at brandeis.edu Wed Aug 3 16:27:53 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:27:53 -0400 Subject: CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince Message-ID: Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 * Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Aug 4 21:17:27 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. Thanks, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From dan at daneverett.org Thu Aug 4 21:41:02 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. Not sure that exists either. Dan On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Aug 4 22:29:53 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG ============== On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Aug 5 00:15:58 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <4E3B1D61.1000807@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > vs. a progressive dialect". Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical linguists and their students." > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Aug 5 04:07:25 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. Jess Tauber goldenratio at earthlink.net From Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu Fri Aug 5 04:22:31 2011 From: Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu (Victor K. Golla) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz-- > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption does not hold good" (ibid, 158). --Victor Golla On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Aug 5 05:15:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean position. Or Chomskian. TG ================ On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > Fritz-- > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > --Victor Golla > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. >> >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? >> >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. >> >> Thanks, >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> From sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Fri Aug 5 06:59:45 2011 From: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr (Sylvester OSU) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 Subject: References In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. Kindly please send such to: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Thanking you in advance. Sylvester From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Aug 5 08:25:55 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I did a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which was was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th century. DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor being whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct object, and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also a clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, with the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS construction associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything concrete about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic factors, but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the subject took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where the bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the time a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in general 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a non-clitic subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the bird?' would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have been clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no more than two generations when there was something like a productive semantically-based alternation. John Quoting jess tauber : > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive > and all that rubbish. > > Jess Tauber > goldenratio at earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Aug 5 16:31:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG ============ On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I did > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which was > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th century. > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor being > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct object, > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also a > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, with > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS construction > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything concrete > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic factors, > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the subject > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where the > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the time > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in general > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a non-clitic > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the bird?' > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have been > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no more > than two generations when there was something like a productive > semantically-based alternation. > John > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive >> and all that rubbish. >> >> Jess Tauber >> goldenratio at earthlink.net >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Aug 5 17:27:09 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <4E3C1AFD.4030904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing the same stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native speaker myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a book?') would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' rather than 'had you sex?'). What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to what extent the differences which appear in written language reflect differences in the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the case of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so there didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between the do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was no pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the spoken language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in less formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other verbs, mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was used a lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that time the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the spoken language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning difference disappeared. John Quoting Tom Givon : > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I > did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also > a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where > the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the > time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > >> and all that rubbish. > >> > >> Jess Tauber > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Fri Aug 5 21:36:01 2011 From: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl (Joanna Nykiel) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: HI, There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as those below: (1) A: And we’ll compare notes some more. B: Compare notes, on what? A: On you, honey-pie. What else? (Corpus of Contemporary American English) (2) A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? B: Four. A: By four years old. Wow. (Corpus of Contemporary American English) "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting genuine variation. I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present simple tense in Early Modern English. Joanna Nykiel Joanna Nykiel Assistant Professor English Department University of Silesia Grota-Roweckiego 5 Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/  ---------------------------------------------------- Uniwersytet ŚlÄ ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Aug 5 23:22:27 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets but have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there somewhere... (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding (their) bikes all day. (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses at 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be the case...folks only ride one way) cheers, Shannon On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Daniel Everett) > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Victor K. Golla) > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > To: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences > here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > Not sure that exists either. > > Dan > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > ============== > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > linguists and their students." > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > From: jess tauber > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > < > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > interrelationally? Languages with > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > Jess Tauber > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > From: "Victor K. Golla" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz-- > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > --Victor Golla > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > ================ > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > Fritz-- > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > their > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > there > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > >> > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > >> > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > From: Sylvester OSU > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear Funknetters, > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. Kindly > please send such to: > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > Thanking you in advance. > > Sylvester > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: jess tauber > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I > did > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also > a > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where > the > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the > time > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > than two generations when there was something like a productive > semantically-based alternation. > John > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > > and all that rubbish. > > > > Jess Tauber > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk > I did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > >> and all that rubbish. > >> > >> Jess Tauber > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > ************************************** > From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sat Aug 6 00:51:57 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Hi Fritz, I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully defined if we don't commit to this assumption). The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two different forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might seem irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. Meaning differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related forms that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that differ very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced to some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, 2005 for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so apparent when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite instructive: perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated with one of the two forms. I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al 2009; Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the two forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes the only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet my money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable relative and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked differ for each of those cases. All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material after a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations can easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from the data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be quite fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this selection is affected by the strength of connections between different meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., which will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need to be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established theories of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). florian One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged meaning differences for the ditransitive alternation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > To: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences > here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Aug 6 06:45:17 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only lexical meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it include the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included as 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there are syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message about do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of which have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., there's also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness (for the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so far has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able to find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, argative vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, watashi) and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly different meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out to have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning difference for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning distinction in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that there isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about the difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is stronger--but it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation based upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the other kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience of being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are 'stronger' than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true for English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it can't be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really worth too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. John Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > Hi Fritz, > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two different > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might seem > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. Meaning > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related forms > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that differ > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced to > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, 2005 > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so apparent > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite instructive: > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated > with one of the two forms. > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al 2009; > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the two > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes the > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet my > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable relative > and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > differ for each of those cases. > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material after > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations can > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from the > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be quite > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., which > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need to > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established theories > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > florian > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged meaning > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From smalamud at brandeis.edu Sat Aug 6 16:26:17 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 Subject: updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince Message-ID: Dear funknetters, Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and format! With regards, Sophia Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 * Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 point and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all sides. References should be included on a third page. 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith (1992)...I"), the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be sure to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving before uploading it. 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be considered. 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA meeting. 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and authors must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The deadline will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be withdrawn from the program. 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sat Aug 6 17:47:47 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:47:47 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi John, I find it useful to follow Herb Clark's distinction between primary and collateral meaning, where collateral meaning is/includes information about the state of the processing system. If collateral meaning is included under what Fritz meant by meaning differences then -given everything that is known about language processing- I very much doubt that there is meaning-equivalence. I guess collateral meaning would include all the effects John's mentioning (e.g. effects of accessibility), although it is, of course, theoretically possible that these effects are due to meaning differences in a more narrow sense of the word. If collateral meaning differences are not included in the definition of "meaning equivalent" then probably most constructions that I suspect the majority of linguists would consider meaning-different probably are not meaning-different (in the sense that I outlined in previous email). I also wanted to reply to John's comment about different speakers assuming different meaning differences. I guess I disagree somewhat. I think it's most productive to think about meaning as something that can be *successfully transferred* between interlocutors (unless you want to let in the full force of the qualia problem ;)). When we talk about meaning-equivalence (or lack thereof) I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't sufficient if *one* person think that two forms have different meanings. As a matter of fact, it's not even sufficient to show that *all* people think there is a meaning difference. What we would need to show is that a random sample of native speakers *sufficiently agrees on what the meaning difference is* (I don't mean that they have to be able to explicitly name the difference, but it should be possible to indirectly assess their implicit believes about the meaning differences'; by "sufficiently" I mean that it is not necessary for people to completely share the same believes about the meaning of a form, but the information transferred by using a given form, and thereby its decoded meaning, will depend on the amount of agreement between the speaker and her audience). Only then does it make sense to me to claim that two forms "have a different meaning". The other thing that follows from this (information theoretically motivated) view on meaning-equivalence is that meaning-equivalence is only defined with regard to a group of speakers . For example, it could be that in certain subcommunities of English (defined by any of socio-economic class, geography, friendship, shared profession, etc.) two forms have a sufficiently consistently agreed upon different meaning. In that case, it also makes sense to say that these forms are meaning different *with regard to that community*. Finally, I think that we should not forget about methodological issues. Several replies to Fritz's question assert that there are meaning differences between two structures. I'd be really curious to see the studies that support these claims. I mean: an assessment of naive participants in an unbiased way that results in an at least quantitative differences in the proportion of participants who judge form A to have a different meaning as form B. As Tom Wasow pointed out in an off-list comment, such studies require a definition of WHAT meaning difference is hypothesized. And I haven't really seen many studies of this type (if any besides the one by Rafe Kinsey I mentioned in my previous email). I think it is very dangerous to *only* rely on ones own intuition when assessing meaning differences between forms (although this method is probably the inevitable starting point for any research on meaning differences). On a related note, asking people to describe the meaning difference between two forms (even asking them whether two forms mean the same) is a method to be used with caution since it creates a direct contrast (compare the tasks of comparing two shades of red when asked "do these differ?" vs. seeing them separately and being asked "is this red"). I think it's ok to use the methods (better than not using any method at all) but without finding a meaning component that people agree on for the two forms, I'd not be convinced that it makes sense to say that the two forms differ in meaning. More sophisticated methods to uncover meaning differences have been developed in other fields (consider for example, the use of eye-tracking as an implicit measure of meaning and inferential processes triggered by a word in work in experimental pragmatics by Jesse Snedeker; Mike Tanenhaus; Judith Degen; etc.; and work on first language acquisition where meaning differences cannot be accessed explicitly anyway, cf. preferential looking paradigm). If there's interest in some pointers to this literature, perhaps you can write to Judith Degen (cc-ed), who could point the list to some papers. Florian PS: FWIW, many functionalist theories of meaning differences (e.g. Fox and Thompson, 2008 and Thompson and Mulac, 1991 about that-omission in relative and complement clauses) seem to be very compatible with the idea that the differences are really due to processing and that comprehenders then might become biased to preferentially infer different meanings for the different forms (e.g. the concept of mono-clausality in Fox and Thompson; see also Wasow, Jaeger, and Orr, 2011 and the attached discussion with Ruth Kempson, a pre-final draft of this paper and commentary on it is available at: http://rochester.academia.edu/tiflo/Papers/207114/Wasow_T._Jaeger_T._F._and_Orr_D._2011._Lexical_Variation_in_Relativizer_Frequency._In_H._Simon_and_H._Wiese_eds._Proceedings_of_the_2005_DGfS_workshop_Expecting_the_unexpected_Exceptions_in_Grammar_175-196._Berlin_New_York_De_Gruyter_Mouton ). 2011/8/6 > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > lexical > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > include > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in > particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included > as > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > are > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > about > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > which > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > there's > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness > (for > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so > far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able > to > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > argative > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > watashi) > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > different > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out > to > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > difference > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > distinction > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > there > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > the > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > stronger--but > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > based > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > other > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience > of > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > 'stronger' > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > for > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > can't > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > worth > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > John > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From rosskrekoski at gmail.com Sat Aug 6 19:01:23 2011 From: rosskrekoski at gmail.com (Krekoski Ross) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:01:23 -0400 Subject: differences in form without differences in meaning Message-ID: The discussion surrounding this slight controversy is quite interesting. I'm simply a wimpy graduate student, but for what its worth, my perspective is that the problem seems to be intractable from an analytic perspective. If we are making up examples, what analytic basis do we have to say that the 'meaning' of two distinct syntactic forms is equivalent, and what precisely do we mean by 'equivalent' if we are to make that claim? I can't think of any solid basis for making this argument based on a single person's intuition alone, and if we are to base any potential findings on the intuitions of more than one person, how do we account for the differences in connotation that we will inevitably find? If we base our argument on pretheoretic notions of certain 'relevant' elements of syntax criterially determining semantic meaning, we end up with circularity. If we are looking at actual conversation or another type of real data, it would be difficult to argue for semantic equivalence anyways since you will never find two contextual environments that are precisely identical. I could be wrong, but my intution of the semantics of the question itself seems to suggest that the question is designed to elicit examples that 'prove' that there will be such examples rather than to actually investigate whether or not this is true outside of an idealized world. Ross Krekoski Department of Linguistics University of Toronto On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Joanna Nykiel) > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 (s.t. bischoff) > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (T. Florian Jaeger) > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 6. updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince (Sophia A. Malamud) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312565229.4e3c27edbeb24 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing the > same > stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native > speaker > myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb > 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a > book?') > would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' > rather > than 'had you sex?'). > > What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to what > extent the differences which appear in written language reflect differences > in > the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the > case > of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so there > didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between the > do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was > no > pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal > contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the > do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the spoken > language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in > less > formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, > though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious > exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other verbs, > mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was used > a > lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, > restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that > time > the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the spoken > language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning > difference > disappeared. > John > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > ============ > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk I > > did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also > > a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where > > the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the > > time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > the > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > >> and all that rubbish. > > >> > > >> Jess Tauber > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 > From: Joanna Nykiel > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <20110805233601.92443b062t74dsm4 at poczta.us.edu.pl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; > format="flowed" > > HI, > > There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic > difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument > Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as > those below: > > (1) > A: And we?ll compare notes some more. > B: Compare notes, on what? > A: On you, honey-pie. What else? > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > (2) > A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? > B: Four. > A: By four years old. Wow. > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's > turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting > genuine variation. > I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP > and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. > > > Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present > simple tense in Early Modern English. > > Joanna Nykiel > > > > Joanna Nykiel > Assistant Professor > English Department > University of Silesia > Grota-Roweckiego 5 > Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland > E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl > Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ > ??? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Uniwersytet ??l??ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 > From: "s.t. bischoff" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets but > have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there > somewhere... > > (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding > (their) > bikes all day. > > (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. > > (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. > > (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses > at > 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" > might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be > the > case...folks only ride one way) > > cheers, > Shannon > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Daniel Everett) > > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Victor K. Golla) > > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > > From: Daniel Everett > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Cc: Funknet > > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > > > Not sure that exists either. > > > > Dan > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive > > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > ============== > > > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > > linguists and their students." > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents > > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while > > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > > > -- > > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > > Saint John's University > > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > > From: jess tauber > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > < > > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > interrelationally? Languages with > > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > > > Jess Tauber > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > > From: "Victor K. Golla" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > 50imWp6yM30E6mh8t7j5rY6FA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > > > > ================ > > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > > Fritz-- > > > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and > specific > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > > their > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > > there > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > wrote: > > >> Dear Funknetters, > > >> > > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > >> > > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > >> > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> --fritz > > >> > > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > > From: Sylvester OSU > > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. > Kindly > > please send such to: > > > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > > > Thanking you in advance. > > > > Sylvester > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: jess tauber > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk > I > > did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also > > a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where > > the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the > > time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > > the > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > > and all that rubbish. > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > ============ > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk > > I did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > > the time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > the > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > >> and all that rubbish. > > >> > > >> Jess Tauber > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > ************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 > From: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Cc: Tom Wasow > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Fritz, > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated > with one of the two forms. > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > differ for each of those cases. > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > florian > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Cc: Tom Wasow , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > lexical > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > include > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in > particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included > as > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > are > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > about > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > which > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > there's > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness > (for > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so > far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able > to > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > argative > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > watashi) > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > different > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out > to > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > difference > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > distinction > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > there > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > the > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > stronger--but > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > based > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > other > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience > of > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > 'stronger' > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > for > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > can't > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > worth > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > John > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 > From: "Sophia A. Malamud" > Subject: [FUNKNET] updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - > LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dear funknetters, > > Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and > format! > > With regards, > Sophia > > Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting > * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 > * > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and > Discourse > > Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, > producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of > informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic > constructions, > including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, > language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the > Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use > of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the > advent of electronic corpora. > > We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 > min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse > phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of > linguistic > expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and > reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that > emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on > experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. > > Please email all submissions to the session organisers at > lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session > abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: > -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author > -- The title of the paper > > The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. > > The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: > > 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. > 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 > words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 > point > and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all > sides. > References should be included on a third page. > 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you > identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith > (1992)...I"), > the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be > sure > to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," > removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving > before > uploading it. > 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be > considered. > 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA > meeting. > 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, > will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and > authors > must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The > deadline > will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be > withdrawn from the program. > 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 > ************************************** > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Aug 6 19:02:45 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:02:45 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Florian, et al., Thank you all so much for your contributions to the line of discussion that I initiated. There is no way that I can give point-by-point commentary on all of the postings, but then nobody would expect that I should do so. Just a few comments. First, it's clear -- and Florian cited several references -- that variants might differ not so much in their meaning (even broadly defined), but rather in *how relatively effectively* they can convey a particular meaning given particular discourse and other background conditions. So subject sentences ('that he'll go home is likely') may or may not have identical meanings as extraposed sentences ('it's likely that he'll go home'). But clearly, conditions that are to a degree meaning-independent are at work in speaker choice of one variant over another: the length of the subject, the stylistic register, and so on. One could make the same point with respect to heavy-NP-shifted items versus non-shifted ones. The different focal properties associated with the different positions (which we can think of as aspects of meaning) are relevant, but do not suffice to explain fully why some NPs are shifted and some are not. One of the most frustrating facts for the theoretical linguist is that the analyses that we come up with are not always (possibly not often) confirmed by particular psycholinguistic studies. And here the problem cuts across theoretical frameworks. Consider for example the abstract generative phonological analyses based on alternations; the minisculey-fine semantic distinctions posited by cognitive linguists as a basis for syntactic structure; and the functionally-motivated hierarchies that form a basis for a lot of functionalist theorizing. The conflicting experimental results with respect to the 'psychological reality' of these various analyses have led a lot of grammarians to be cynical about what psycholinguists can offer them as an aid to or as a check on theory construction. That's lamentable of course. In his second posting, Florian referred to 'functional theories of meaning differences', citing work by Fox, Thompson, and Mulac. These are really at one extreme end of the functionalist spectrum, given the role that they impart to 'fragments' and 'memorized formulas' as being at the centre of language, as opposed to grammatical processes (as the term is understood within whatever framework). These fall down in explaining how languages users have the ability to *interpret* input that they have not previously encountered. As I argued in Newmeyer 2010, this interpretive capacity (among other things) points to the need for a stored grammar. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements. Usage and structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder, ed. by Kasper Boye and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The paper is also available on LingBuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sun Aug 7 17:32:54 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:32:54 -0400 Subject: differences in form without differences in meaning Message-ID: Dear Ross, I agree with you that there is a striking lack of studies on this question, but that's not a function of this being impossible. For an example for how to empirically study meaning-based theories of alternations, see Kinsey, Jaeger, and Wasow, 2006 (LSA handout; it's also briefly summarized in my thesis). Of course, the null hypothesis has to be that there is *no* meaning difference, so that a hypothesis that there is a specific meaning difference becomes testable. I agree with you, however, that it is therefore difficult to conclude that there isn't *any* meaning difference. Consider though that psycholinguists are in a similar situation. When they claimed that speakers' preferences at choice points in production (alternations) are driven by e.g. a preference to avoid speech suspension (e.g. Ferreira and Dell 2000: the principle of immediate mention; see also Levelt 1981 for an earlier mention of this idea), they had to come up with *specific* hypotheses and operationalizations of these hypotheses. Not all of them worked, some led to detours of a couple of years, but overall there arguably has been a large amount of progress in understanding both the factors (at the phenomenal level) and the mechanisms involved in the observed preferences. Based on simply well-motivated and independently documented processing principles speakers' preferences in alternations are predicted at about 40-95% accuracy in modern models (depending on the baseline). Even such fine grained behaviors as fluctations in the pronunciation duration of words are modeled with about 60%+ accuracy (notice also that 100% is not necessarily the goal, as the processes we study are inherently variable and noisy). This still leaves a lot to be done, but I would hold that this is this an achievement and that it is due to *not* thinking that this question can't be evaluated ;). HTH, Florian ------------------------- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:01:23 -0400 > From: Krekoski Ross > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] differences in form without differences in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The discussion surrounding this slight controversy is quite interesting. > I'm > simply a wimpy graduate student, but for what its worth, my perspective is > that the problem seems to be intractable from an analytic perspective. > > If we are making up examples, what analytic basis do we have to say that > the > 'meaning' of two distinct syntactic forms is equivalent, and what precisely > do we mean by 'equivalent' if we are to make that claim? I can't think of > any solid basis for making this argument based on a single person's > intuition alone, and if we are to base any potential findings on the > intuitions of more than one person, how do we account for the differences > in > connotation that we will inevitably find? If we base our argument on > pretheoretic notions of certain 'relevant' elements of syntax criterially > determining semantic meaning, we end up with circularity. > > If we are looking at actual conversation or another type of real data, it > would be difficult to argue for semantic equivalence anyways since you will > never find two contextual environments that are precisely identical. > > I could be wrong, but my intution of the semantics of the question itself > seems to suggest that the question is designed to elicit examples that > 'prove' that there will be such examples rather than to actually > investigate > whether or not this is true outside of an idealized world. > > Ross Krekoski > > > Department of Linguistics > University of Toronto > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Joanna Nykiel) > > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 (s.t. bischoff) > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (T. Florian Jaeger) > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 6. updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA > > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince (Sophia A. Malamud) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Tom Givon > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312565229.4e3c27edbeb24 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing > the > > same > > stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native > > speaker > > myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb > > 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a > > book?') > > would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' > > rather > > than 'had you sex?'). > > > > What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to > what > > extent the differences which appear in written language reflect > differences > > in > > the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the > > case > > of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so > there > > didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between > the > > do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was > > no > > pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal > > contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the > > do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the > spoken > > language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in > > less > > formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, > > though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious > > exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other > verbs, > > mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was > used > > a > > lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, > > restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that > > time > > the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the > spoken > > language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning > > difference > > disappeared. > > John > > > > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > > > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, > and > > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of > a > > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested > to > > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, > perhaps > > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > > Pintzuk I > > > did > > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > > which > > > was > > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the > older > > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant > factor > > > being > > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also > > > a > > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the > verb, > > > with > > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many > non-semantic > > > factors, > > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that > the > > > subject > > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where > > > the > > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird > passed > > in > > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > > parallel > > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was > at > > the > > > time > > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that > in > > > general > > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > > have > > > been > > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were > no > > > more > > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > > on > > > the > > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > you > > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > >> and all that rubbish. > > > >> > > > >> Jess Tauber > > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 > > From: Joanna Nykiel > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <20110805233601.92443b062t74dsm4 at poczta.us.edu.pl> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; > > format="flowed" > > > > HI, > > > > There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic > > difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument > > Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as > > those below: > > > > (1) > > A: And we?ll compare notes some more. > > B: Compare notes, on what? > > A: On you, honey-pie. What else? > > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > > > (2) > > A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? > > B: Four. > > A: By four years old. Wow. > > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > > > "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's > > turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting > > genuine variation. > > I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP > > and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. > > > > > > Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present > > simple tense in Early Modern English. > > > > Joanna Nykiel > > > > > > > > Joanna Nykiel > > Assistant Professor > > English Department > > University of Silesia > > Grota-Roweckiego 5 > > Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland > > E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl > > Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ > > ??? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Uniwersytet ??l??ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 > > From: "s.t. bischoff" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > b1Rv8KDcVSuVyLnA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets > but > > have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there > > somewhere... > > > > (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding > > (their) > > bikes all day. > > > > (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. > > > > (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. > > > > (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses > > at > > 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" > > might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be > > the > > case...folks only ride one way) > > > > cheers, > > Shannon > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, > wrote: > > > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Daniel Everett) > > > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > > > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Victor K. Golla) > > > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > > > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > > > From: Daniel Everett > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Cc: Funknet > > > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > > > > > Not sure that exists either. