From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 11:16:28 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:16:28 -0500 Subject: Neural Circuits Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228151752.htm This is vxt new? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Mar 3 18:18:57 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:18:57 -0700 Subject: Neural Circuits In-Reply-To: <8906897.1299150988822.JavaMail.root@wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: As far as I can see, it's a new experimental task, and as such, it's one of a large number of experiments over the past decade that have shown that the 1-to-1 assignment of what we think of as 'processes' to particular areas of the brain is wrong.But it would have been very hard to come up with anything better than that simple idea until brain imaging became sufficiently sensitive to show the rich (but not amorphous!) patterns of activation involved in doing anything cognitive. Tom Givon pointed out on a Facebook discussion yesterday that the old picture has been successfully challenged already, and that this is not a natural task. Both are true, but that doesn't detract from its value as another piece of the new picture. Lise On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:16 AM, jess tauber wrote: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228151752.htm > > This is vxt new? > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From rjl at ehop.com Sat Mar 5 18:02:01 2011 From: rjl at ehop.com (rjl at ehop.com) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 19:02:01 +0100 Subject: Exemplar Semantics workshop Message-ID: Please find below a meeting announcement -- René-Joseph Lavie MoDyCo (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense et CNRS) rjl at ehop.com http://rjl.ehop.com 33 (0)1 4370 4467 ---- 33 (0)6 0818 6973 Cavete: SMS non accipiuntur. Je ne reçois pas de SMS. Text messages not received. =================== EXEMPLAR SEMANTICS, A ONE DAY WORKSHOPla Défense Date: March 18, 2011 (9:00 – 18:00). Location: Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, room G614. Details on this page [1]. Download the summaries [2]. The meeting is open. To facilitate the organization please state your intention to attend by sending a message to rjl AT ehop Dot com CONTEXT Exemplars have been around in psychology for thirty years. In linguistics, exemplars are promising as an alternative base for theoretical linguistics, understood as that which together seeks to account for linguistic productivity, learnability and linguistic change: exemplars would make up for the limits of abstraction-based theories. Over the last fifteen years, exemplars have been used mainly in phonology and in morphology, a little in syntax. Today, their use in semantics is just emerging. Parallel to this, philosophers propose to circumvent the shortages of Fregean descriptivism with notions such as 'object file' or 'mental file'. Exemplars and mental files both substitute one abstract entity with a set of more concrete ones. This character is shared by a number of approaches that vary however in scope, intent, and in the way they profile the exemplars and subject them to their goals. So a scene is currently building up that is promising, and that is both unitary and diverse. PURPOSE AND INTENT Survey recent advances in linguistics tending to show why exemplars are wanted in semantics and how their proponents configure them. Identify what is meant by 'exemplar' as far as semantics is concerned: is the concept univocally defined, what the different acceptations are, how they compare, what merits each has. Assess what stage different approaches have reached: programmatic / partial achievements / identified open issues / directions for progress. PROGRAMME 9-9:30 Bernard Laks (Vice Président délégué à la Recherche, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, France) Allocution de bienvenue. Les débuts des exemplaires en linguistique. (Opening address. Early history of exemplars in linguistics.) 9:30-10:30 William Croft (Professor of linguistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) Exemplar semantics: cross-linguistic and language internal evidence. 10:30-11 Break 11-12 Andrea Sansò (Professore di linguistica, Università di Insubria, Como, Italia) Exemplar semantics and diachrony, applications and open questions. 12-14 Lunch 14-15 Dominique Legallois (Maître de conférences, Université de Caen, France) Modélisation de l'interprétation abductive fondée sur des exemplaires. (Exemplar-based modelling of abductive interpretation.) 15-15:30 Agathe Cormier (Doctorante, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, France) La signification dans les _Recherches Philosophiques_ de Wittgenstein : une sémantique des occurrences pour rendre compte du savoir-faire linguistique. (Signification in Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_: a semantics of occurrences to account for linguistic know-how.) 15:30-16 Break 16-17 René-Joseph Lavie (Membre associé, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, France) Backing exemplar-based semantics to exemplar-based syntax. 17-18 General discussion. Assessment, perspectives. LANGUAGE The languages of the meeting are French and English. Links: ------ [1] http://www.modyco.fr/index.php?view=details&id=268&option=com_eventlist&Itemid=5&lang=fr [2] http://www.modyco.fr/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=524&Itemid=4&lang=fr From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 17:03:38 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:03:38 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Van linden et al. - Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Message-ID: Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Edited by An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete and Kristin Davidse University of Leuven In collaboration with Hubert Cuyckens Typological Studies in Language 94 2010. viii, 344 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0675 6 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8767 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 This collective volume focuses on the crucial role of formal evidence in recognizing and explaining instances of grammaticalization. It addresses the hitherto neglected issue of system-internal factors steering grammaticalization and also revisits formal recognition criteria such as Lehmann and Hopper’s parameters of grammaticalization. The articles investigate developments of such phenomena as modal auxiliaries, attitudinal markers, V1-conditionals, nominalizers, and pronouns, using data from a wide range of languages and (in some cases) from diachronic corpora. In the process, they explore finer mechanisms of grammaticalization such as modification of coding means, structural and semantic analogy, changes in frequency and prosody, and shifts in collocational and grammatical distribution. The volume is of particular interest to historical linguists working on grammaticalization, and general linguists working on the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics, as well as that between synchrony and diachrony. Table of contents Acknowledgements vii–viii Introduction Kristin Davidse, An Van linden and Jean-Christophe Verstraete 1–16 On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann’s parameters and the issue of scope Olga Fischer 17–42 Grammaticalization within and outside of a domain Zygmunt Frajzyngier 43–62 Delexicalizing di: How a Chinese noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer Foong Ha Yap, Fanny Pik-ling Choi and Kam-siu Cheung 63–92 Should conditionals be emergent …: Asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalization research Daan Van den Nest 93–136 From manner expression to attitudinal discourse marker: The case of Dutch anders Hans Smessaert and William Van Belle 137–190 Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change Mirjam Fried 191–224 Frequency as a cause of semantic change: With focus on the second person form omae in Japanese Shibasaki Reijirou 225–244 The role of frequency and prosody in the grammaticalization of Korean -canh- Sung-Ock Sohn 245–274 Emergence of the indefinite article: Discourse evidence for the grammaticalization of yige in spoken Mandarin Mei-chun Liu 275–288 To dare to or not to: Is auxiliarization reversible? Julia Schlüter 289–326 Author index 327–329 Index of languages and language families 331–332 Subject index 333–344 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 16:58:14 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:58:14 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Boas - Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar Message-ID: Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar Edited by Hans C. Boas University of Texas, Austin Constructional Approaches to Language 10 2010. vii, 244 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0432 5 / EUR 90.00 / USD 135.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8760 1 / EUR 90.00 / USD 135.00 The papers in this volume provide a contrastive application of Construction Grammar. By referencing a well-described constructional phenomenon in English, each paper provides a solid foundation for describing and analyzing its constructional counterpart in another language. This approach shows that the semantic description (including discourse-pragmatic and functional factors) of an English construction can be regarded as a first step towards a "tertium comparationis" that can be employed for comparing and contrasting the formal properties of constructional counterparts in other languages. Thus, the meaning pole of constructions should be regarded as the primary basis for comparisons of constructions across languages – the form pole is only secondary. This volume shows that constructions are viable descriptive and analytical tools for cross-linguistic comparisons that make it possible to capture both language-specific (idiosyncratic) properties as well as cross-linguistic generalizations. Table of contents Acknowledgments vii–viii Comparing constructions across languages Hans C. Boas 1–20 Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish Martin Hilpert 21–42 Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors Francisco Gonzálvez García 43–86 Conditional constructions in English and Russian Olga Gurevich 87–102 Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish Jaakko Leino 103–136 A contrastive study 