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > > > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > > > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > > > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > > > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > > > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a > progressive > > > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > > > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > > > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > > > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > > > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > > > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > > > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > > > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > > > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > > > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > > > ============== > > > > > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > > > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like > that, > > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) > the > > > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > > > > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > > > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > > > > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > > > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > > > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > > > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > > > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > > > linguists and their students." > > > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the > dominant > > > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like > in > > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > > > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > > > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > > > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously > represents > > > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, > while > > > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > > > > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > > > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > > > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > > > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > > > > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > > > > > -- > > > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > > > Saint John's University > > > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > > > From: jess tauber > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: > > > < > > > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > > the > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > interrelationally? Languages with > > > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > > > From: "Victor K. Golla" > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: > > > > 50imWp6yM30E6mh8t7j5rY6FA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > their > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > there > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > > > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > > > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > > > > > > > ================ > > > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to > whom > > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and > > specific > > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > > > their > > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > > > there > > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" > in > > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Funknetters, > > > >> > > > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two > > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > >> > > > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > >> > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> --fritz > > > >> > > > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 8 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Sylvester OSU > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > > > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. > > Kindly > > > please send such to: > > > > > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > > > > > Thanking you in advance. > > > > > > Sylvester > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 9 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: jess tauber > > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk > > I > > > did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also > > > a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where > > > the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > > the > > > time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > > the > > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > > you > > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > > and all that rubbish. > > > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 10 > > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, > and > > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of > a > > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested > to > > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, > perhaps > > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > > Pintzuk > > > I did > > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > > which > > > was > > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the > older > > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant > factor > > > being > > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > > also a > > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > > century > > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the > verb, > > > with > > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many > non-semantic > > > factors, > > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > > meaning > > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that > the > > > subject > > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > > where the > > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird > passed > > > in > > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > > parallel > > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was > at > > > the time > > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that > in > > > general > > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > > have > > > been > > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > > this, > > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were > no > > > more > > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > > on > > > the > > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > > you > > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > >> and all that rubbish. > > > >> > > > >> Jess Tauber > > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > > ************************************** > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 > > From: "T. Florian Jaeger" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Cc: Tom Wasow > > Message-ID: > > dy9mqvg at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > > Cc: Tom Wasow , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > > lexical > > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > > include > > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors > in > > particular because they are common factors which affect voice > alternations > > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are > included > > as > > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > > are > > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > > about > > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > > which > > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because > I > > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. > And > > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > > there's > > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And > heaviness > > (for > > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. > 'Did > > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience > so > > far > > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been > able > > to > > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > > argative > > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish > 'quiero > > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > > watashi) > > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > > different > > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn > out > > to > > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > > difference > > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if > I > > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > > distinction > > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > > there > > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers > are > > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > > the > > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will > say > > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > > stronger--but > > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > > based > > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some > people > > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > > other > > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the > experience > > of > > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > > 'stronger' > > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > > for > > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > > can't > > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > > worth > > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > > am, > > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > > we're > > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from > actual > > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > > different > > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > > seem > > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > > Meaning > > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > > likely > > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > > forms > > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > > differ > > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which > you > > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to > reduced > > to > > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > > to > > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > > kept > > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > > 2005 > > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > > apparent > > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at > Stanford) > > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. > We > > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > > doesn't > > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > > to > > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost > all > > of > > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > > agreed > > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > > opposite > > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > > instructive: > > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > > that > > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > > associated > > > with one of the two forms. > > > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > > on > > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > > evidence > > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on > their > > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > > 2009; > > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > > many > > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > > just > > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between > the > > two > > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that > sometimes > > the > > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to > maintain > > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the > same > > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > > order > > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in > the > > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't > bet > > my > > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > > relative > > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > > relativizer/complementizer > > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy > and > > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective > this > > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly > sensitive > > to > > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty > of > > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders > know > > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > > knowledge > > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much > faster > > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > > after > > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > > don't > > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and > MacDonald, > > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based > expectations > > can > > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > > likely > > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me > (from > > the > > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > > quite > > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > > One > > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > > possibility > > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between > two > > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > > the > > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) > is > > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as > the > > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, > e.g. > > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and > Dell, > > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading > to > > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > > distinct > > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > > for > > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of > the > > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > > which > > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would > need > > to > > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > > theories > > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if > it > > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > > > florian > > > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > > meaning > > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > > To: Funknet > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' > is > > > taken > > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > > way > > > of > > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely > do > > not > > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, > once > > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning > differences. > > One > > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. > 'I > > knew > > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see > > the > > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > > differences > > > > here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > meaning > > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 > > From: "Sophia A. Malamud" > > Subject: [FUNKNET] updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - > > LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > sjj_QZyYz5Q at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Dear funknetters, > > > > Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and > > format! > > > > With regards, > > Sophia > > > > Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting > > * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 > > * > > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and > > Discourse > > > > Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, > > producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of > > informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic > > constructions, > > including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, > > language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in > the > > Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the > use > > of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the > > advent of electronic corpora. > > > > We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, > 5 > > min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse > > phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of > > linguistic > > expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and > > reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that > > emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on > > experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. > > > > Please email all submissions to the session organisers at > > lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA > session > > abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: > > -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author > > -- The title of the paper > > > > The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. > > > > The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: > > > > 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. > > 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than > 1000 > > words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 > > point > > and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all > > sides. > > References should be included on a third page. > > 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you > > identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith > > (1992)...I"), > > the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be > > sure > > to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then > "Properties," > > removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving > > before > > uploading it. > > 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be > > considered. > > 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA > > meeting. > > 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting > Handbook, > > will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and > > authors > > must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The > > deadline > > will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be > > withdrawn from the program. > > 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 > > ************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Cc: Judith Degen , Funknet > , Tom Wasow , > john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Florian, et al., > > Thank you all so much for your contributions to the line of discussion that > I initiated. There is no way that I can give point-by-point commentary on > all of the postings, but then nobody would expect that I should do so. Just > a few comments. > > First, it's clear -- and Florian cited several references -- that variants > might differ not so much in their meaning (even broadly defined), but rather > in *how relatively effectively* they can convey a particular meaning given > particular discourse and other background conditions. So subject sentences > ('that he'll go home is likely') may or may not have identical meanings as > extraposed sentences ('it's likely that he'll go home'). But clearly, > conditions that are to a degree meaning-independent are at work in speaker > choice of one variant over another: the length of the subject, the stylistic > register, and so on. One could make the same point with respect to > heavy-NP-shifted items versus non-shifted ones. The different focal > properties associated with the different positions (which we can think of as > aspects of meaning) are relevant, but do not suffice to explain fully why > some NPs are shifted and some are not. > > One of the most frustrating facts for the theoretical linguist is that the > analyses that we come up with are not always (possibly not often) confirmed > by particular psycholinguistic studies. And here the problem cuts across > theoretical frameworks. Consider for example the abstract generative > phonological analyses based on alternations; the minisculey-fine semantic > distinctions posited by cognitive linguists as a basis for syntactic > structure; and the functionally-motivated hierarchies that form a basis for > a lot of functionalist theorizing. The conflicting experimental results with > respect to the 'psychological reality' of these various analyses have led a > lot of grammarians to be cynical about what psycholinguists can offer them > as an aid to or as a check on theory construction. That's lamentable of > course. > > In his second posting, Florian referred to 'functional theories of meaning > differences', citing work by Fox, Thompson, and Mulac. These are really at > one extreme end of the functionalist spectrum, given the role that they > impart to 'fragments' and 'memorized formulas' as being at the centre of > language, as opposed to grammatical processes (as the term is understood > within whatever framework). These fall down in explaining how languages > users have the ability to *interpret* input that they have not previously > encountered. As I argued in Newmeyer 2010, this interpretive capacity (among > other things) points to the need for a stored grammar. > > Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. What conversational English tells us about the > nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements. > Usage and structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder, ed. by Kasper Boye and > Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The paper is > also available on LingBuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 4 > ************************************** > From grvsmth at panix.com Sun Aug 7 22:38:07 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:38:07 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: On 8/6/2011 2:45 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able to > find SOME meaning-related difference. I agree. Relative order and stress have an effect on a speaker's understanding of the phrase, even if they do not fit into formal distinctions in the language. However, I have the distinct impression (and I'm not sure how to test it) that there is perception on the part of the language users that the two forms are interchangeable. I really get that feeling from the French data, that playwrights before a certain date are purposely choosing /ne/ alone instead of /ne ... pas/ for semantic or pragmatic reasons, and playwrights after that date are just choosing them based on tradition, social factors or euphony. Another piece of data relates to Tom Givon's observation about Huck Finn: in the 16th Century when people talk about negation they have specific ideas about when to use each negator, but after that they rely on the dictates of grammarians and their authority. They defer to Malherbe and Vaugelas, but they ignore the reasons these guys gave for their pronouncements. They really don't seem to have any intuitions anymore, just rules. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Aug 8 13:55:35 2011 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: Now available on Project MUSE - Canadian Journal of Linguistics 56(2) July 2011 Message-ID: The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2) July 2011 is now available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_journal_of_linguistics/toc/cjl.56.2.html This issue contains: Synchronic evidence of a diachronic change: Voicing and duration in French and Spanish stop–liquid clusters Laura Colantoni, Jeffrey Steele Abstract: This article investigates the role that the phonetic parameters of duration and voicing play in shaping asymmetric patterns of Romance stop-liquid cluster realization. Based on acoustic analysis of experimental data from Quebec French and Argentine Spanish, we demonstrate the existence of an asymmetry in the proportional duration of the stop and a following epenthetic vowel or lateral: sonorants are shorter after voiceless stops in stop–liquid clusters. Rhotics do not participate in this process. The Spanish tap does not vary significantly in length, and the French dorsal fricative is longer in voiceless clusters. We propose that compensatory adjustments of the following sonorant are the result of the interaction of coarticulatory constraints, both universal (shorter sonorants after voiceless stops or fricatives) and language-specific (voicing in dorsal fricatives in French). Parallels are drawn between the synchronic variation attested and well-known patterns of diachronic change in Romance. Résumé: Le présent article examine le rôle que jouent deux paramètres phonétiques, soit la durée et le voisement, dans la réalisation asymétrique des groupes consonantiques occlusive-liquide dans les langues romanes. À partir d’une analyse acoustique de données expérimentales du français québécois et de l’espagnol argentin, nous démontrons qu’il existe une asymétrie dans la durée proportionnelle des occlusives et de certains segments qui les suivent (voyelles latérales ou épenthétiques) : les sonantes sont plus courtes après les occlusives sourdes. Les rhotiques ne participent pas à ce processus. La durée de la vibrante battue de l’espagnol ne varie pas de façon significative, et la fricative dorsale du français est plus longue lorsqu’elle fait partie d’un groupe consonantique sourd. Nous proposons que l’ajustement compensatoire des sonantes résulte de l’interaction entre des contraintes coarticulatoires tant universelle (sonantes plus courtes après occlusives ou fricatives sourdes) que propre à une seule langue (voisement des fricatives dorsales en français). Enfin, nous dégageons des parallèles entre la variation synchronique observée et certains changements diachroniques bien connus. Media representations of minority French: Valorization, identity, and the Acadieman phenomenon Philip Comeau, Ruth King Abstract: This article is concerned with the role of media representations of language use in the promotion of language ideologies and in identity construction. It focuses on media representations of Chiac, a traditionally low-status variety of Acadian French. We consider performances of this variety in the adventures of an animated superhero, Acadieman, presented in a cable TV show running on Rogers TV from 2005 to 2009. We first contextualize Acadieman in terms of the linguistic and cultural contexts in which Chiac is spoken. We then consider how particular social meanings are created through contrasts between Chiac-speaking characters and speakers of other varieties. While the juxtaposition of varieties is at one level quite humorous, on another level it draws on complex indexicalities and valorizes the local variety and, by extension, its speakers. Finally, we argue that the Acadieman phenomenon provides a discursive space within which present-day Acadian identities can be negotiated. Résumé: Cet article traite du rôle de la représentation de la langue par les médias dans la promotion d’idéologies linguistiques et dans la construction d’identités. Il porte sur la présentation par les médias du chiac, une variété du français acadien habituellement stigmatisée. Nous considérons des manifestations de cette variété dans les aventures d’un superhéros, Acadieman, présentées dans une série d’animation télévisée entre 2005 et 2009 par la TV Rogers. D’abord nous situons Acadieman en termes des contextes linguistique et culturel dans lesquels le chiac est parlé. Ensuite, nous considérons la manière dont certaines connotations sociales sont créées via les contrastes entre les personnages parlant chiac et ceux qui parlent d’autres variétés. Alors que la juxtaposition des variétés est plutôt comique, à un autre niveau discursif, elle se sert d’indexicalisations complexes et valorise la variété locale et, par extension, ses locuteurs. Enfin, nous proposons que le phénomène Acadieman établit un espace discursif à l’intérieur duquel les identités acadiennes peuvent être négociées. Palatalization and “strong i” across Inuit dialects Richard Compton, B. Elan Dresher Abstract: Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between “strong i” and “weak i”: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in which all instances of surface [i] trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap can be explained using a contrastivist analysis whereby only contrastive features can be phonologically active, palatalization is triggered by [coronal], and contrastive features are assigned in an order placing [low] and [labial] ahead of [coronal]. In a three-vowel inventory only [low] and [labial] are contrastive, while in the four-vowel inventory [coronal] must also be contrastive to distinguish strong and weak i. It follows from these assumptions that [i] can trigger palatalization only if it is in contrast with a fourth vowel. Résumé: Les dialectes inuits avec palatalisation distinguent tous entre les «i forts» et les «i faibles» : les [i] de surface qui provoquent la palatalisation et ceux qui ne la provoquent pas, respectivement. Dans tous les dialectes où ce contraste est complètement perdu, la palatalisation est absente. Pourquoi n’existe-t-il pas de dialectes /i, a, u/ dans lesquels tous les [i] de surface déclenchent la palatalisation? Nous proposons que cet écart typologique peut être expliqué en utilisant une approche contrastiviste selon laquelle seuls les traits contrastifs peuvent être actifs dans la phonologie, la palatalisation est déclenchée par [coronal] et les traits contrastifs sont ordonnés de telle façon que les traits [bas] et [labial] sont assignés avant [coronal]. Dans un inventaire de trois voyelles, seuls les traits [bas] et [labial] sont contrastifs, tandis que dans un inventaire de quatre voyelles, [coronal] doit aussi être contrastif pour distinguer les i forts des i faibles. Il résulte de ces hypothèses que [i] ne peut déclencher la palatalisation que s’il est en contraste avec une quatrième voyelle. The OCP as a synchronic constraint in Arabic Eiman Mustafawi Abstract: This paper provides evidence for the activity of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) as a constraint on dynamic alternations in the synchronic grammar of Qatari Arabic. It shows that the OCP is subject to proximity and to a gradient similarity effect. In Qatari Arabic, there are two variable phonological alternations that interact with the OCP, affrication and lenition. The velar stops /[inline-graphic 01i]/ and /k/ affricate to [ʤ] and [ʧ], respectively, when adjacent to [i(:)]. However, affrication is blocked when the outcome includes a sequence of segments that are highly similar. Lenition applies variably to the phoneme /ʤ/, which surfaces as [ʤ] or [j]. Usually, the probability of lenition applying to its eligible candidates is around the level of chance. The process, however, applies categorically when a violation of the OCP would otherwise be incurred. The data are analyzed within the framework of Optimality Theory. Résumé: Cet article présente des preuves de l’activité du Principe du contour obligatoire (PCO) comme contrainte sur les alternances dynamiques dans la grammaire synchronique de l’arabe qatari. L’article montre que le PCO est sujet à la proximité et à un effet variable de similarité. Dans l’arabe qatari, il y a deux alternances phonologiques variables qui interagissent avec le PCO : l’affrication et la lénition. Les occlusives vélaires /[inline-graphic 01i]/ et /k/ subissent l’affrication devenant [ʤ] and [ʧ] respectivement lorsqu’elles sont adjacentes à [i(:)]. Cependant, l’affrication est bloquée lorsque le résultat comporte une séquence de segments très similaires. La lénition s’applique de manière variable au phonème /ʤ/, donnant [ʤ] ou [j]. D’habitude la probabilité que la lénition s’applique aux candidats susceptibles de subir la lénition est au niveau du hasard. Le processus, cependant, s’applique de manière catégorique dans le cas où une violation du PCO en résulterait. Les données sont analysées dans le cadre de la Théorie de l’Optimalité. This sentence sucks to analyse: Are suck, bite, blow, and work tough-predicates? Carolyn Pytlyk Abstract: This paper investigates tough-predicates and whether four verbs (suck, bite, blow, and work) can function as this type of predicate. The theoretical analysis uses two syntactic and two semantic properties of prototypical tough-predicates to determine the status of the tough-verb candidates. Syntactically, tough-predicates select a to-infinitival complement and require a referential dependency between the matrix subject and the object gap in the complement clause. Semantically, the matrix subject must possess an inherent or permanent property and tough-predicates assign an “experiencer” role. From these four diagnostic properties, the analysis concludes that suck, bite, and blow are indeed tough-verbs, while the conclusions concerning work are less definitive. To complement the conclusions of the theoretical analysis, native speaker judgements were collected from 22 Canadian English speakers. The results show that for a majority of the consultants, suck, bite, and blow can function as tough-predicates. The behaviour of these verbs suggests that suck, bite, and blow (and possibly work) should be added to the small list of known tough-verbs. Résumé: Cet article étudie les prédicats tough ainsi que la question de savoir si quatre verbes (suck, bite, blow et work) peuvent fonctionner comme prédicats tough. L’analyse théorique se sert de deux propriétés syntaxiques et de deux propriétés sémantiques de prédicats tough prototypiques pour déterminer le statut de ces quatre verbes tough. En ce qui touche à la syntaxe, les prédicats tough sélectionnent un complément toinfinitif et requièrent une dépendance référentielle entre le sujet matrice et le vide du complément dans la subordonnée complétive. En ce qui a trait à la sémantique, le sujet matrice doit posséder une propriété inhérente ou permanente, et les prédicats tough doivent attribuer un rôle d’«expérienceur». En fonction de ces quatre propriétés diagnostiques, l’analyse arrive à la conclusion que suck, bite et blow sont en effet des verbes tough, alors que les conclusions à l’égard de work sont moins probantes. Dans le but de compléter les conclusions de l’analyse théorique, des jugements de 22 Canadiens de langue maternelle anglaise ont été cueillis. Les résultats montrent que pour la majorité des consultants, suck, bite et blow peuvent fonctionner comme des prédicats tough. Le comportement de ces verbes suggère que suck, bite et blow (et peut-être work) devraient s’ajouter à la courte liste de verbes tough connus. Squib/Notule On the Movement Theory of Obligatory Control: Voices from Standard Indonesian Yosuke Sato Reviews/Comptes Rendus The English language in Canada: Status, history and comparative analysis (review) Beau Brock Variation in linguistic systems (review) Anne Marie Devlin Language in the brain (review) Zahir Mumin Uttering trees (review) Yosuke Sato Books Received/Livres Reçus Books Received/Livres reçus The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. For more information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus. From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sun Aug 14 18:00:03 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:00:03 -0600 Subject: PS Message-ID: Dear FUNK folks, After our recent discussion, prompted by Fritz Newmeyer's initial question on multi-functionality of structures, Sherm Wilcox alerted me to a vast and (seemingly) relevant literature in evolutionary biology. The standard term used in that literature-- "degeneracy" -- is a bit ugly to the ear but has a purely technical meaning: "...the ability of elements that are structurally different to perform the same function or yield the same output..." (Edelman and Gally 2001). The bio-evolutionary literature suggests that this phenomenon is not ubiquitous not only in language but also in biology, where it is increasingly regarded as a major component in the evolution of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Because of the (strange...) constraints imposed on FUNKNET posts, I cannot attach the three papers that Sherm kindly passed my way. The relevance of that literature to what we observe in language is further underscored by the fact that in language "degeneracy" is a core component of diachronic change, and is thus fundamentally a developmental phenomenon. This parallels the situation in biology, where the signigficance of "degeneracy" is seen as, primarily, evolutionary. The three papers I got from Sherm are: Edelmen, G.M. and J.A. Galley (2001) "Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems" PNSA, Nov. 20, 2001, vo. 98 Whitacre, J. M. (2010) "Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robusness and complexity in biological systems, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 7.6 Mason, P.H. (2010) "Degeneracy at multiple levels of complexity", Biological Theory, 5.3 Cheers, TG From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Aug 14 18:45:29 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:45:29 -0600 Subject: PS In-Reply-To: <4E480D23.1030106@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Tom, for posting this. As I mentioned to Tom, I'm a bit surprised that this concept of degeneracy isn't discussed more in linguistics. It seems directly relevant to the issue that Fritz raised, for example. Also, the people who do discuss it make some important distinctions between it and redundancy, a useful distinction to make for linguists, I think. Their thoughts on robustness and evolvability (which for biologists seems to be a synonym for "innovation") are also relevant to linguists. As Tom mentioned, this is a vast literature that includes not only biology but also neuroscience, physics, chemistry, and even social science. For example, in a chapter entitled "Distributed Agency Within Intersecting Ecological, Social, and Scientific Processes" Peter Taylor coins the term "heterogeneous construction" to show how different paths can lead to the same developmental outcome, which seems to be yet another expression of degeneracy (thanks to Paul Mason for pointing this out to me). Taylor's chapter is in a book, "Cycles of Contingency," edited by Susan Oyama. Here are a few more references: Price, C. J., & Friston, K. J. (2002). Degeneracy and cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(10), 416-421. Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1999). Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(6), 3257. Whitacre, J., & Bender, A. (2010). Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. J Theor Biol, 263(1), 143-153. I'm currently working on a book that will include a chapter on dynamic systems/complex adaptive systems and degeneracy. I'd be most interested to hear other's thoughts and input on this. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 505-277-0928 (v/tty) On Aug 14, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dear FUNK folks, > > After our recent discussion, prompted by Fritz Newmeyer's initial question on multi-functionality of structures, Sherm Wilcox alerted me to a vast and (seemingly) relevant literature in evolutionary biology. The standard term used in that literature-- "degeneracy" -- is a bit ugly to the ear but has a purely technical meaning: "...the ability of elements that are structurally different to perform the same function or yield the same output..." (Edelman and Gally 2001). The bio-evolutionary literature suggests that this phenomenon is not ubiquitous not only in language but also in biology, where it is increasingly regarded as a major component in the evolution of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Because of the (strange...) constraints imposed on FUNKNET posts, I cannot attach the three papers that Sherm kindly passed my way. The relevance of that literature to what we observe in language is further underscored by the fact that in language "degeneracy" is a core component of diachronic change, and is thus fundamentally a developmental phenomenon. This parallels the situation in biology, where the signigficance of "degeneracy" is seen as, primarily, evolutionary. The three papers I got from Sherm are: > > Edelmen, G.M. and J.A. Galley (2001) "Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems" PNSA, Nov. 20, 2001, vo. 98 > > Whitacre, J. M. (2010) "Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robusness and complexity in biological systems, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 7.6 > > Mason, P.H. (2010) "Degeneracy at multiple levels of complexity", Biological Theory, 5.3 > > > Cheers, TG > > From Francoise.Rose at univ-lyon2.fr Thu Aug 25 12:35:18 2011 From: Francoise.Rose at univ-lyon2.fr (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7oise_Rose?=) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:35:18 +0200 Subject: first grammar of Em=?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9rillon?= Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Here is some information on my recently published grammar of Emérillon. Reference Rose, Françoise. 2011. Grammaire de l'émérillon teko, une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane française, Langues et Sociétés d'Amérique traditionnelle 10, Leuven: Peeters. Summary Over the last two decades, Amazonian linguistics has greatly expanded. Many languages have recently been described and are providing typologists with new data. Within this dynamic current, this book presents a first description of the Grammar of Emérillon Teko, a Tupi‑Guarani language of French Guiana. Emérillon is an endangered Amazonian language with an oral tradition. Spontaneous texts recorded from speakers in the field constitute the corpus used for this study. The analysis was conducted within a functional‑typological approach. It aims at comparing the Emérillon language, on the one hand, with recent typological studies and, on the other, with studies of the other Tupi‑Guarani languages. The study focuses on morphology and syntax, from nominal phrases to complex sentences, with other areas such as phonology and discourse being also considered. In a typological perspective, most interesting are the cases of a hierarchical cross‑referencing system, still little discussed in the typological literature, possessive nominal predicates using verbal morphology, and gerund constructions being at the origin of verb serialization. In a comparative perspective, this language seems to be an innovative member of the Tupi‑Guarani family, for instance with the loss of the absolutive cross‑referencing system in dependent clauses. Finally, in an areal perspective, the Emérillon language constitutes by a number of traits a representative member of Amazonian languages. Further information http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz_print.asp?nr=8380 The grammar is written in French. Very best, Françoise Françoise ROSE Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS, Université Lumière Lyon 2) Institut des Sciences de l'Homme 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon Cedex 07 FRANCE (33) 4 72 72 64 63 http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Rose Françoise ROSE Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS, Université Lumière Lyon 2) Institut des Sciences de l'Homme 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon Cedex 07 FRANCE (33) 4 72 72 64 63 http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Rose From smalamud at brandeis.edu Wed Aug 31 15:24:28 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:24:28 -0400 Subject: reminder CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email must be "LSA session abstract". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: - Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. - An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 point and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all sides. References should be included on a third page. - Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith (1992)...I"), the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be sure to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving before uploading it. - Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be considered. - Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA meeting. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and authors must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The deadline will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be withdrawn from the program. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. From smalamud at brandeis.edu Wed Aug 3 16:27:53 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:27:53 -0400 Subject: CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince Message-ID: Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 * Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. From fjn at u.washington.edu Thu Aug 4 21:17:27 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. Thanks, --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From dan at daneverett.org Thu Aug 4 21:41:02 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. Not sure that exists either. Dan On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Aug 4 22:29:53 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG ============== On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Aug 5 00:15:58 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <4E3B1D61.1000807@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > vs. a progressive dialect". Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical linguists and their students." > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Aug 5 04:07:25 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. Jess Tauber goldenratio at earthlink.net From Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu Fri Aug 5 04:22:31 2011 From: Victor.Golla at humboldt.edu (Victor K. Golla) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz-- > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption does not hold good" (ibid, 158). --Victor Golla On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Aug 5 05:15:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean position. Or Chomskian. TG ================ On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > Fritz-- > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > --Victor Golla > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning differences. >> >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences here? >> >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. >> >> Thanks, >> >> --fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> From sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Fri Aug 5 06:59:45 2011 From: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr (Sylvester OSU) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 Subject: References In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. Kindly please send such to: sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr Thanking you in advance. Sylvester From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Aug 5 08:25:55 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I did a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which was was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th century. DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor being whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct object, and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also a clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, with the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS construction associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything concrete about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic factors, but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the subject took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where the bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the time a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in general 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a non-clitic subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the bird?' would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have been clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no more than two generations when there was something like a productive semantically-based alternation. John Quoting jess tauber : > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive > and all that rubbish. > > Jess Tauber > goldenratio at earthlink.net > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Fri Aug 5 16:31:57 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG ============ On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I did > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which was > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th century. > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor being > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct object, > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also a > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, with > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS construction > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything concrete > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic factors, > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the subject > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where the > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the time > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in general > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a non-clitic > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the bird?' > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have been > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no more > than two generations when there was something like a productive > semantically-based alternation. > John > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context sensitive >> and all that rubbish. >> >> Jess Tauber >> goldenratio at earthlink.net >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Aug 5 17:27:09 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <4E3C1AFD.4030904@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing the same stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native speaker myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a book?') would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' rather than 'had you sex?'). What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to what extent the differences which appear in written language reflect differences in the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the case of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so there didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between the do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was no pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the spoken language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in less formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other verbs, mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was used a lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that time the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the spoken language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning difference disappeared. John Quoting Tom Givon : > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I > did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also > a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where > the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the > time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > >> and all that rubbish. > >> > >> Jess Tauber > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Fri Aug 5 21:36:01 2011 From: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl (Joanna Nykiel) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: HI, There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as those below: (1) A: And we?ll compare notes some more. B: Compare notes, on what? A: On you, honey-pie. What else? (Corpus of Contemporary American English) (2) A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? B: Four. A: By four years old. Wow. (Corpus of Contemporary American English) "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting genuine variation. I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present simple tense in Early Modern English. Joanna Nykiel Joanna Nykiel Assistant Professor English Department University of Silesia Grota-Roweckiego 5 Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ ??? ---------------------------------------------------- Uniwersytet ??l? ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl From bischoff.st at gmail.com Fri Aug 5 23:22:27 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 Subject: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets but have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there somewhere... (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding (their) bikes all day. (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses at 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be the case...folks only ride one way) cheers, Shannon On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Daniel Everett) > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Victor K. Golla) > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > To: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences > here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > From: Daniel Everett > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > Cc: Funknet > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > Not sure that exists either. > > Dan > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > ============== > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > linguists and their students." > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > From: jess tauber > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > < > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on the > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the bird?' > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The first > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for my > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do you > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as much > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it perhaps > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances pronominal > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which discourse > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > interrelationally? Languages with > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > Jess Tauber > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > From: "Victor K. Golla" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Fritz-- > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > --Victor Golla > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > ================ > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > Fritz-- > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > their > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > there > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > >> > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences here? > >> > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> --fritz > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > From: Sylvester OSU > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear Funknetters, > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. Kindly > please send such to: > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > Thanking you in advance. > > Sylvester > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: jess tauber > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk I > did > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was also > a > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the century > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in meaning > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place where > the > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed in > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at the > time > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than this, > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > than two generations when there was something like a productive > semantically-based alternation. > John > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > > and all that rubbish. > > > > Jess Tauber > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > From: Tom Givon > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > ============ > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk > I did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > sensitive > >> and all that rubbish. > >> > >> Jess Tauber > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > ************************************** > From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sat Aug 6 00:51:57 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning Message-ID: Hi Fritz, I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully defined if we don't commit to this assumption). The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two different forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might seem irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. Meaning differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related forms that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that differ very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced to some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, 2005 for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so apparent when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite instructive: perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated with one of the two forms. I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al 2009; Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the two forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes the only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet my money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable relative and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked differ for each of those cases. All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material after a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations can easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from the data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be quite fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this selection is affected by the strength of connections between different meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., which will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need to be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established theories of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). florian One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged meaning differences for the ditransitive alternation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > To: Funknet > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Funknetters, > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is taken > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way of > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > differences. > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning differences > here? > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > Thanks, > > --fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Aug 6 06:45:17 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only lexical meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it include the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included as 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there are syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message about do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of which have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., there's also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness (for the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so far has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able to find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, argative vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, watashi) and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly different meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out to have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning difference for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning distinction in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that there isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about the difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is stronger--but it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation based upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the other kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience of being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are 'stronger' than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true for English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it can't be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really worth too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. John Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > Hi Fritz, > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two different > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might seem > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. Meaning > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related forms > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that differ > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced to > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, 2005 > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so apparent > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite instructive: > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated > with one of the two forms. > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al 2009; > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the two > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes the > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet my > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable relative > and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > differ for each of those cases. > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material after > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations can > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from the > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be quite > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., which > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need to > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established theories > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > florian > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged meaning > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From smalamud at brandeis.edu Sat Aug 6 16:26:17 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 Subject: updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince Message-ID: Dear funknetters, Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and format! With regards, Sophia Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 * Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 point and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all sides. References should be included on a third page. 