of the caused-motion 
and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints Napasri Timyam and Benjamin K. Bergen 137–168 On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese Yoko Hasegawa, Russell Lee-Goldman, Kyoko Hirose Ohara, Seiko Fujii and Charles J. Fillmore 169–200 Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions William Croft, Jóhanna Barddal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova and Chiaki Taoka 201–236 Index of constructions 237–238 Index of languages 239–240 Author index 241–242 Subject index 243–244 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 17:01:00 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:01:00 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Bril - Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy Message-ID: Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Syntax and pragmatics. Edited by Isabelle Bril CNRS-LACITO Studies in Language Companion Series 121 2010. viii, 632 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0588 9 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8758 8 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 This collective volume explores clause-linkage strategies in a cross-linguistic perspective with greater emphasis on subordination. Part I presents some theoretical reassessment of syntactic terminologies and distinctive criteria for subordination, as well as typological methods based on sets of variables and statistics allowing cross-linguistic comparability. Part II deals with strategies relating to clause-chaining, conjunctive conjugations, converbial constructions, masdars. Part III centers on the interaction between the syntax, pragmatics, and semantics of clause-linking and subordination, in relation to informa­tional structure, to referential hierarchy, and correlative constructions. Part IV presents insights in the clause-linking and subordinating functions of some T.A.M. markers, verbal inflectional morphology and conjugation systems, which may also interact with informa­tional hierarchy, via the backgrounding effects and lack of illocutionary force of some aspect and mood forms. The volume is of particular interest to linguists and typologists working on clause-linkage systems and on the interface between syntax, pragmatics, and semantics. Table of contents List of contributors vii–viii Editor’s introduction: The syntax and pragmatics of clause linkage and clause hierarchy: Some new perspectives Isabelle Bril 1–24 Part I. Syntactic terminology and typological methods Clause linkage and Nexus in Papuan languages William Foley 27–50 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis Balthasar Bickel 51–102 Part II. Clause-chaining, converbs, masdars, absolutive constructions, etc. Specialized converbs and adverbial subordination in Axaxdәrә Akhvakh Denis Creissels 105–142 Finite and non-finite: Prosodic distinctions on Budugh verb stems Gilles Authier 143–164 Converbs and adverbial clauses in Badaga, a South-Dravidian language Christiane Pilot-Raichoor 165–202 Coordination, converbs and clause chaining in Coptic Egyptian typology and structural analysis Chris H. Reintges 203–266 Part III. Subordination, informational hierarchy and referential hierarchy Informational and referential hierarchy: Clause-linking strategies in Austronesian-Oceanic languages Isabelle Bril 269–312 Comment clause: Crossing the boundaries between simple and complex sentences Zygmunt Frajzyngier 313–332 Deixis, information structure and clause linkage in Yafi’ Arabic (Yemen) Martine Vanhove 333–354 The role of the Berber deictic and TAM markers in dependent clauses in Zenaga Catherine Taine-Cheikh 355–398 Deixis and temporal subordinators in Pomak (Slavic, Greece) Evangelia Adamou 399–420 Correlative markers as phoric “Grammaticalised Category Markers” of subordination in German Colette Cortès 421–448 Part IV. Informational hierarchy and TAM markers’ functions in clause-linkage Focus, mood and clause linkage in Umpithamu (Cape York Peninsula, Australia) Jean-Christophe Verstraete 451–468 Clause chaining and conjugations in Wolof: A typology of parataxis and its semantics Stéphane Robert 469–498 Pragmatic demotion and clause dependency: On two atypical subordinating strategies in Lo-Toga and Hiw (Torres, Vanuatu) Alexandre François 499–548 Tense-mood concordance and clause chaining in Mankon (a Grassfields Bantu language) Jacqueline Leroy 549–580 Clause dependency relations in East Greenlandic Inuit Nicole Tersis 581–602 Coordination and subordination: Áma in Bulgarian dialectal Greek Eleni Valma 603–618 Author index 619–621 Language index 623–624 Topic index 625–632 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From language at sprynet.com Wed Mar 9 06:46:03 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:46:03 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... Message-ID: Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to understand how language works. That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a challenge I absolutely will not accept. Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as we might. All the very best! alex From hopper at cmu.edu Wed Mar 9 22:23:27 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:23:27 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <3E60EA342A414E76B5B29B4D523381E3@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 08:24:23 2011 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:24:23 -0800 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <023a67ed002b4c3b0c09c9c30bad8ddc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: I agree, Paul. These are things that have been in need of an explicit statement for a long time. Regina ________________________________ From: Paul Hopper To: alex gross Cc: Tom Givon ; Funknet Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:23:27 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From ff244 at nyu.edu Thu Mar 10 10:42:00 2011 From: ff244 at nyu.edu (Franca Ferrari-Bridgers) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:42:00 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <788829.84387.qm@web110308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe that we as linguists should use our weapons of war to argue for the survival of our discipline in the academia rather than use these weapons within our circles. Linguistics is at its lowest hiring point and soon, once the famous net warriors will retire, there flame wars will extinguish by themselves for lack of intellectual fire. Perhaps it is time to use all our flaming thoughts, weapons and words to get together and fight battles for new jobs that will bring new blood on the field. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: REGINA PUSTET Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:24:23 To: Paul Hopper; alex gross Cc: Tom Givon; Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... I agree, Paul. These are things that have been in need of an explicit statement for a long time. Regina ________________________________ From: Paul Hopper To: alex gross Cc: Tom Givon ; Funknet Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:23:27 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From thomasa.pinto at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:26:20 2011 From: thomasa.pinto at gmail.com (Thomas Pinto) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:26:20 -0700 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... Message-ID: Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ‘may not always receive as many replies as you might’ is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures than he ever had the right to do—and he has left a few traces of his activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, the UK, the US, and Holland. > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors might think twice about posting. From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Thu Mar 10 18:45:05 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:45:05 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: More stinking flaming. What is WRONG with you people? If you don't like something that someone says, why can't you say so in a civil tone? Thomas, the problem with flaming is that you make yourself look worse than the person you are castigating. You have definitely accomplished that here. I don't know you, but given what you have just written I have no desire to ever come across you. None of this is academic. There's no place for it on an academic list. If the members can't control their base urges why not either shut it down completely or block each person immediately when they send a flaming message? No need to moderate beforehand. Let them spew their venom and then forever hold their pace. Then let's get back to work. ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Thomas Pinto wrote: > Alex Gross have you ever considered why you �may not always receive as many > replies as you might� is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious > self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both > laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ > > >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures > than he ever had the right to do�and he has left a few traces of his > activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into > his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, > the UK, the US, and Holland. > > > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek > Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal > Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in > Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the > causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. > > Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and > insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a > Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp > researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least > they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not > like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. > > As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, > Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one > reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors > might think twice about posting. > From brian.nolan at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:46:54 2011 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:46:54 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Guys, This rant below is really quite inappropriate for this type of list..and very immature. Brian Sent from my iPhone ____________________ Dr. Brian Nolan On 10 Mar 2011, at 18:26, Thomas Pinto wrote: > Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ‘may not always receive as many > replies as you might’ is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious > self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both > laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ > >> A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures > than he ever had the right to do—and he has left a few traces of his > activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into > his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, > the UK, the US, and Holland. > >> Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek > Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal > Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in > Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the > causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. > > Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and > insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a > Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp > researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least > they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not > like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. > > As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, > Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one > reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors > might think twice about posting. From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Thu Mar 10 18:57:50 2011 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (v.evans at bangor.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:57:50 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Thomas, You are clearly a tosser, and you I would be happy to flame. This discussion is unhelpful. I suggest colleagues stick to the facts and the enemy. Vyv ---- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Pinto Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:26:20 To: Subject: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ‘may not always receive as many replies as you might’ is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures than he ever had the right to do—and he has left a few traces of his activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, the UK, the US, and Holland. > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors might think twice about posting. From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Mar 10 19:49:16 2011 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:49:16 -0800 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <268DA7D1-1A5A-4163-BDD8-FAD80D96BCA9@gmail.com> Message-ID: amazingly vitriolic. Please take it offline. On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Brian Nolan wrote: > Guys, > > This rant below is really quite inappropriate for this type of list..and very immature. > > Brian > > Sent from my iPhone > ____________________ > Dr. Brian Nolan > > On 10 Mar 2011, at 18:26, Thomas Pinto wrote: > >> Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ‘may not always receive as many >> replies as you might’ is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious >> self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both >> laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >> >>> A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures >> than he ever had the right to do—and he has left a few traces of his >> activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into >> his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, >> the UK, the US, and Holland. >> >>> Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek >> Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal >> Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in >> Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the >> causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. >> >> Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and >> insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a >> Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp >> researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least >> they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not >> like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. >> >> As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, >> Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one >> reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors >> might think twice about posting. From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Mon Mar 14 10:03:57 2011 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:03:57 +0000 Subject: CFP KEY 2011, Cardiff University, May 23-24 Message-ID: Please find below a reminder of the call for papers for the KEY 2011 conference. We hope you will think of joining us in Cardiff in May. best wishes Lise Fontaine and Michelle Aldridge KEY 2011: Keystroke Language (and Text) Production: perspectives from cognitive and functional linguistics 23-24 May 2011 Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales The use of keystroke logging as a methodology in language research is not a new field of study since the first Computer Keystroke Logging conference was held at Umeå University in Sweden in 2002. However to date this area of research has primarily focussed on written composition and translation studies. The KEY 2011 workshop and conference intends to broaden this perspective by extending the contributions keystroke logging can make to language production generally, including spontaneous language such as chat messaging. Its theme is to explore functional and cognitive perspectives on the use of keystroke logging in language research where the focus of interest is on the dynamic process of production rather than on the static product of language production. Keynote Speakers Professor Kristyan Spelman Miller (University of Winchester) Dr Mick O’Donnell (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and Wagsoft Software) Call for papers Papers are invited on the general theme of the conference, dealing with the use of keystroke logging in linguistic and language-related research. Presentations will be 20 minutes with 10 minutes discussion time. Papers which present work in progress or that focus on software development and methodology are also welcome. Although we will consider all contributions that relate to the main theme in general, we especially encourage papers that explore: ·Evidence of cognitive processing in electronic language production ·Corpora and the study of electronically produced language ·Language or text as dynamic process (rather than static product) ·Human-Computer Interaction as related to language and keyboard competence ·Linguistic competence (including translation competence) ·Descriptive work that enhances our understanding of electronically produced language ·Functional accounts of language production (including manual and cognitive errors) ·Methodological and/or ethical issues in the use of keystroke logging software Abstracts An abstract of approximately 400 words should be submitted electronically at the following webpage: http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/KEY2011. Please state, where appropriate, research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. Abstracts will be refereed anonymously by members of the programme committee. The deadline for submissions is 16 March 2011. Notification will be sent to authors by 4 April 2011. KEY2011 website: http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/newsandevents/events/conferences/key2011/ email: linc-network at cf.ac.uk From sclancy at uchicago.edu Mon Mar 14 18:31:29 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:31:29 -0500 Subject: Final CFP: EMCL-5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) — Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 – 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – EMCL 5.2 – to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 – 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively – one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The original application deadline is 15 March 2011, but we will continue to accept applications through the extended deadline of 22 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From fjn at u.washington.edu Tue Mar 15 22:50:25 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:50:25 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity Message-ID: Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 ama01 at uni-koeln.de Wed Mar 16 11:34:29 2011 From: ama01 at uni-koeln.de (ama01 at uni-koeln.de) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:34:29 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. Best, Bernd > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related > change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the > language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the > resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the > formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in > English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English > grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather > than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think > of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --fritz From harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 08:20:49 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:20:49 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz – When I saw your invitation – (whose results I’d certainly be interested in having you sum up!) – it occurred to me that it might be useful if you said a few more words about your take on complexity. >>From one perspective (cf. Dahl 2004 on the growth of linguistic complexity) the overall result of the rise of a new grammatical item is inevitably more complexity: the grammar of the language now needs to have another paragraph. >>From another perspective (cf. Roberts and Rousseau 2003), the change from lexical to grammatical (‘functional’) status inevitably involves an element of simplification, cf. the familiar ‘attrition’ processes. The way I see it, complexity has logical priority: When grammar arose phylogenetically, the key change was that utterances became structurally complex. Later, processes of grammaticalization may serve to simplify some complex structures (as when in Danish så Gud hjælpe mig ‘so God help me’ ends up as the particle sgu.). But note that the language still gets an extra grammatical element out of it. Peter Harder, University of Copenhagen Peter Harder Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________________ Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Frederick J Newmeyer [fjn at u.washington.edu] Sendt: 15. marts 2011 23:50 Til: Funknet Emne: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk Wed Mar 16 09:44:09 2011 From: BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk (Tom Bartlett) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:09 +0000 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How about when our ancestors moved from holistic cries to two-item complexes? Tom. From: Frederick J Newmeyer To: Funknet Date: 16/03/2011 03:09 Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Sent by: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Wed Mar 16 12:28:55 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:28:55 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I sent the text below a little while ago as a personal message to Fritz, but I see now that I had better post it to the list. ----------------------------------- "Obligatorification", the process by which markers and markings become obligatory, is usually seen as a central part of grammaticalization. In particular, if a lexical item turns into an obligatory grammatical marker, this would ceteris paribus increase the complexity of grammar -- a language with a certain grammatical marker has a more complex grammar than one without it, on any definition of complexity. For instance, the modern Germanic and Romance languages have articles -- early Germanic and Latin did not, so in this respect the modern languages have more complex grammars than their ancestors. The relationship is obscured by the fact that usually many things go on at once, and that often, it may seem that a newly introduced marker replaces an old one, in which case there is no obvious increase in complexity (maybe there will rather be a decrease, if the new system is simpler than the old one). So you may still have to choose your examples a bit carefully. In the case of the West European articles, people may say "well but the modern languages lost their case systems" -- although that is not true for all of them (such as German, Icelandic, and other conservative North Germanic varieties). If you don't want to argue about such situations, you could take an example like English reflexives -- Old English had got rid of the old Indo-European reflexives in s- (like German sich), and did not distinguish 'He washed him' and 'He washed himself'. (Apparently Frisian still does not.) So this would have been a simplification of the grammar, which was later reverted by the introduction of the new reflexives in -self. Your formulation "however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user" suggests that you think of grammaticalization as a process driven by users' conscious needs. While that may be true of the initial stages of a grammaticalization process, I think it is not an adequate description of grammaticalization in general. In particular, obligatorification means that speakers lose the possibility of choosing between two alternatives, and so are worse off. You might want to look at my 2004 book "The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity" (Benjamins), where I discuss these and similar questions extensively. Best, Östen > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet- > bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: den 15 mars 2011 23:50 > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, > however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, > ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical > system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct > grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. > One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there > are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. > Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 amnfn at well.com Wed Mar 16 12:40:06 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:40:06 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, The way you describe what you are looking for, any kind of split, whether phonological, morphological or syntactic, would be such a grammaticalization-related increase in complexity. So when a stop becomes a fricative in specific environments, that increases the complexity of the phonological system. When a lexeme is recruited as a grammatical marker for a new category, say leich/li/ly to adjectival/adverbial marker, there is increased complexity. When a change in word order, which used to be optional, like putting the verb first, becomes marked for semantic purposes, like question formation, then that increases the grammatical complexity. Of course, all these changes usually result in a loss of complexity somewhere else in the language. --Aya On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, > ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical >system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct >grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of >verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because >there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct >properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other >languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Mar 16 13:04:58 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:04:58 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <20110316123429.14987d2dsc0dz1ol@webmail.uni-koeln.de> Message-ID: Dear Bernd and Fritz, languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of explicitness' instead.... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > Best, > Bernd > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --fritz > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From dan at daneverett.org Wed Mar 16 13:13:40 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:13:40 -0400 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: What Wolfgang says here is true and it is perennial source of confusion in some grammars. As readers of this list know, it is quite possible for a language to use a semantic category without expressing that category formally in the lexicon or morphology. So claiming that a language lacks a past tense or definiteness distinctions (or numbers, or recursivity, etc) in the morphology doesn't mean that they lack it in the semantics or vice-versa. That is one reason why it is so difficult to answer Fritz's question - we need to be clear what we mean by 'grammar' by 'complexity' and so on. And on the general subject of complexity, Osten's book is one of those that should be read by all (as well Tom Givon's on grammatical complexity). Dan On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Wolfgang Schulze wrote: > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. From harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 13:57:57 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:57:57 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang - Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Peter Harder Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________________ Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sendt: 16. marts 2011 14:04 Til: ama01 at uni-koeln.de Cc: Funknet; Frederick J Newmeyer Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Dear Bernd and Fritz, languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of explicitness' instead.... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > Best, > Bernd > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --fritz > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Wed Mar 16 15:17:55 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:17:55 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461A@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter and others, This is a very important observation. David Kronenfeld -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html On 3/16/2011 6:57 AM, Peter Harder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang - > > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: > > In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. > > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. > > Peter Harder > Professor, dr.phil. > telf. +45 35 32 86 09 > Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies > University of Copenhagen > DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 > Copenhagen S > ________________________________________ > Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] > Sendt: 16. marts 2011 14:04 > Til: ama01 at uni-koeln.de > Cc: Funknet; Frederick J Newmeyer > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that > speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. > All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to > symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article > system is not of the type X> X + Y, but rather X:Y> X + Y. A rise in > complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic > explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of > 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' > (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of > language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but > constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not > (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon > (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic > categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that > there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). > However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state > that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is > more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering > another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But > this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number > of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with > respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such > sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and > thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument > around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' > something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one > may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered > even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially > functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, > typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard > ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and > many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in > linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I > prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of > explicitness' instead.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: >> Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to >> come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible >> for an increase in overall complexity of the type X> X + Y. It all >> depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". >> But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and >> definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are >> many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. >> Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic >> and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is >> well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one'> indefinite >> article, and demonstrative attribute> definite article, >> respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in >> overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean >> that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If >> you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. >> Best, >> Bernd >> >>> Funknetters, >>> >>> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >>> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >>> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >>> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >>> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >>> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >>> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >>> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >>> other/better examples from other languages? >>> >>> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >>> >>> --fritz >> >> > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut für Allgemeine& Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München > > Ludwigstraße 25 > > D-80539 München > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend > den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren > sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder > etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Mar 16 17:24:13 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:24:13 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I probably did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. One category splitting into two (the example I gave) increases complexity in one way (a bigger inventory of categories results), but perhaps not in other ways, particularly if the new category encodes a coherent semantic class. Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) are irregular in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that class. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 17:24:37 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:24:37 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80EA16.9030607@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang - Thank you taking up this discussion of principle (which David and I believe is important!) Thank you also for your clarifying comments, which show that the disagreement is different from what I thought. I think the issue comes out best in the following comment (PH1:) These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - (WS comment:) Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? PH2: you take 'complex' to equal 'difficult' - and that was not the intended meaning. The point I wanted to make was that there was an inherent complexity in the language, e.g. in the agreement system (which you implicitly agree with in your comment above) - which need not have anything to do with cognitive difficulty, your native Navajo being a plausible illustration of this. (The issue of complexity and difficulty is dealt with in Dahl 2004:39). Based on the implicit agreement, it appears we should also be able to agree that you can measure complexity of language (as a phenomenon!) provided you take care not to draw simplistic conclusions about cognitive capacity or difficulty from such descriptions. Best, Peter Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________ Fra: Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sendt: 16. marts 2011 17:49 Til: Peter Harder Cc: Funknet Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Dear Peter, these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: Right! In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Sure, there is not doubt about this! Best wishes, Wolfgang -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Mar 16 16:49:26 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:49:26 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461A@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter, these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. > After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: Right! > In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. > These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. > and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. > In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. > Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Sure, there is not doubt about this! Best wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Mar 16 19:05:34 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:05:34 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Maybe not, but it's pretty tough to explain definiteness to a native speaker of Japanese or Russian, even if their knowledge of a language with articles is generally pretty good. I've spent enough time trying to do this to be skeptical of claims that these people really do know the concept of definiteness. Best, John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that > speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. > All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to > symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article > system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in > complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic > explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of > 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' > (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of > language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but > constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not > (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon > (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic > categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that > there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). > However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state > that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is > more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering > another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But > this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number > of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with > respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such > sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and > thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument > around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' > something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one > may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered > even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially > functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, > typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard > ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and > many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in > linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I > prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of > explicitness' instead.