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith (1992)...I"), the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be sure to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving before uploading it. 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be considered. 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA meeting. 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and authors must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The deadline will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be withdrawn from the program. 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sat Aug 6 17:47:47 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:47:47 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi John, I find it useful to follow Herb Clark's distinction between primary and collateral meaning, where collateral meaning is/includes information about the state of the processing system. If collateral meaning is included under what Fritz meant by meaning differences then -given everything that is known about language processing- I very much doubt that there is meaning-equivalence. I guess collateral meaning would include all the effects John's mentioning (e.g. effects of accessibility), although it is, of course, theoretically possible that these effects are due to meaning differences in a more narrow sense of the word. If collateral meaning differences are not included in the definition of "meaning equivalent" then probably most constructions that I suspect the majority of linguists would consider meaning-different probably are not meaning-different (in the sense that I outlined in previous email). I also wanted to reply to John's comment about different speakers assuming different meaning differences. I guess I disagree somewhat. I think it's most productive to think about meaning as something that can be *successfully transferred* between interlocutors (unless you want to let in the full force of the qualia problem ;)). When we talk about meaning-equivalence (or lack thereof) I think it's important to keep in mind that it isn't sufficient if *one* person think that two forms have different meanings. As a matter of fact, it's not even sufficient to show that *all* people think there is a meaning difference. What we would need to show is that a random sample of native speakers *sufficiently agrees on what the meaning difference is* (I don't mean that they have to be able to explicitly name the difference, but it should be possible to indirectly assess their implicit believes about the meaning differences'; by "sufficiently" I mean that it is not necessary for people to completely share the same believes about the meaning of a form, but the information transferred by using a given form, and thereby its decoded meaning, will depend on the amount of agreement between the speaker and her audience). Only then does it make sense to me to claim that two forms "have a different meaning". The other thing that follows from this (information theoretically motivated) view on meaning-equivalence is that meaning-equivalence is only defined with regard to a group of speakers . For example, it could be that in certain subcommunities of English (defined by any of socio-economic class, geography, friendship, shared profession, etc.) two forms have a sufficiently consistently agreed upon different meaning. In that case, it also makes sense to say that these forms are meaning different *with regard to that community*. Finally, I think that we should not forget about methodological issues. Several replies to Fritz's question assert that there are meaning differences between two structures. I'd be really curious to see the studies that support these claims. I mean: an assessment of naive participants in an unbiased way that results in an at least quantitative differences in the proportion of participants who judge form A to have a different meaning as form B. As Tom Wasow pointed out in an off-list comment, such studies require a definition of WHAT meaning difference is hypothesized. And I haven't really seen many studies of this type (if any besides the one by Rafe Kinsey I mentioned in my previous email). I think it is very dangerous to *only* rely on ones own intuition when assessing meaning differences between forms (although this method is probably the inevitable starting point for any research on meaning differences). On a related note, asking people to describe the meaning difference between two forms (even asking them whether two forms mean the same) is a method to be used with caution since it creates a direct contrast (compare the tasks of comparing two shades of red when asked "do these differ?" vs. seeing them separately and being asked "is this red"). I think it's ok to use the methods (better than not using any method at all) but without finding a meaning component that people agree on for the two forms, I'd not be convinced that it makes sense to say that the two forms differ in meaning. More sophisticated methods to uncover meaning differences have been developed in other fields (consider for example, the use of eye-tracking as an implicit measure of meaning and inferential processes triggered by a word in work in experimental pragmatics by Jesse Snedeker; Mike Tanenhaus; Judith Degen; etc.; and work on first language acquisition where meaning differences cannot be accessed explicitly anyway, cf. preferential looking paradigm). If there's interest in some pointers to this literature, perhaps you can write to Judith Degen (cc-ed), who could point the list to some papers. Florian PS: FWIW, many functionalist theories of meaning differences (e.g. Fox and Thompson, 2008 and Thompson and Mulac, 1991 about that-omission in relative and complement clauses) seem to be very compatible with the idea that the differences are really due to processing and that comprehenders then might become biased to preferentially infer different meanings for the different forms (e.g. the concept of mono-clausality in Fox and Thompson; see also Wasow, Jaeger, and Orr, 2011 and the attached discussion with Ruth Kempson, a pre-final draft of this paper and commentary on it is available at: http://rochester.academia.edu/tiflo/Papers/207114/Wasow_T._Jaeger_T._F._and_Orr_D._2011._Lexical_Variation_in_Relativizer_Frequency._In_H._Simon_and_H._Wiese_eds._Proceedings_of_the_2005_DGfS_workshop_Expecting_the_unexpected_Exceptions_in_Grammar_175-196._Berlin_New_York_De_Gruyter_Mouton ). 2011/8/6 > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > lexical > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > include > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in > particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included > as > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > are > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > about > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > which > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > there's > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness > (for > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so > far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able > to > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > argative > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > watashi) > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > different > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out > to > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > difference > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > distinction > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > there > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > the > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > stronger--but > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > based > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > other > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience > of > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > 'stronger' > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > for > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > can't > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > worth > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > John > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > From rosskrekoski at gmail.com Sat Aug 6 19:01:23 2011 From: rosskrekoski at gmail.com (Krekoski Ross) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:01:23 -0400 Subject: differences in form without differences in meaning Message-ID: The discussion surrounding this slight controversy is quite interesting. I'm simply a wimpy graduate student, but for what its worth, my perspective is that the problem seems to be intractable from an analytic perspective. If we are making up examples, what analytic basis do we have to say that the 'meaning' of two distinct syntactic forms is equivalent, and what precisely do we mean by 'equivalent' if we are to make that claim? I can't think of any solid basis for making this argument based on a single person's intuition alone, and if we are to base any potential findings on the intuitions of more than one person, how do we account for the differences in connotation that we will inevitably find? If we base our argument on pretheoretic notions of certain 'relevant' elements of syntax criterially determining semantic meaning, we end up with circularity. If we are looking at actual conversation or another type of real data, it would be difficult to argue for semantic equivalence anyways since you will never find two contextual environments that are precisely identical. I could be wrong, but my intution of the semantics of the question itself seems to suggest that the question is designed to elicit examples that 'prove' that there will be such examples rather than to actually investigate whether or not this is true outside of an idealized world. Ross Krekoski Department of Linguistics University of Toronto On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > You can reach the person managing the list at > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (Joanna Nykiel) > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 (s.t. bischoff) > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (T. Florian Jaeger) > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > 6. updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince (Sophia A. Malamud) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: Tom Givon > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312565229.4e3c27edbeb24 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing the > same > stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native > speaker > myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb > 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a > book?') > would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' > rather > than 'had you sex?'). > > What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to what > extent the differences which appear in written language reflect differences > in > the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the > case > of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so there > didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between the > do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was > no > pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal > contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the > do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the spoken > language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in > less > formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, > though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious > exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other verbs, > mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was used > a > lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, > restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that > time > the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the spoken > language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning > difference > disappeared. > John > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > ============ > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk I > > did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also > > a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where > > the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the > > time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > the > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > >> and all that rubbish. > > >> > > >> Jess Tauber > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 > From: Joanna Nykiel > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <20110805233601.92443b062t74dsm4 at poczta.us.edu.pl> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; > format="flowed" > > HI, > > There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic > difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument > Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as > those below: > > (1) > A: And we?ll compare notes some more. > B: Compare notes, on what? > A: On you, honey-pie. What else? > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > (2) > A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? > B: Four. > A: By four years old. Wow. > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's > turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting > genuine variation. > I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP > and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. > > > Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present > simple tense in Early Modern English. > > Joanna Nykiel > > > > Joanna Nykiel > Assistant Professor > English Department > University of Silesia > Grota-Roweckiego 5 > Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland > E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl > Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ > ??? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Uniwersytet ??l??ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 > From: "s.t. bischoff" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets but > have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there > somewhere... > > (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding > (their) > bikes all day. > > (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. > > (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. > > (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses > at > 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" > might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be > the > case...folks only ride one way) > > cheers, > Shannon > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Daniel Everett) > > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Victor K. Golla) > > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > > From: Daniel Everett > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Cc: Funknet > > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > > > Not sure that exists either. > > > > Dan > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a progressive > > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > ============== > > > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the > > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > > linguists and their students." > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant > > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously represents > > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, while > > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > > > -- > > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > > Saint John's University > > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > > From: jess tauber > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > < > > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > the > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > bird?' > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > first > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least for > my > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > you > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > much > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > perhaps > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > pronominal > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > discourse > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > interrelationally? Languages with > > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > > > Jess Tauber > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > > From: "Victor K. Golla" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > 50imWp6yM30E6mh8t7j5rY6FA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that their > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that there > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 7 > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > > > > ================ > > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > > Fritz-- > > > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and > specific > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > > their > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > > there > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > wrote: > > >> Dear Funknetters, > > >> > > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > >> > > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > you > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences here? > > >> > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> --fritz > > >> > > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 8 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > > From: Sylvester OSU > > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. > Kindly > > please send such to: > > > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > > > Thanking you in advance. > > > > Sylvester > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 9 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: jess tauber > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan Pintzuk > I > > did > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change which > > was > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > also > > a > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > century > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > meaning > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > where > > the > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > in > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a parallel > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > the > > time > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would have > > been > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > this, > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > semantically-based alternation. > > John > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > > the > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > > and all that rubbish. > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 10 > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > > From: Tom Givon > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, and > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of a > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested to > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, perhaps > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > ============ > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk > > I did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > > the time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > the > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > sensitive > > >> and all that rubbish. > > >> > > >> Jess Tauber > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > ************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 > From: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Cc: Tom Wasow > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi Fritz, > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I am, > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if we're > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very likely > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely to > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't kept > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, doesn't > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used to > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all of > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them agreed > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact opposite > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but that > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully associated > with one of the two forms. > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme on > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as evidence > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for many > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are just > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument order > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > and complement clauses are less likely to have a relativizer/complementizer > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > differ for each of those cases. > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive to > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that knowledge > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they don't > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also likely > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. One > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the possibility > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of the > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning distinct > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence for > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > florian > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > To: Funknet > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > taken > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another way > of > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > differences. > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > differences > > here? > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with meaning > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > Thanks, > > > > --fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > University > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Cc: Tom Wasow , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > lexical > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > include > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors in > particular because they are common factors which affect voice alternations > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are included > as > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > are > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > about > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > which > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because I > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. And > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > there's > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And heaviness > (for > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. 'Did > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so > far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able > to > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > argative > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish 'quiero > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > watashi) > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > different > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn out > to > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > difference > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if I > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > distinction > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > there > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers are > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > the > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will say > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > stronger--but > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > based > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some people > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > other > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the experience > of > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > 'stronger' > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > for > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > can't > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > worth > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > John > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 > From: "Sophia A. Malamud" > Subject: [FUNKNET] updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - > LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Dear funknetters, > > Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and > format! > > With regards, > Sophia > > Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting > * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 > * > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and > Discourse > > Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, > producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of > informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic > constructions, > including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, > language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the > Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use > of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the > advent of electronic corpora. > > We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 > min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse > phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of > linguistic > expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and > reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that > emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on > experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. > > Please email all submissions to the session organisers at > lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA session > abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: > -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author > -- The title of the paper > > The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. > > The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: > > 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. > 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 > words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 > point > and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all > sides. > References should be included on a third page. > 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you > identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith > (1992)...I"), > the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be > sure > to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," > removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving > before > uploading it. > 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be > considered. > 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA > meeting. > 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, > will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and > authors > must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The > deadline > will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be > withdrawn from the program. > 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 > ************************************** > From fjn at u.washington.edu Sat Aug 6 19:02:45 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:02:45 -0700 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Florian, et al., Thank you all so much for your contributions to the line of discussion that I initiated. There is no way that I can give point-by-point commentary on all of the postings, but then nobody would expect that I should do so. Just a few comments. First, it's clear -- and Florian cited several references -- that variants might differ not so much in their meaning (even broadly defined), but rather in *how relatively effectively* they can convey a particular meaning given particular discourse and other background conditions. So subject sentences ('that he'll go home is likely') may or may not have identical meanings as extraposed sentences ('it's likely that he'll go home'). But clearly, conditions that are to a degree meaning-independent are at work in speaker choice of one variant over another: the length of the subject, the stylistic register, and so on. One could make the same point with respect to heavy-NP-shifted items versus non-shifted ones. The different focal properties associated with the different positions (which we can think of as aspects of meaning) are relevant, but do not suffice to explain fully why some NPs are shifted and some are not. One of the most frustrating facts for the theoretical linguist is that the analyses that we come up with are not always (possibly not often) confirmed by particular psycholinguistic studies. And here the problem cuts across theoretical frameworks. Consider for example the abstract generative phonological analyses based on alternations; the minisculey-fine semantic distinctions posited by cognitive linguists as a basis for syntactic structure; and the functionally-motivated hierarchies that form a basis for a lot of functionalist theorizing. The conflicting experimental results with respect to the 'psychological reality' of these various analyses have led a lot of grammarians to be cynical about what psycholinguists can offer them as an aid to or as a check on theory construction. That's lamentable of course. In his second posting, Florian referred to 'functional theories of meaning differences', citing work by Fox, Thompson, and Mulac. These are really at one extreme end of the functionalist spectrum, given the role that they impart to 'fragments' and 'memorized formulas' as being at the centre of language, as opposed to grammatical processes (as the term is understood within whatever framework). These fall down in explaining how languages users have the ability to *interpret* input that they have not previously encountered. As I argued in Newmeyer 2010, this interpretive capacity (among other things) points to the need for a stored grammar. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. What conversational English tells us about the nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements. Usage and structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder, ed. by Kasper Boye and Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The paper is also available on LingBuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Sun Aug 7 17:32:54 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 13:32:54 -0400 Subject: differences in form without differences in meaning Message-ID: Dear Ross, I agree with you that there is a striking lack of studies on this question, but that's not a function of this being impossible. For an example for how to empirically study meaning-based theories of alternations, see Kinsey, Jaeger, and Wasow, 2006 (LSA handout; it's also briefly summarized in my thesis). Of course, the null hypothesis has to be that there is *no* meaning difference, so that a hypothesis that there is a specific meaning difference becomes testable. I agree with you, however, that it is therefore difficult to conclude that there isn't *any* meaning difference. Consider though that psycholinguists are in a similar situation. When they claimed that speakers' preferences at choice points in production (alternations) are driven by e.g. a preference to avoid speech suspension (e.g. Ferreira and Dell 2000: the principle of immediate mention; see also Levelt 1981 for an earlier mention of this idea), they had to come up with *specific* hypotheses and operationalizations of these hypotheses. Not all of them worked, some led to detours of a couple of years, but overall there arguably has been a large amount of progress in understanding both the factors (at the phenomenal level) and the mechanisms involved in the observed preferences. Based on simply well-motivated and independently documented processing principles speakers' preferences in alternations are predicted at about 40-95% accuracy in modern models (depending on the baseline). Even such fine grained behaviors as fluctations in the pronunciation duration of words are modeled with about 60%+ accuracy (notice also that 100% is not necessarily the goal, as the processes we study are inherently variable and noisy). This still leaves a lot to be done, but I would hold that this is this an achievement and that it is due to *not* thinking that this question can't be evaluated ;). HTH, Florian ------------------------- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 15:01:23 -0400 > From: Krekoski Ross > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] differences in form without differences in > meaning > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The discussion surrounding this slight controversy is quite interesting. > I'm > simply a wimpy graduate student, but for what its worth, my perspective is > that the problem seems to be intractable from an analytic perspective. > > If we are making up examples, what analytic basis do we have to say that > the > 'meaning' of two distinct syntactic forms is equivalent, and what precisely > do we mean by 'equivalent' if we are to make that claim? I can't think of > any solid basis for making this argument based on a single person's > intuition alone, and if we are to base any potential findings on the > intuitions of more than one person, how do we account for the differences > in > connotation that we will inevitably find? If we base our argument on > pretheoretic notions of certain 'relevant' elements of syntax criterially > determining semantic meaning, we end up with circularity. > > If we are looking at actual conversation or another type of real data, it > would be difficult to argue for semantic equivalence anyways since you will > never find two contextual environments that are precisely identical. > > I could be wrong, but my intution of the semantics of the question itself > seems to suggest that the question is designed to elicit examples that > 'prove' that there will be such examples rather than to actually > investigate > whether or not this is true outside of an idealized world. > > Ross Krekoski > > > Department of Linguistics > University of Toronto > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (Joanna Nykiel) > > 3. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 (s.t. bischoff) > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (T. Florian Jaeger) > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > 6. updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA > > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince (Sophia A. Malamud) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:27:09 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: Tom Givon > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312565229.4e3c27edbeb24 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > Actually I thought of an example in present-day British English showing > the > > same > > stative/active distinction I was talking about. IIRC (I'm not a native > > speaker > > myself), British speakers who still use the VS construction for main-verb > > 'have' if it's stative ('have you a book?' rather than 'do you have a > > book?') > > would use the do-construction when 'have' is active ('did you have sex?' > > rather > > than 'had you sex?'). > > > > What Tom write is definitely true. It's generally difficult to tell to > what > > extent the differences which appear in written language reflect > differences > > in > > the spoken language of the time (or for that matter any time). But in the > > case > > of the rise of the do-construction, at least before about 1570 or so > there > > didn't seem to be any clear stylistic correlates of the choice between > the > > do-construction and the corresponding VS construction, that is, there was > > no > > pattern of the do-construction being used less frequently in more formal > > contexts in the data (and I did look for this)--if the change to the > > do-construction had really taken place significantly earlier in the > spoken > > language, then we would have expected to find it used more frequently in > > less > > formal contexts in the written language. Towards the end of the century, > > though, as the VS construction go more and more rare (with the obvious > > exception of the verbs which became the modal class and a few other > verbs, > > mostly stative, which took longer to 'switch over' ('know ye...?' was > used > > a > > lot for a long time)), it got to be more and more stylistically marked, > > restricted to more formal contexts, and it stands to reason that by that > > time > > the switch to the do-construction had largely been completed in the > spoken > > language--and at the same time and for the same reason, the meaning > > difference > > disappeared. > > John > > > > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > > > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, > and > > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of > a > > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested > to > > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, > perhaps > > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > > Pintzuk I > > > did > > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > > which > > > was > > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the > older > > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant > factor > > > being > > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also > > > a > > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the > verb, > > > with > > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many > non-semantic > > > factors, > > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that > the > > > subject > > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where > > > the > > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird > passed > > in > > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > > parallel > > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was > at > > the > > > time > > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that > in > > > general > > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > > have > > > been > > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were > no > > > more > > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > > on > > > the > > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > you > > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > >> and all that rubbish. > > > >> > > > >> Jess Tauber > > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 23:36:01 +0200 > > From: Joanna Nykiel > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <20110805233601.92443b062t74dsm4 at poczta.us.edu.pl> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; > > format="flowed" > > > > HI, > > > > There is a possible instance of syntactic variation without semantic > > difference. Elliptical constructions (sluicing, Bare Argument > > Ellipsis) may contain either PP or NP remnants in examples such as > > those below: > > > > (1) > > A: And we?ll compare notes some more. > > B: Compare notes, on what? > > A: On you, honey-pie. What else? > > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > > > (2) > > A: And, somebody told me you read all the Harry Potter books by how old? > > B: Four. > > A: By four years old. Wow. > > (Corpus of Contemporary American English) > > > > "On you, honey-pie" and "What else" occur within a single speaker's > > turn, and "By four years old" is a paraphrase of "Four", suggesting > > genuine variation. > > I've been working on a project investigating the distribution of PP > > and NP remnants, and so far haven't found any semantic constraints. > > > > > > Perhaps another case in point could be the progressive vs. present > > simple tense in Early Modern English. > > > > Joanna Nykiel > > > > > > > > Joanna Nykiel > > Assistant Professor > > English Department > > University of Silesia > > Grota-Roweckiego 5 > > Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland > > E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl > > Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ > > ??? > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Uniwersytet ??l??ski w Katowicach http://www.us.edu.pl > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 19:22:27 -0400 > > From: "s.t. bischoff" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > b1Rv8KDcVSuVyLnA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > What about the following...I've been curious about these types of sets > but > > have never looked into them...surely some clever analysis out there > > somewhere... > > > > (1) The kids have been bike riding all day/The kids have been riding > > (their) > > bikes all day. > > > > (2) He's out job-hunting/He's out hunting for a job. > > > > (3) Wolfie loves to go kite-flying/Wolfie loves to go fly kites. > > > > (4) She started horseback riding when she was 8/She started riding horses > > at > > 8. (here "riding horses" could refer to "English riding" and "horseback" > > might be construed as "Western"...but where I come from that wouldn't be > > the > > case...folks only ride one way) > > > > cheers, > > Shannon > > > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, > wrote: > > > > > Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to > > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Frederick J Newmeyer) > > > 2. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Daniel Everett) > > > 3. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > 4. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Angus Grieve-Smith) > > > 5. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (jess tauber) > > > 6. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (Victor K. Golla) > > > 7. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > 8. References (Sylvester OSU) > > > 9. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning > > > (john at research.haifa.ac.il) > > > 10. Re: difference in form without difference in meaning (Tom Givon) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:41:02 -0400 > > > From: Daniel Everett > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Cc: Funknet > > > Message-ID: <02BDE2FA-F961-4A4B-87F4-188EF72D9FF2 at daneverett.org> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > > > > The phonological equivalent of this would be free variation. > > > > > > Not sure that exists either. > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:29:53 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B1D61.1000807 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like that, > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the grammar > > > that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that point, some > > > people would call this "free variation". Out of which there are two > > > major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) the two forms will > > > diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to describe this > > > presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect vs. a > progressive > > > dialect". But as I go now over my Ute texts, I find numerous examples > > > where the same (old) speaker, in the same text, uses either the more > > > conservative form or the more progressive one without batting an > > > eyelash, sometime in consecutive sentences that repeat the very same > > > material. So, cognitively, we've got to assume that during this > > > (presumably transitory)stage, speakers know both forms, and know that > > > they have the same semantic & pragmatic value. > > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted that > > > such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the dominant old > > > form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative form(s) > > > 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like in > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > > > ============== > > > > > > On 8/4/2011 3:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 20:15:58 -0400 > > > From: Angus Grieve-Smith > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B363E.4060301 at panix.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > On 8/4/2011 6:29 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Many if not all examples of on-going grammatical change are like > that, > > > > Fritz (as is the English ex. you cited). And therefore the phenomenon > > > > must be massive--because you can find MANY constructions in the > > > > grammar that are are RIGHT NOW/THEN in the midst of change. At that > > > > point, some people would call this "free variation". Out of which > > > > there are two major venues: (a) the old firms will obsolesce; (b) > the > > > > two forms will diverge in meaning. I've also seen people trying to > > > > describe this presumably-transitory stage as "a conservative dialect > > > > vs. a progressive dialect". > > > > > > Yes, Bill Croft discusses these three possibilities in his 2000 > > > book, but he describes the third possibility more generally (page 177): > > > > > > "Speakers will divide the community or set of communities and associate > > > the distinct forms with distinct communities. For example, I heard a > > > historical linguist suggest that /grammaticalization /tends to be used > > > by European-trained historical linguists and their students, while > > > /grammaticization/ tends to be used by American-trained historical > > > linguists and their students." > > > > > > > Now, is this stage really all that transitory? Tony Naro has noted > > > > that such "coexisting forms" can go for a long time, with the > dominant > > > > old form comprising 90% of the text-instances and the innovative > > > > form(s) 5-10%. Then at a certain point there is a very rapid shift in > > > > frequencies. This gives you an "S-shaped learning curve", much like > in > > > > the psychology of learning. Most of us who observed this curve don't > > > > know what triggers the beginning of the rapid change. TG > > > > > > I'm skeptical that the coexisting forms have the same meaning > > > during that entire time. In my theatrical data on French negation, > > > before 1600 /ne ... pas/ is used to negate sentences between 10-20% of > > > the time, but almost never in contexts where it unambiguously > represents > > > predicate negation. Instead, it is used to deny a presupposition, > while > > > /ne/ alone is used for predicate negation. > > > > > > Once /ne ... pas/ starts being used for predicate negation, it > > > seems to be considered "the same" as /ne/ alone. That is also the time > > > when the S-curve starts (what Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968 call > > > "actuation"). I discuss this in greater detail in my dissertation: > > > > > > http://hdl.handle.net/1928/9808 > > > > > > -- > > > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > > > Saint John's University > > > grvsmth at panix.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 00:07:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) > > > From: jess tauber > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: > > > < > > > 15617119.1312517246312.JavaMail.root at wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just on > > the > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > bird?' > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. The > > first > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > for > > my > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. 'Do > > you > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) as > > much > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > perhaps > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > pronominal > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from the > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > discourse > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > interrelationally? Languages with > > > the least morphology more context sensitive and all that rubbish. > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 6 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 21:22:31 -0700 > > > From: "Victor K. Golla" > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: Frederick J Newmeyer , > > > funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: > > > > 50imWp6yM30E6mh8t7j5rY6FA at mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > > meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to whom > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and specific > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > their > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > there > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" in > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 7 > > > Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 23:15:57 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3B7C8D.9080609 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > > > > Right on, Vic. The old fox was not stupid, he just needed to idealize > > > synchrony by segregating it from diachrony. Standard Saussurean > > > position. Or Chomskian. TG > > > > > > > > > ================ > > > On 8/4/2011 10:22 PM, Victor K. Golla wrote: > > > > Fritz-- > > > > > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > >> differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > > >> meaning differences. But I have become less skeptical recently > > > > I think Bolinger was merely paraphrasing Bloomfield, according to > whom > > > > the "fundamental assumption of linguistics" (i.e., "In certain > > > > communities some speech-utterances are alike as to form and meaning") > > > > > > > > implies that each linguistic form has a constant and > > specific > > > > meaning. If the ... forms are different, we suppose that > > > their > > > > meanings also are different....We suppose, in short, that > > > there > > > > are no actual synonyms (Language, 1933, 144-45). > > > > > > > > Bloomfield, however, was at pains to confine this "somewhat rigid > > > > analysis of speech-forms" to "the descriptive phase of linguistics" > in > > > > which pragmatic, sociolinguistic, and diachronic variation is > > > > purposely ignored. But "when we deal with the historical change of > > > > language, we shall be concerned with facts for which our assumption > > > > does not hold good" (ibid, 158). > > > > > > > > --Victor Golla > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Funknetters, > > > >> > > > >> I am looking for convincing examples of where two > > syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > >> > > > >> One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > > English, when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did > > you > > > see the bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle > meaning > > > differences here? > > > >> > > > >> I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> --fritz > > > >> > > > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > >> Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 8 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:59:45 +0200 (CEST) > > > From: Sylvester OSU > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] References > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <18476851.7574.1312527586070.JavaMail.www at wwinf2218> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I will soon be teaching a course on language and its relationship to > > > reality and will like to have some relevant references on this topic. > > Kindly > > > please send such to: > > > > > > sylvester.osu at wanadoo.fr > > > > > > Thanking you in advance. > > > > > > Sylvester > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 9 > > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:25:55 +0300 > > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: jess tauber > > > Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <1312532755.4e3ba913d71d2 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > Pintzuk > > I > > > did > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > which > > > was > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the older > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant factor > > > being > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > also > > > a > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > century > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the verb, > > > with > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many non-semantic > > > factors, > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > meaning > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that the > > > subject > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > where > > > the > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird passed > > in > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > parallel > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was at > > the > > > time > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that in > > > general > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > have > > > been > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > this, > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were no > > > more > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber : > > > > > > > Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > on > > > the > > > > face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > > and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > > seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > > modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > > you > > > > see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > > about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > > its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > > paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > > confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > > typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > > constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > > has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > > interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > > and all that rubbish. > > > > > > > > Jess Tauber > > > > goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > University > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 10 > > > Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:31:57 -0600 > > > From: Tom Givon > > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > > meaning > > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > > Message-ID: <4E3C1AFD.4030904 at uoregon.edu> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > > > > > > John did an excellent job in showing some of the complexities involved > > > in the actual process of change. One possible implication is, perhaps, > > > that such complexity can be captured in neither the Generative nor > > > Varb-rule perspective. The cognitive implication outstrip the > > > theoretical machinery of either of these "theories". > > > > > > Perhaps one thing to remember concerns the time-course issue: The > > > data-base for the study of 16th Cent. English is, exclusively,written > > > texts. That genre tends to be, sometimes, centuries behind the actual > > > changes, which took place, almost exclusively, in the spoken language. > > > Often, the low-frequency variants characteristic of the slow first part > > > of the S-shaped curve are completely ignored in the written language, > > > which tends to go with the higher-frequency (well-established) form, > and > > > thus appears to be "more generative". This gives a false impression of > a > > > much faster curve of , i.e., the middle portion of the SW-shaped curve. > > > Lynn Yang & I made this observation when studying the rise of the > > > GET-passive in English. It was nigh impossible to find examples in > > > 19th-century writing--till we got to sampling Huck Finn, which is > > > deliberately pitched toward the colloquial. All of a sudden, seemingly > > > with no gradual prep time, the frequencies jumped up. Which suggested > to > > > us that the mature (tho still largely adversive) GET-passive > > > construction may have been lurking around for a long time prior, > perhaps > > > centuries, in the spoken language . Cheers, TG > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > On 8/5/2011 2:25 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > > > > A long time ago (early 1980s), together with Tony Kroch and Susan > > Pintzuk > > > I did > > > > a study of how 'do' came to be used as a question marker, a change > > which > > > was > > > > was for the most part started and completed in the course of the 16th > > > century. > > > > DURING the 16th century, there was a lot of variation between the > older > > > > VS question and the newer do-construction, the most significant > factor > > > being > > > > whether the subject was a pronoun or noun, whether there was a direct > > > object, > > > > and if so, whether the direct object was a noun or pronoun. There was > > > also a > > > > clear tendency for the do-construction to become more common as the > > > century > > > > went on. But there was also an effect of the semantic type of the > verb, > > > with > > > > the do-construction being associated with active verbs and the VS > > > construction > > > > associated with stative verbs. It was very difficult to say anything > > > concrete > > > > about this, because the variation was affected by so many > non-semantic > > > factors, > > > > but in some sense at the time, to the extent that any difference in > > > meaning > > > > could be suggested, 'Did you see the bird?' would have implied that > the > > > subject > > > > took some action to intentionally see the bird (like going to a place > > > where the > > > > bird was), whereas 'Saw you the bird?' would imply that the bird > passed > > > in > > > > front of the subject's field of vision. It's difficult to get a > > parallel > > > > difference in meaning in the present tense. Additionally, there was > at > > > the time > > > > a strong tendency to use 'ye' as a clitic-like subject form, so that > in > > > general > > > > 'See you the bird?' would have been disfavored because in involved a > > > non-clitic > > > > subject form intervening between the verb and the object. 'Saw ye the > > > bird?' > > > > would have been much more normal. And the semantic alternation would > > have > > > been > > > > clearest in the middle of the change, whereas earlier and later than > > > this, > > > > stylistic factors were more important--I would guess that there were > no > > > more > > > > than two generations when there was something like a productive > > > > semantically-based alternation. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting jess tauber: > > > > > > > >> Hi folks. I'll admit at the outset that this isn't my area, but just > > on > > > the > > > >> face of it, to my sensibilities, the difference between 'Saw you the > > > bird?' > > > >> and 'Did you see the bird?' is one of directness and/or formality. > The > > > first > > > >> seems to me more intimate, informal, less 'accusing' usage, at least > > for > > > my > > > >> modern English. Maybe easier to see with 'See (you) the bird?' vs. > 'Do > > > you > > > >> see the bird?'. With 'do' the question seems (at least potentially) > as > > > much > > > >> about the bird as my ability/willingness to see it, while without it > > > perhaps > > > >> its more about the speaker's needs. I know that in many instances > > > pronominal > > > >> paradigms have been reshaped to reflect unwillingness to appear > > > >> confrontational in conversation. It would be interesting here from > the > > > >> typological perspective to know whether there is any linkage between > > > >> constructional switching and the degree to and direction in which > > > discourse > > > >> has to be negotiated. More formality structurewise= more formality > > > >> interrelationally? Languages with the least morphology more context > > > sensitive > > > >> and all that rubbish. > > > >> > > > >> Jess Tauber > > > >> goldenratio at earthlink.net > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa > > University > > > > > > > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 2 > > > ************************************** > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 20:51:57 -0400 > > From: "T. Florian Jaeger" > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Cc: Tom Wasow > > Message-ID: > > dy9mqvg at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > am, > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > we're > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from actual > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > > different > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > > seem > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > > Meaning > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > likely > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > > forms > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > > differ > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which you > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to reduced > > to > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > to > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > kept > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > > 2005 > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > > apparent > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at Stanford) > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. We > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > doesn't > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > to > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost all > of > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > agreed > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > opposite > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > > instructive: > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > that > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > associated > > with one of the two forms. > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > on > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > evidence > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on their > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > > 2009; > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > many > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > just > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between the > > two > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that sometimes > > the > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to maintain > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the same > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > order > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in the > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't bet > > my > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > > relative > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > relativizer/complementizer > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy and > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective this > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly sensitive > to > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty of > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders know > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > knowledge > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much faster > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > > after > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > don't > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and MacDonald, > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based expectations > > can > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > likely > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me (from > > the > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > > quite > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > One > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > possibility > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between two > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > the > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) is > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as the > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, e.g. > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and Dell, > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading to > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > distinct > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > for > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of the > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > > which > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would need > > to > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > > theories > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if it > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > florian > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > > meaning > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > To: Funknet > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two syntactically-related > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' is > > taken > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > way > > of > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely do > > not > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, once > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning differences. > > One > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. 'I > > knew > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > differences. > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you see > > the > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > differences > > > here? > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > meaning > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > University > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:45:17 +0300 > > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > > meaning > > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > > Cc: Tom Wasow , funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552 at webmail.haifa.ac.il> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 > > > > One issue here is 'what is meaning?' Is this supposed to include only > > lexical > > meaning? Does it include aspect? Does it include definiteness? Does it > > include > > the relative topicality of different referents? I mention these factors > in > > particular because they are common factors which affect voice > alternations > > (active vs passive, ergative vs antipassive). If such factors are > included > > as > > 'meaning', then it's going to be pretty hard to find cases in which there > > are > > syntactic alternations which aren't associated with meaning differences. > > > > Another issue is that, as Florian mentions (and I described in my message > > about > > do/VS in English questions), there are often a variety of factors all of > > which > > have an effect on an alternation. I am particularly aware of this because > I > > studied at Penn and I'm completely used to doing multivariate statistical > > analysis such as sociolinguists typically do with phonological > > variables--except that I've also done them with syntactic alternations. > And > > even aside from factors like aspect, definiteness, topicality, etc., > > there's > > also the matter of style, which further confounds the issue. And > heaviness > > (for > > the EME do/VS alternation the most important factor was that 'do' was > > particularly favored with transitive verbs with nominal subjects, e.g. > 'Did > > Bill see the bird?' vs 'Saw Bill the bird?' > > > > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience > so > > far > > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been > able > > to > > find SOME meaning-related difference. This includes active vs passive, > > argative > > vs antipassive, clitic-climbing in Romance languages (e.g. Spanish > 'quiero > > conocerlo' vs 'lo quiero conocer'), and 'equivalent' English modals like > > should/ought, have to/have got to. The various 'I' words (boku, ore, > > watashi) > > and 'you' words (anata, kimi, omae, etc.) in Japanese have clearly > > different > > meanings. Even words from different speech levels in Javanese, where the > > alternation is supposedly conditioned purely by stylistic factors, turn > out > > to > > have slightly different meanings. I haven't tried to find a meaning > > difference > > for complementizer 'that', and I have to admit that I have an instinctive > > feeling that there is no difference--but I wouldn't be surprised that if > I > > spent a long time investigating the topic, I could find some difference. > > > > Also--the fact that different speakers claim that there is a meaning > > distinction > > in a certain case but the describe it in opposite terms doesn't mean that > > there > > isn't a meaning difference--it usually seems to mean that the speakers > are > > using the term in different ways. When I've asked Russian speakers about > > the > > difference between the obligation markers nuzhno and dolzhen, some will > say > > that one is more stronger while others will say that the other is > > stronger--but > > it's because express two types of obligation, one an objective obligation > > based > > upon 'the nature of things', the other based upon emotions, and some > people > > think that one kind of obligation is stronger while others think that the > > other > > kind of obligation is stronger. Similarly, I repeatedly had the > experience > > of > > being confused about the meanings of Arabic emotion words because Arabic > > speakers generally believe that emotions which are kept inside are > > 'stronger' > > than emotions which are expressed, whereas the reverse is generally true > > for > > English speakers (who tend to think that if an emotion is too strong it > > can't > > be controled). So the descriptions of the average person aren't really > > worth > > too much in many cases if you don't know what they mean by them. > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "T. Florian Jaeger" : > > > > > Hi Fritz, > > > > > > I've recently spent more time thinking about the very same question. I > > am, > > > however, not even sure that it is a well-formed question. At least if > > we're > > > willing to base our decision about the correct answer on data from > actual > > > language understanding (I am not sure that meaning can be meaningfully > > > defined if we don't commit to this assumption). > > > > > > The mapping from perceptual input to meaning is noisy, so that two > > different > > > forms can most certainly lead to the same set of inferences. This might > > seem > > > irrelevant to your question, but I think it might affect the answer. > > Meaning > > > differences that are associated with linguistic forms that are very > > likely > > > to lead to overlapping perceptual inputs are unlikely to be learnable. > > > > > > You were asking about syntactic alternatives (or syntactically related > > forms > > > that share the same meaning). But even for those, there are some that > > differ > > > very little in perceivable linguistic form (e.g. that-omission, which > you > > > mentioned; or to-deletion after *help* in English). I think there are > > > reasons to suspect that such difficult to perceive differences (in > > > conversational speech either of these two words is often going to > reduced > > to > > > some co-articulatory information on the surrounding words) are unlikely > > to > > > be associated with strong meaning differences. This, of course, hasn't > > kept > > > people from claiming such meaning differences (e.g. Yaguchi, 2001; Dor, > > 2005 > > > for that-omission). However, those meaning differences that seem so > > apparent > > > when we look at written language offline seem to be hard to confirm in > > > studies. Some years ago, Rafe Kinsey (back then an undergrad at > Stanford) > > > conducted a study (together with Tom Wasow and me) on alleged meaning > > > differences between complement clauses with "that" and those without. > We > > > didn't find any evidence for meaning differences. This, of course, > > doesn't > > > mean that there are none. What I thought was interesting is that I used > > to > > > bug some of my fellow students about whether they felt that complement > > > clauses with "that" were different from those without "that". Almost > all > > of > > > them felt that there was a meaning difference. However, none of them > > agreed > > > on what the difference was and several of them even had the exact > > opposite > > > opinion! I find that example, though anecdotal in nature, quite > > instructive: > > > perhaps we can't help thinking that there are meaning differences, but > > that > > > doesn't mean that they are stable enough to become successfully > > associated > > > with one of the two forms. > > > > > > I've been fascinated by the fact that most of my fellow psycholinguists > > > simply assume that there are no (relevant) meaning differences between > > > syntactic alternatives. They are quite fine running active vs. passive > > > experiments where effects of animacy or givenness of the agent or theme > > on > > > the preferred choice between the two structures are interpreted as > > evidence > > > about the underlying structure of the production system, rather than as > > > evidence for meaning differences. Arguably, they have one thing on > their > > > side: these and other factors have the predicted effects across many > > > structural alternations across many languages (cf. e.g, Branigan et al > > 2009; > > > Jaeger and Norcliffe, 2009 for overviews). > > > > > > I agree with the other comments that differences in form often end up > > > becoming associated with differences in meaning, but I think that for > > many > > > alternations, at any given point in time, differences in meaning **are > > just > > > one of several factors* *that determine speakers' preference between > the > > two > > > forms. For example, there is evidence from heavy NP shift that > sometimes > > the > > > only reason why it happens is that the heavy NP was not yet ready for > > > articulation when the speaker had to make a choice as to how to > maintain > > > fluency (Wasow, 1997). Also, would we really want to claim that the > same > > > speakers describing the same pictures reliably choose their argument > > order > > > (e.g. in the ditransitive structure) based on the number of words in > the > > > theme/recipient constituent because that affects how likely they are to > > > think of the picture one way or another, thereby affecting what subtle > > > meaning difference they want to convey? It's possible, but I wouldn't > bet > > my > > > money on it. Do we want to attribute the fact that more predictable > > relative > > > and complement clauses are less likely to have a > > relativizer/complementizer > > > "that" to meaning differences (same of passive RCs, to-omission, > > > contraction, etc.; Jaeger, 2006; 2010, 2011; Wasow et al., 2011; Levy > and > > > Jaeger, 2007; Frank and Jaeger, 2008)? From a processing-perspective > this > > > makes perfect sense, whereas the meaning theories that have been evoked > > > differ for each of those cases. > > > > > > All of this is not to say that comprehenders aren't incredibly > sensitive > > to > > > the motivations behind speakers' preferences. Actually, there's plenty > of > > > evidence for that. For example, Arnold et al show that comprehenders > know > > > that speakers are more disfluent before difficult words and that > > knowledge > > > allows them to process words that are a priori more difficult much > faster > > > after a disfluency. Similarly, comprehenders expect difficult material > > after > > > a "that" at the onset of a complement or relative clause and if they > > don't > > > get it this slows comprehension (relatively speaking; Race and > MacDonald, > > > 2003). I think it's perceivable that these processing-based > expectations > > can > > > easily create the 'illusion' of a meaning difference. They are also > > likely > > > to 'cause' meaning differences in the long run, but it seems to me > (from > > the > > > data I have seen in experiments) that these meaning differences can be > > quite > > > fickle for a long time and can be overriden by processing preferences. > > One > > > of my students, Judith Degen, recently started looking into the > > possibility > > > that such processing preferences might even affect the choice between > two > > > rather meaning-different forms (she's focusing on "some X" vs. "some of > > the > > > X"; recently presented at XPRAG 2011). > > > > > > So my current best-bet-speculation (see also my thesis, Chapter 6.2.2) > is > > > that speakers, when they encode their intended meaning into linguistic > > > forms, probabilistically select between different forms and that this > > > selection is affected by the strength of connections between different > > > meanings and that form as well as processing considerations (such as > the > > > well-documented preference to avoid speech suspension; for refs see, > e.g. > > > Clark and Fox-Tree, 2002; Fox-Tree and Clark, 1997; V. Ferreira and > Dell, > > > 2000; V. Feirreira 1996; Bock, 1987). > > > > > > so in this sense (if my argument makes sense), it would be misleading > to > > > think that most alternatives in syntactic alternations are meaning > > distinct > > > unless you're willing to accept any difference in the probability > > > distribution over inferred meanings given a linguistic form as evidence > > for > > > difference meanings -- in that case, it would probably hold that no two > > > forms are the same (including no two actual acoustic realizations of > the > > > same syntactic structure, since they will differ in speech rate, etc., > > which > > > will affect some inferences the comprehender might draw). > > > > > > I think for any stronger claim about meaning differences there would > need > > to > > > be testable (and preferably quantifiable) theories about those meaning > > > differences, so that they could be pitched against well-established > > theories > > > of speakers' preferences during incremental language production. > > > > > > I hope some of this is useful? This would be an awefully long email if > it > > > turned out to be completely incomprehensible ;). > > > > > > florian > > > > > > One final thought - didn't Bresnan et al (2007) also discuss alleged > > meaning > > > differences for the ditransitive alternation? > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:17:27 -0700 (PDT) > > > > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > > > > Subject: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in meaning > > > > To: Funknet > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > > > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > > > > > > > I am looking for convincing examples of where two > syntactically-related > > > > sentence-types manifest clearly identical meanings, where 'meaning' > is > > > taken > > > > in its broadest sense, including discourse-pragmatic aspects. Another > > way > > > of > > > > putting it is to say that I am looking for two sentence types that in > > early > > > > TG would have been related by 'optional rules', but which absolutely > do > > not > > > > differ in meaning. It's not so easy to come up with good examples, > once > > > > differences in topicality and focus are allowed as meaning > differences. > > One > > > > possible example that comes to mind are sentences with or without > > > > complementizer-deletion, such as 'I knew that he'd be on time', vs. > 'I > > knew > > > > he'd be on time'. But even here there have been argued to be meaning > > > > differences. > > > > > > > > One possibility that has been suggested to me is from Early Modern > > English, > > > > when many speakers could say both 'Saw you the bird?' and 'Did you > see > > the > > > > bird?' Does anybody have evidence that there were subtle meaning > > > differences > > > > here? > > > > > > > > I had always been quite skeptical of Dwight Bolinger's idea that > > > > differences in (lexical and syntactic) form always correlate with > > meaning > > > > differences. But I have become less skeptical recently. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > --fritz > > > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > > > > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > > > > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > > > > University > > > > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 6 > > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:26:17 -0400 > > From: "Sophia A. Malamud" > > Subject: [FUNKNET] updated CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - > > LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince > > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > > Message-ID: > > sjj_QZyYz5Q at mail.gmail.com > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Dear funknetters, > > > > Here is an updated CfP - now with information about abstract size and > > format! > > > > With regards, > > Sophia > > > > Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting > > * Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 > > * > > Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and > > Discourse > > > > Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, > > producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of > > informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic > > constructions, > > including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, > > language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in > the > > Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the > use > > of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the > > advent of electronic corpora. > > > > We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, > 5 > > min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse > > phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of > > linguistic > > expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and > > reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that > > emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on > > experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. > > > > Please email all submissions to the session organisers at > > lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email *must be* "*LSA > session > > abstract*". Please include the following information in the email: > > -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author > > -- The title of the paper > > > > The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. > > > > The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: > > > > 1. Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. > > 2. An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than > 1000 > > words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 > > point > > and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all > > sides. > > References should be included on a third page. > > 3. Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you > > identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith > > (1992)...I"), > > the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be > > sure > > to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then > "Properties," > > removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving > > before > > uploading it. > > 4. Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be > > considered. > > 5. Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA > > meeting. > > 6. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting > Handbook, > > will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and > > authors > > must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The > > deadline > > will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be > > withdrawn from the program. > > 7. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference. > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 3 > > ************************************** > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: Frederick J Newmeyer > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] difference in form without difference in > meaning > To: "T. Florian Jaeger" > Cc: Judith Degen , Funknet > , Tom Wasow , > john at research.haifa.ac.il > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII > > Dear Florian, et al., > > Thank you all so much for your contributions to the line of discussion that > I initiated. There is no way that I can give point-by-point commentary on > all of the postings, but then nobody would expect that I should do so. Just > a few comments. > > First, it's clear -- and Florian cited several references -- that variants > might differ not so much in their meaning (even broadly defined), but rather > in *how relatively effectively* they can convey a particular meaning given > particular discourse and other background conditions. So subject sentences > ('that he'll go home is likely') may or may not have identical meanings as > extraposed sentences ('it's likely that he'll go home'). But clearly, > conditions that are to a degree meaning-independent are at work in speaker > choice of one variant over another: the length of the subject, the stylistic > register, and so on. One could make the same point with respect to > heavy-NP-shifted items versus non-shifted ones. The different focal > properties associated with the different positions (which we can think of as > aspects of meaning) are relevant, but do not suffice to explain fully why > some NPs are shifted and some are not. > > One of the most frustrating facts for the theoretical linguist is that the > analyses that we come up with are not always (possibly not often) confirmed > by particular psycholinguistic studies. And here the problem cuts across > theoretical frameworks. Consider for example the abstract generative > phonological analyses based on alternations; the minisculey-fine semantic > distinctions posited by cognitive linguists as a basis for syntactic > structure; and the functionally-motivated hierarchies that form a basis for > a lot of functionalist theorizing. The conflicting experimental results with > respect to the 'psychological reality' of these various analyses have led a > lot of grammarians to be cynical about what psycholinguists can offer them > as an aid to or as a check on theory construction. That's lamentable of > course. > > In his second posting, Florian referred to 'functional theories of meaning > differences', citing work by Fox, Thompson, and Mulac. These are really at > one extreme end of the functionalist spectrum, given the role that they > impart to 'fragments' and 'memorized formulas' as being at the centre of > language, as opposed to grammatical processes (as the term is understood > within whatever framework). These fall down in explaining how languages > users have the ability to *interpret* input that they have not previously > encountered. As I argued in Newmeyer 2010, this interpretive capacity (among > other things) points to the need for a stored grammar. > > Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2010. What conversational English tells us about the > nature of grammar: A critique of Thompson's analysis of object complements. > Usage and structure: A Festschrift for Peter Harder, ed. by Kasper Boye and > Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, 3-43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. The paper is > also available on LingBuzz: http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000679. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > > > > End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 95, Issue 4 > ************************************** > From grvsmth at panix.com Sun Aug 7 22:38:07 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:38:07 -0400 Subject: difference in form without difference in meaning In-Reply-To: <1312613117.4e3ce2fd27552@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: On 8/6/2011 2:45 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > This said, if we take a broad understanding of 'meaning', my experience so far > has been that I have never met an alternation for which I haven't been able to > find SOME meaning-related difference. I agree. Relative order and stress have an effect on a speaker's understanding of the phrase, even if they do not fit into formal distinctions in the language. However, I have the distinct impression (and I'm not sure how to test it) that there is perception on the part of the language users that the two forms are interchangeable. I really get that feeling from the French data, that playwrights before a certain date are purposely choosing /ne/ alone instead of /ne ... pas/ for semantic or pragmatic reasons, and playwrights after that date are just choosing them based on tradition, social factors or euphony. Another piece of data relates to Tom Givon's observation about Huck Finn: in the 16th Century when people talk about negation they have specific ideas about when to use each negator, but after that they rely on the dictates of grammarians and their authority. They defer to Malherbe and Vaugelas, but they ignore the reasons these guys gave for their pronouncements. They really don't seem to have any intuitions anymore, just rules. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Aug 8 13:55:35 2011 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:55:35 +0000 Subject: Now available on Project MUSE - Canadian Journal of Linguistics 56(2) July 2011 Message-ID: The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2) July 2011 is now available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/canadian_journal_of_linguistics/toc/cjl.56.2.html This issue contains: Synchronic evidence of a diachronic change: Voicing and duration in French and Spanish stop?liquid clusters Laura Colantoni, Jeffrey Steele Abstract: This article investigates the role that the phonetic parameters of duration and voicing play in shaping asymmetric patterns of Romance stop-liquid cluster realization. Based on acoustic analysis of experimental data from Quebec French and Argentine Spanish, we demonstrate the existence of an asymmetry in the proportional duration of the stop and a following epenthetic vowel or lateral: sonorants are shorter after voiceless stops in stop?liquid clusters. Rhotics do not participate in this process. The Spanish tap does not vary significantly in length, and the French dorsal fricative is longer in voiceless clusters. We propose that compensatory adjustments of the following sonorant are the result of the interaction of coarticulatory constraints, both universal (shorter sonorants after voiceless stops or fricatives) and language-specific (voicing in dorsal fricatives in French). Parallels are drawn between the synchronic variation attested and well-known patterns of diachronic change in Romance. R?sum?: Le pr?sent article examine le r?le que jouent deux param?tres phon?tiques, soit la dur?e et le voisement, dans la r?alisation asym?trique des groupes consonantiques occlusive-liquide dans les langues romanes. ? partir d?une analyse acoustique de donn?es exp?rimentales du fran?ais qu?b?cois et de l?espagnol argentin, nous d?montrons qu?il existe une asym?trie dans la dur?e proportionnelle des occlusives et de certains segments qui les suivent (voyelles lat?rales ou ?penth?tiques) : les sonantes sont plus courtes apr?s les occlusives sourdes. Les rhotiques ne participent pas ? ce processus. La dur?e de la vibrante battue de l?espagnol ne varie pas de fa?on significative, et la fricative dorsale du fran?ais est plus longue lorsqu?elle fait partie d?un groupe consonantique sourd. Nous proposons que l?ajustement compensatoire des sonantes r?sulte de l?interaction entre des contraintes coarticulatoires tant universelle (sonantes plus courtes apr?s occlusives ou fricatives sourdes) que propre ? une seule langue (voisement des fricatives dorsales en fran?ais). Enfin, nous d?gageons des parall?les entre la variation synchronique observ?e et certains changements diachroniques bien connus. Media representations of minority French: Valorization, identity, and the Acadieman phenomenon Philip Comeau, Ruth King Abstract: This article is concerned with the role of media representations of language use in the promotion of language ideologies and in identity construction. It focuses on media representations of Chiac, a traditionally low-status variety of Acadian French. We consider performances of this variety in the adventures of an animated superhero, Acadieman, presented in a cable TV show running on Rogers TV from 2005 to 2009. We first contextualize Acadieman in terms of the linguistic and cultural contexts in which Chiac is spoken. We then consider how particular social meanings are created through contrasts between Chiac-speaking characters and speakers of other varieties. While the juxtaposition of varieties is at one level quite humorous, on another level it draws on complex indexicalities and valorizes the local variety and, by extension, its speakers. Finally, we argue that the Acadieman phenomenon provides a discursive space within which present-day Acadian identities can be negotiated. R?sum?: Cet article traite du r?le de la repr?sentation de la langue par les m?dias dans la promotion d?id?ologies linguistiques et dans la construction d?identit?s. Il porte sur la pr?sentation par les m?dias du chiac, une vari?t? du fran?ais acadien habituellement stigmatis?e. Nous consid?rons des manifestations de cette vari?t? dans les aventures d?un superh?ros, Acadieman, pr?sent?es dans une s?rie d?animation t?l?vis?e entre 2005 et 2009 par la TV Rogers. D?abord nous situons Acadieman en termes des contextes linguistique et culturel dans lesquels le chiac est parl?. Ensuite, nous consid?rons la mani?re dont certaines connotations sociales sont cr??es via les contrastes entre les personnages parlant chiac et ceux qui parlent d?autres vari?t?s. Alors que la juxtaposition des vari?t?s est plut?t comique, ? un autre niveau discursif, elle se sert d?indexicalisations complexes et valorise la vari?t? locale et, par extension, ses locuteurs. Enfin, nous proposons que le ph?nom?ne Acadieman ?tablit un espace discursif ? l?int?rieur duquel les identit?s acadiennes peuvent ?tre n?goci?es. Palatalization and ?strong i? across Inuit dialects Richard Compton, B. Elan Dresher Abstract: Inuit dialects with palatalization all distinguish between ?strong i? and ?weak i?: instances of surface [i] that cause palatalization and those that do not, respectively. All dialects that have completely lost this contrast also lack palatalization. Why are there no /i, a, u/ dialects in which all instances of surface [i] trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap can be explained using a contrastivist analysis whereby only contrastive features can be phonologically active, palatalization is triggered by [coronal], and contrastive features are assigned in an order placing [low] and [labial] ahead of [coronal]. In a three-vowel inventory only [low] and [labial] are contrastive, while in the four-vowel inventory [coronal] must also be contrastive to distinguish strong and weak i. It follows from these assumptions that [i] can trigger palatalization only if it is in contrast with a fourth vowel. R?sum?: Les dialectes inuits avec palatalisation distinguent tous entre les ?i forts? et les ?i faibles? : les [i] de surface qui provoquent la palatalisation et ceux qui ne la provoquent pas, respectivement. Dans tous les dialectes o? ce contraste est compl?tement perdu, la palatalisation est absente. Pourquoi n?existe-t-il pas de dialectes /i, a, u/ dans lesquels tous les [i] de surface d?clenchent la palatalisation? Nous proposons que cet ?cart typologique peut ?tre expliqu? en utilisant une approche contrastiviste selon laquelle seuls les traits contrastifs peuvent ?tre actifs dans la phonologie, la palatalisation est d?clench?e par [coronal] et les traits contrastifs sont ordonn?s de telle fa?on que les traits [bas] et [labial] sont assign?s avant [coronal]. Dans un inventaire de trois voyelles, seuls les traits [bas] et [labial] sont contrastifs, tandis que dans un inventaire de quatre voyelles, [coronal] doit aussi ?tre contrastif pour distinguer les i forts des i faibles. Il r?sulte de ces hypoth?ses que [i] ne peut d?clencher la palatalisation que s?il est en contraste avec une quatri?me voyelle. The OCP as a synchronic constraint in Arabic Eiman Mustafawi Abstract: This paper provides evidence for the activity of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) as a constraint on dynamic alternations in the synchronic grammar of Qatari Arabic. It shows that the OCP is subject to proximity and to a gradient similarity effect. In Qatari Arabic, there are two variable phonological alternations that interact with the OCP, affrication and lenition. The velar stops /[inline-graphic 01i]/ and /k/ affricate to [?] and [?], respectively, when adjacent to [i(:)]. However, affrication is blocked when the outcome includes a sequence of segments that are highly similar. Lenition applies variably to the phoneme /?/, which surfaces as [?] or [j]. Usually, the probability of lenition applying to its eligible candidates is around the level of chance. The process, however, applies categorically when a violation of the OCP would otherwise be incurred. The data are analyzed within the framework of Optimality Theory. R?sum?: Cet article pr?sente des preuves de l?activit? du Principe du contour obligatoire (PCO) comme contrainte sur les alternances dynamiques dans la grammaire synchronique de l?arabe qatari. L?article montre que le PCO est sujet ? la proximit? et ? un effet variable de similarit?. Dans l?arabe qatari, il y a deux alternances phonologiques variables qui interagissent avec le PCO : l?affrication et la l?nition. Les occlusives v?laires /[inline-graphic 01i]/ et /k/ subissent l?affrication devenant [?] and [?] respectivement lorsqu?elles sont adjacentes ? [i(:)]. Cependant, l?affrication est bloqu?e lorsque le r?sultat comporte une s?quence de segments tr?s similaires. La l?nition s?applique de mani?re variable au phon?me /?/, donnant [?] ou [j]. D?habitude la probabilit? que la l?nition s?applique aux candidats susceptibles de subir la l?nition est au niveau du hasard. Le processus, cependant, s?applique de mani?re cat?gorique dans le cas o? une violation du PCO en r?sulterait. Les donn?es sont analys?es dans le cadre de la Th?orie de l?Optimalit?. This sentence sucks to analyse: Are suck, bite, blow, and work tough-predicates? Carolyn Pytlyk Abstract: This paper investigates tough-predicates and whether four verbs (suck, bite, blow, and work) can function as this type of predicate. The theoretical analysis uses two syntactic and two semantic properties of prototypical tough-predicates to determine the status of the tough-verb candidates. Syntactically, tough-predicates select a to-infinitival complement and require a referential dependency between the matrix subject and the object gap in the complement clause. Semantically, the matrix subject must possess an inherent or permanent property and tough-predicates assign an ?experiencer? role. From these four diagnostic properties, the analysis concludes that suck, bite, and blow are indeed tough-verbs, while the conclusions concerning work are less definitive. To complement the conclusions of the theoretical analysis, native speaker judgements were collected from 22 Canadian English speakers. The results show that for a majority of the consultants, suck, bite, and blow can function as tough-predicates. The behaviour of these verbs suggests that suck, bite, and blow (and possibly work) should be added to the small list of known tough-verbs. R?sum?: Cet article ?tudie les pr?dicats tough ainsi que la question de savoir si quatre verbes (suck, bite, blow et work) peuvent fonctionner comme pr?dicats tough. L?analyse th?orique se sert de deux propri?t?s syntaxiques et de deux propri?t?s s?mantiques de pr?dicats tough prototypiques pour d?terminer le statut de ces quatre verbes tough. En ce qui touche ? la syntaxe, les pr?dicats tough s?lectionnent un compl?ment toinfinitif et requi?rent une d?pendance r?f?rentielle entre le sujet matrice et le vide du compl?ment dans la subordonn?e compl?tive. En ce qui a trait ? la s?mantique, le sujet matrice doit poss?der une propri?t? inh?rente ou permanente, et les pr?dicats tough doivent attribuer un r?le d??exp?rienceur?. En fonction de ces quatre propri?t?s diagnostiques, l?analyse arrive ? la conclusion que suck, bite et blow sont en effet des verbes tough, alors que les conclusions ? l??gard de work sont moins probantes. Dans le but de compl?ter les conclusions de l?analyse th?orique, des jugements de 22 Canadiens de langue maternelle anglaise ont ?t? cueillis. Les r?sultats montrent que pour la majorit? des consultants, suck, bite et blow peuvent fonctionner comme des pr?dicats tough. Le comportement de ces verbes sugg?re que suck, bite et blow (et peut-?tre work) devraient s?ajouter ? la courte liste de verbes tough connus. Squib/Notule On the Movement Theory of Obligatory Control: Voices from Standard Indonesian Yosuke Sato Reviews/Comptes Rendus The English language in Canada: Status, history and comparative analysis (review) Beau Brock Variation in linguistic systems (review) Anne Marie Devlin Language in the brain (review) Zahir Mumin Uttering trees (review) Yosuke Sato Books Received/Livres Re?us Books Received/Livres re?us The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. For more information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus. From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sun Aug 14 18:00:03 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:00:03 -0600 Subject: PS Message-ID: Dear FUNK folks, After our recent discussion, prompted by Fritz Newmeyer's initial question on multi-functionality of structures, Sherm Wilcox alerted me to a vast and (seemingly) relevant literature in evolutionary biology. The standard term used in that literature-- "degeneracy" -- is a bit ugly to the ear but has a purely technical meaning: "...the ability of elements that are structurally different to perform the same function or yield the same output..." (Edelman and Gally 2001). The bio-evolutionary literature suggests that this phenomenon is not ubiquitous not only in language but also in biology, where it is increasingly regarded as a major component in the evolution of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Because of the (strange...) constraints imposed on FUNKNET posts, I cannot attach the three papers that Sherm kindly passed my way. The relevance of that literature to what we observe in language is further underscored by the fact that in language "degeneracy" is a core component of diachronic change, and is thus fundamentally a developmental phenomenon. This parallels the situation in biology, where the signigficance of "degeneracy" is seen as, primarily, evolutionary. The three papers I got from Sherm are: Edelmen, G.M. and J.A. Galley (2001) "Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems" PNSA, Nov. 20, 2001, vo. 98 Whitacre, J. M. (2010) "Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robusness and complexity in biological systems, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 7.6 Mason, P.H. (2010) "Degeneracy at multiple levels of complexity", Biological Theory, 5.3 Cheers, TG From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Aug 14 18:45:29 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:45:29 -0600 Subject: PS In-Reply-To: <4E480D23.1030106@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Thanks, Tom, for posting this. As I mentioned to Tom, I'm a bit surprised that this concept of degeneracy isn't discussed more in linguistics. It seems directly relevant to the issue that Fritz raised, for example. Also, the people who do discuss it make some important distinctions between it and redundancy, a useful distinction to make for linguists, I think. Their thoughts on robustness and evolvability (which for biologists seems to be a synonym for "innovation") are also relevant to linguists. As Tom mentioned, this is a vast literature that includes not only biology but also neuroscience, physics, chemistry, and even social science. For example, in a chapter entitled "Distributed Agency Within Intersecting Ecological, Social, and Scientific Processes" Peter Taylor coins the term "heterogeneous construction" to show how different paths can lead to the same developmental outcome, which seems to be yet another expression of degeneracy (thanks to Paul Mason for pointing this out to me). Taylor's chapter is in a book, "Cycles of Contingency," edited by Susan Oyama. Here are a few more references: Price, C. J., & Friston, K. J. (2002). Degeneracy and cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(10), 416-421. Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1999). Measures of degeneracy and redundancy in biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(6), 3257. Whitacre, J., & Bender, A. (2010). Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. J Theor Biol, 263(1), 143-153. I'm currently working on a book that will include a chapter on dynamic systems/complex adaptive systems and degeneracy. I'd be most interested to hear other's thoughts and input on this. -- Sherman Wilcox, Ph.D. Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 505-277-0928 (v/tty) On Aug 14, 2011, at 12:00 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > Dear FUNK folks, > > After our recent discussion, prompted by Fritz Newmeyer's initial question on multi-functionality of structures, Sherm Wilcox alerted me to a vast and (seemingly) relevant literature in evolutionary biology. The standard term used in that literature-- "degeneracy" -- is a bit ugly to the ear but has a purely technical meaning: "...the ability of elements that are structurally different to perform the same function or yield the same output..." (Edelman and Gally 2001). The bio-evolutionary literature suggests that this phenomenon is not ubiquitous not only in language but also in biology, where it is increasingly regarded as a major component in the evolution of complex adaptive systems (CAS). Because of the (strange...) constraints imposed on FUNKNET posts, I cannot attach the three papers that Sherm kindly passed my way. The relevance of that literature to what we observe in language is further underscored by the fact that in language "degeneracy" is a core component of diachronic change, and is thus fundamentally a developmental phenomenon. This parallels the situation in biology, where the signigficance of "degeneracy" is seen as, primarily, evolutionary. The three papers I got from Sherm are: > > Edelmen, G.M. and J.A. Galley (2001) "Degeneracy and complexity in biological systems" PNSA, Nov. 20, 2001, vo. 98 > > Whitacre, J. M. (2010) "Degeneracy: A link between evolvability, robusness and complexity in biological systems, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 7.6 > > Mason, P.H. (2010) "Degeneracy at multiple levels of complexity", Biological Theory, 5.3 > > > Cheers, TG > > From Francoise.Rose at univ-lyon2.fr Thu Aug 25 12:35:18 2011 From: Francoise.Rose at univ-lyon2.fr (=?utf-8?Q?Fran=C3=A7oise_Rose?=) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:35:18 +0200 Subject: first grammar of Em=?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9rillon?= Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Here is some information on my recently published grammar of Em?rillon. Reference Rose, Fran?oise. 2011. Grammaire de l'?m?rillon teko, une langue tupi-guarani de Guyane fran?aise, Langues et Soci?t?s d'Am?rique traditionnelle 10, Leuven: Peeters. Summary Over the last two decades, Amazonian linguistics has greatly expanded. Many languages have recently been described and are providing typologists with new data. Within this dynamic current, this book presents a first description of the Grammar of Em?rillon Teko, a Tupi?Guarani language of French Guiana. Em?rillon is an endangered Amazonian language with an oral tradition. Spontaneous texts recorded from speakers in the field constitute the corpus used for this study. The analysis was conducted within a functional?typological approach. It aims at comparing the Em?rillon language, on the one hand, with recent typological studies and, on the other, with studies of the other Tupi?Guarani languages. The study focuses on morphology and syntax, from nominal phrases to complex sentences, with other areas such as phonology and discourse being also considered. In a typological perspective, most interesting are the cases of a hierarchical cross?referencing system, still little discussed in the typological literature, possessive nominal predicates using verbal morphology, and gerund constructions being at the origin of verb serialization. In a comparative perspective, this language seems to be an innovative member of the Tupi?Guarani family, for instance with the loss of the absolutive cross?referencing system in dependent clauses. Finally, in an areal perspective, the Em?rillon language constitutes by a number of traits a representative member of Amazonian languages. Further information http://www.peeters-leuven.be/boekoverz_print.asp?nr=8380 The grammar is written in French. Very best, Fran?oise Fran?oise ROSE Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS, Universit? Lumi?re Lyon 2) Institut des Sciences de l'Homme 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon Cedex 07 FRANCE (33) 4 72 72 64 63 http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Rose Fran?oise ROSE Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS, Universit? Lumi?re Lyon 2) Institut des Sciences de l'Homme 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon Cedex 07 FRANCE (33) 4 72 72 64 63 http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/Rose From smalamud at brandeis.edu Wed Aug 31 15:24:28 2011 From: smalamud at brandeis.edu (Sophia A. Malamud) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:24:28 -0400 Subject: reminder CfP: Information Structure and Discourse - LSA Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting Portland, Oregon, January 5-8 2012 Organized Session in memory of Ellen F. Prince: Information Structure and Discourse Ellen F. Prince was a pioneer in the field of linguistic pragmatics, producing seminal work on the typology and linguistic marking of informational status, on the discourse functions of syntactic constructions, including insights from cross linguistic studies in Yiddish and English, language contact phenomena, and the study of reference and salience in the Centering framework. In the course of her work, she also pioneered the use of naturally-occurring data in linguistic research, long predating the advent of electronic corpora. We invite submissions of papers for 20-minute talks (15 min presentation, 5 min for questions), presenting current research addressing discourse phenomena, including information structure, attentional status of linguistic expressions and their meanings, the relationship between coherence and reference, and phenomena at the discourse-syntax-semantics interface that emerge in situations of language contact and change. Research based on experimental or corpus data is particularly encouraged. Please email all submissions to the session organisers at lsa2012.prince at gmail.com. The subject of the email must be "LSA session abstract". Please include the following information in the email: -- Name, affiliation, and email address for each author -- The title of the paper The deadline for all submissions is Monday, September 5. The abstract must be anonymous and conform to the following guidelines: - Abstracts must be submitted in PDF format. - An abstract, including examples, if needed, must be no more than 1000 words and no more than two pages in length, in type no smaller than 11 point and preferably 12 point; margins should be at least .5 inches on all sides. References should be included on a third page. - Your name should only appear in the accompanying email. If you identify yourself in any way on the abstract (e.g. "In Smith (1992)...I"), the abstract will be rejected without being evaluated. In addition, be sure to anonymise your .pdf document by clicking on "File," then "Properties," removing your name if it appears in the "Author" line, and resaving before uploading it. - Abstracts that do not conform to the format guidelines will not be considered. - Your paper has not appeared in print, nor will appear before the LSA meeting. A 150 word abstract, intended for publication in the Meeting Handbook, will be requested from all authors of accepted papers. The title and authors must be the same as those in the originally submitted abstract. The deadline will be October 1. This deadline, must be observed or the paper will be withdrawn from the program. You must be an LSA member in order to present at the conference.