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > > Best, > > Bernd > > > >> Funknetters, > >> > >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related > >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the > >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the > >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the > >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in > >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English > >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather > >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of > >> other/better examples from other languages? > >> > >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > >> > >> --fritz > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut f�r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitהt M�nchen > > Ludwigstra�e 25 > > D-80539 M�nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch�tzte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrt�mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend > den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren > sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder > etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhהnge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f�r jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Wed Mar 16 18:04:46 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:04:46 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, In that case, it seems you are looking for an increase in irregularity, which would be a decrease in rule-based phenomena. So by complexity, you mean more things to memorize, fewer things to decode? --Aya On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I probably > did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. One category > splitting into two (the example I gave) increases complexity in one way (a > bigger inventory of categories results), but perhaps not in other ways, > particularly if the new category encodes a coherent semantic class. > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of > grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical > example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns grammaticalizing into > prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) > are irregular in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that > class. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant >> grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the >> distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a >> subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex >> because there are two categories rather than one and each have very >> distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other >> languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --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 david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Wed Mar 16 18:46:13 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:46:13 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461D@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter and Wolfgang, First, thanks for the exchange--I am learning much from it ! Second, let me offer that language can be seen as a system of variously interacting subsystems (where "interacting" means that the subsystems are not totally independent of one another). One can, I think, speak reasonably of (and thus evaluate) the complexity of each of those subsystems--and of the learning/coding problems that each presents (whether in absolute terms or relative to some other specific already known system). In principle one can put those separate complexities together into some net evaluation, but with an awareness of two problems: a) while we know the major subsystems, I am not so certain we have down all the more minor ones (sub-subsystems and such), and b) the "variously interacting" relations among the subsystems--i.e., their degrees of non-independence--make the putting together tricky. Best, David On 3/16/2011 10:24 AM, Peter Harder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang - > > > > Thank you taking up this discussion of principle (which David and I believe > > is important!) Thank you also for your clarifying comments, which show that > > the disagreement is different from what I thought. I think the issue comes out > > best in the following comment > > (PH1:) These affordances/constraints may be more or less > > complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples > > of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - > > > > (WS comment:) Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? > > PH2: you take 'complex' to equal 'difficult' - and that was not the intended meaning. The point I wanted to make was that there was an inherent complexity in the language, e.g. in the agreement system (which you implicitly agree with in your comment above) - which need not have anything to do with cognitive difficulty, your native Navajo being a plausible illustration of this. (The issue of complexity and difficulty is dealt with in Dahl 2004:39). > > Based on the implicit agreement, it appears we should also be able to agree that you can measure complexity of language (as a phenomenon!) provided you take care not to draw simplistic conclusions about cognitive capacity or difficulty from such descriptions. > > Best, > Peter > > > Professor, dr.phil. > telf. +45 35 32 86 09 > Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies > University of Copenhagen > DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 > Copenhagen S > ________________________________ > Fra: Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] > Sendt: 16. marts 2011 17:49 > Til: Peter Harder > Cc: Funknet > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Dear Peter, > these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): > > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is > > identical to cognitive complexity. > > No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. > > After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a > > natural assumption to make, and this also makes it > > is worth putting a question mark against it: > > > Right! > > In addition to being the possession of an individual, > > a language is also a set of social affordances for > > and constraints on making yourself understood. > > Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. > > These affordances/constraints may be more or less > > complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples > > of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - > > > > Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. > > and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. > > What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. > > In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. > > > Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. > > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. > > I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. > > Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. > > > Sure, there is not doubt about this! > > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Institut für Allgemeine& Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > Dept. II / F 13 > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München > Ludwigstraße 25 > D-80539 München > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. > -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Mar 16 23:34:59 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:34:59 -0600 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz & all, I think Fritz has once again raised a beautiful question that, as before, can also be a can of warms. I will try to say something about the narrower question he posed in his second message, but I think the way several people took the discussion may be interesting enough to maybe merit going first. One way of looking at the topic is comparing the two extremes of pre-grammatical (pidgin) communication and grammaticalized language, then asking (as some of you have alluded): Is there a difference between "complexity of the linguistic signal system as analyzed by the linguists" and "complexity of the cognitive task for the speaker/hearer"? Take grammatical morphology first: Pidgin communication with no def/indef articles for nouns & no TAM markers for verbs seems--to us--simpler. Fewer coded distinctions. But to the speaker/hearer the processing task is more difficult, requiring more scanning & analyzing of the context--lexical, propositional, discourse, social, etc. So, when a hearer needs to decide whether "horse" is a first introduction (indef, presentative) or accessible/predictable (def), s/he cannot rely on morphological clues & make automated decisions, but has to spend much more time & mental effort on contextual scanning & analysis. And likewise, is "run"--past, future, present, habitual etc.? Same with syntactic construction: In Bambara &Old Hittite, REL clauses look like conjoined/chained clauses, only intonation might furnish some clues. So the decision how to interpret the information--as asserted or presupposed--require contextual analysis, rather than grammatical clues. Again, the system as it looks to the linguist is simpler, fewer coded clause-types. But the processing task--at least to the hearer--is more complex, in a sense that more sources of information need to b e considered. Lastly, Fritz's narrowed-down question: There is a difference between early & late grammaticalization. The former is communicatively-driven & create relatively clean morphological systems. The latter is largely phonologically driven, with the advent of de-stressing & assimilation rules, and creates irregularities, morphophonemics &, eventually, total zeroing of grammatical morphology. This is the so-called "cycle". So if I can interpret Fritz's narrow question, the answer is that ALL grammaticalization in its later stages results in such "complexity". Best, TG ====================== On 3/16/2011 11:24 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I > probably did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. > One category splitting into two (the example I gave) increases > complexity in one way (a bigger inventory of categories results), but > perhaps not in other ways, particularly if the new category encodes a > coherent semantic class. > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the > result of grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As > a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns > grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant > prepositions (or whatever) are irregular in some way with respect to > other pre-existing members of that class. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --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 W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Mar 17 07:58:44 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:58:44 +0100 Subject: Complexity and Decoding In-Reply-To: <1300302334.4d8109fe10eed@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, maybe that it is useful to divide the current discussion into two topics (as illustrated in Tom's posting). Here, I want to take up just the general issue of complexity. John's remarks are a very helpful point to start with: > (...) but it's pretty tough to explain definiteness to a native speaker of > Japanese or Russian, even if their knowledge of a language with > articles is > generally pretty good. I've spent enough time trying to do this to be > skeptical > of claims that these people really do know the concept of definiteness. Well, I've made the same experience when working with speakers of say Slovak or of some languages of the Eastern Caucasus. Nevertheless, I hesitate subscribing to your final conclusion: It is intimately related to the question whether the givenness of mental concepts is dependent from their linguistic symbolization and thus touches upon the problem of linguistic relativity. Personally, I take the stance that mental concepts cannot be learned as such by assimilating corresponding linguistic symbols. Rather, I assume that during L1-acquisition, given mental (dynamic) concepts become by and by elaborated, specified, metaphorized and 'networked' due to the individual entrenchment of conventionalized sets of linguistic symbols. Some of these conceptual domains may evolve into seemingly 'new' concepts, others remain rather basic. The individual's reference towards its own knowledge state (memory) maybe one of those basic features that an individual cannot escape from (else, human cognition wouldn't work the way it works). So, in case an individual activates a referential concept, (s)he will probably always co-activate some kind of reference towards 'givenness' or 'newness' or 'typicity' (that is some kind of conceptual (in)definiteness). The only question is whether the individual has at his/her disposal practices to refer to this type of conceptual (in)definiteness in terms of linguistic symbols. This goes together with the question whether a language community has conventionalized this way of reference or not. Naturally, the more a mental concept has become symbolized via language, the more an individual may become conscious of this concept. But this does not mean that it is inexistent without. Also, I'm not fully convinced by the empirical scenario you have referred to. Normally, native speakers (not trained in linguistic categorization e.g. via L2-acquisition, schooling etc.) do not have any pronounced, conscious and 'active' knowledge of such categories as linguistic (in)definiteness (just ask a linguistically unbiased, rudimentarily schooled person in the street whether (s)he knows what is 'dative' is, or what the meaning is of (say) German -t in 'sag-t' (says).Probably, you won't get an answer. But this does not mean that the speaker does not 'know' the corresponding semantics in terms of linguistic practice). If you try to explain a linguistic category to a native speaker who has already experienced a linguistic training (be it in terms of L2-acquisition or else), (s)he will logically start from his/her categorial knowledge and try to find it in the system under question. But then, the candidate is no longer that type of 'naive' speaker we normally need to disclose linguistic knowledge. Also, the point you have made again has to do with the opposition 'producer/perceiver': The producer of a sentence like Russian /c(elovek uvidel z(ens(c(inu v ulice/ (person sees woman in street) will surely know for him/herself, whether (s)he refers to 'a person' or 'the/that person', to 'a woman' or 'the/that woman', to 'a street' or 'the/that street'. The problem lies on the side of the perceiver. (S)he will have to refer to other symbols, context, and situational features to decide whether to parse 'a' or 'the' (there are many such indirect symbolizations and clues in every chain of utterances articulated in which language so ever, I guess), confer Tom's posting: > So, when a hearer needs to decide whether "horse" is a first > introduction (indef, presentative) or accessible/predictable (def), > s/he cannot rely on morphological clues & make automated decisions, > but has to spend much more time & mental effort on contextual scanning > & analysis. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the perceiver has to spend more time and mental effort on scanning etc. A perceiver is normally confronted with a sequence of utterances that (idealiter) has its proper starting point (being sometimes replaced by situational features). Hence, when a speaker starts talking about a horse the perceiver memorizes (at least in short term memory) the 'first occurrence' of 'horse' indexing it automatically by 'indefiniteness' (or so). The next mentioning of the 'horse' automatically activates the indexed version of the horse changing the index to 'definite' or so. Hence, there is a blend of 'referential entity' with 'type/time of memory activation' that necessarily and automatically produces a feature of conceptual (in)definiteness/typicity etc. In a sense, language specific, conventionalized and fine-grained strategies of applying linguistic symbols for (in)definiteness/typicity etc. 'overspecify' the conceptual layer of (in)definiteness/typicity etc. Such strategies are not necessary, but part of the conventionalization of linguistic practices that organize chains of memory appeal. Perhaps, complexity can be related to this aspect of overspecification: Linguistic structures and symbolic sets that overspecify a given conceptual domain (by exceeding a certain a certain threshold value) may be termed 'more complex' than those that are more close to the 'prototypical' specification of this domain.... Bes wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From delancey at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 17 06:52:58 2011 From: delancey at uoregon.edu (scott delancey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:52:58 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of grammaticalization is more > irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns > grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) are irregular > in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that class. But that's always how it happens. Various verbs or nouns make their individual way toward the adposition class, each at its own pace, so that many members or incipient members of the category have idiosyncratic sets of noun- or verb-like behaviors. The classic study, dealing with the verb-adposition cline, is Li and Thompson's "Coverbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions?" in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1974; for a study of the development of denominal adpositions, see my "Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese" in the Givón festschrift. For an example connected with the history of English modals, which was a similarly piecemeal process, as Frans Plank has shown, look at the motley set of English quasi-auxiliaries -- be gonna, usta, ('d) better, etc. -- each with its own unique distributional properties. (The classic study is Bolinger's "Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries" in Wege zur Universalien Forschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. How else could you imagine this happening? -- Scott DeLancey Department of Linguistics University of Oregon 1290 Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA 541-346-3901 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Mar 17 10:16:05 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:16:05 +0200 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <4D81BF34.9050707@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. Thanks, John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Mar 17 10:45:38 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:45:38 +0100 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <1300356965.4d81df656662e@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, for sake of simplicity, let me quote from Wikipedia that has the basic information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_language) "In Russia, Church Slavonic - which evolved from Old Church Slavonic - remained the literary language until the Petrine age (1682-1725), when its usage shrank drastically to biblical and liturgical texts. Legal acts and private letters had been, however, already written in pre-Petrine Muscovy in a less formal language, more closely reflecting spoken Russian. The first grammar of the Russian language was written by Vasily Adodurov in the 1740s, and a more influential one by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1755." It goes on saying: "After the disestablishment of the "Tartar yoke" (...) in the late 14th century, both the political centre and the predominant dialect in European Russia came to be based in Moscow. A scientific consensus exists that Russian and Ruthenian (the predecessor of Belarusian and Ukrainian) had definitely become distinct by this time at the latest (according to some linguists and historians, even earlier). The official language in Russia remained a kind of Church Slavonic until the close of the 18th century, but, despite attempts at standardization, as by Meletius Smotrytsky c. 1620, its purity was by then strongly compromised by an incipient secular literature". "At the same time [starting with the political reforms by Peter the Great, W.S.], there began explicit attempts to fashion a modern literary language as a compromise between Church Slavonic, the native vernacular, and the style of Western Europe. (...). During the 19th century, the standard language assumed its modern form." Naturally, there are much elaborated treatments available, but according to my knowledge, these quotes go into the right direction (leaving enough space for sometimes heated debates among Slavicists).... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 17.03.2011 11:16, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > Dear Funknetters, > I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know > when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? > For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. > Thanks, > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 12:52:35 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:52:35 -0400 Subject: Linguistics in the news Message-ID: I thought these might be of interest...the end of TED presentation (and comments at the website) along with the end of the science daily article are also interesting in terms of the language of "profit driven research" and the language of "curiosity driven research"...the attitudes of the public towards such research (via the comments) are also interesting though not surprising... *Science Daily* (Mar. 15, 2011) — Learning a foreign language literally changes the way we see the world, according to new research. Panos Athanasopoulos, of Newcastle University, has found that bilingual speakers think differently to those who only use one language. And you don't need to be fluent in the language to feel the effects -- his research showed that it is language use, not proficiency, which makes the difference. Working with both Japanese and English speakers, he looked at their language use and proficiency, along with the length of time they had been in the country, and matched this against how they perceived the colour blue. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.htm ----------------------------------------------- Why I taped my son's childhood By *Deb Roy*, Special to CNN *Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN)* -- Little did I know that studying how my son learned to speak would come to this: a TED Talk gone viral, partially thanks to Ashton Kutcherand his 6 million Twitter followers -- and a technology platform that may change the way we understand social, political and commercial communications. Six years ago, my wife and I, speech and cognitive scientists respectively, wanted to understand how a child learned language comprehensively and naturally, since most theories on language acquisition were grounded in surprisingly incomplete observational data. In my academic work, which involves teaching machines to learn and speak, a data-based understanding of language development is crucial -- as it is to my wife's work in studying speech disorders. So we decided to create a data set to study. A really, really big data set. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/13/roy.tapes.childhood/index.html?hpt=T2 From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Mar 17 18:33:36 2011 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:33:36 -0700 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <1300356965.4d81df656662e@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I am currently in Belarus on a Fulbright. I will try to find out. On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:16 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know > when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? > For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. > Thanks, > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 17 19:10:10 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:10:10 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Complexity Message-ID: I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG ============================ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Complexity Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 From: A.Gianto To: Tom Givon The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-ø (=zero); jussive: yaktub-ø, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story goes on. The narrative yaktub-ø, however, still looked very much like the imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-ø to stand in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always clause initial. The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization process to the basics. Gus From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Mar 18 12:07:50 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:07:50 +0200 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? Tahir -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Mar 18 12:08:16 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:08:16 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D825C92.5080905@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Just a few remarks concerning Agustinus Gianto's comments posted by Tom: Agustinus has drawn our attention to a set of very interesting data. Nevertheless, I dare to say that - as far as I know - the whole scenario of how the Hebrew (and West Semitic) tense/aspect/mood forms have developed is rather complex and perhaps a bit more complex that described by Agustinus. I understand that he has spoken of just a "skeletal picture", but in order to relate this picture to the question of complexity, some additional comments might be helpful (and necessary) (I'm sure that Agustinus is well aware of all these arguments, but maybe that they are of some help to the Funknet community): > The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a > grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, > Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite > path. > > The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called > "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to > handle the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels > /a,i,u/ at the end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence > (cf. Arabic) suggests that the prefix conjugation in this earlier > stage had at least four forms, i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, > narrative yaktub-ø (=zero); jussive: yaktub-ø, optative yaktub-a. (The > narrrative and jussive have the same form but they have a > complementary distribution.) According to my knowledge, a 'co-existence' of the two 'aspect'-like forms yaktub-u ('imperfective') and yaktub-ø ('perfective/narrative') is mainly reconstructed for Ugarit. The form yaktub-ø seems to have been the original form of the 'perfective > narrative' as illustrated by the Accadian perfective 'iprus'-paradigm (competing with the imperfective 'iparras'-paradigm). Most likely, the zero-form also functioned as a 'jussive' in given contexts. The -u-paradigm (the yaktub-u type) probably emerged from an older 'relative/subordinating' paradigm (marked by *-u, as in Akkadian) that could be added to both perfective and imperfective forms (Accadian iprus-u (perfective, relative), iparras-u (imperfective, relative). The 'dynamic' pair iprus(-u)/iparras(-u) stood in opposition to a stative-like, more nominal construction based on some kind of participle (the Accadian paris- ~ paras- ~ parus-type), that later on turned into the standard suffix conjugation (the kataba-type). So, what we have is first a merger of the iprus/iparras-forms (due to phonetic and accentual reasons) in Late West Semitic, resulting in the generalization of the imperfective function, but using the simple iprus-type. However, the underlying perfective notion of the iprus-type still competed with the new perfective paris-type. Hence the augmented form (the relative form marked by -u) had been taken to mark this new imperfective, probably also because in subordinated clauses, the imperfective fucntion conveying background information prevailed. Although the processes alluded to above sound rather complex, they do not suggest - in my eyes - a rise in complexity, but simply a shift in paradigmatic organization. The two basic domains, perfective (~ telic) and imperfective (~ atelic) had been present in all stages of these processes. In addition, the processes to not introduce new material, but simply rearrange given paradigms and sub-functions. Now, as for the processes in Hebrew itself: > When the final short vowels dropped, the forms risk to get confused > with one another and their special use got compromised. In Hebrew, > yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized as the imperfect form in BH. Well, this has not been the case for all verb forms. Some verbs still retain the opposition -imperfective vs. zero-jussive: There are 'Hifil' verb stems (when occurring without a further suffix) that have an -î- or -û- following the second radical in the imperfective, but -ê- or -ô- in the jussive (compare yaxtêv (3sg:M:JUSS) vs. yaxtîv (3Sg:M:IMPERF). Crucially, the waw-consecutivum construction mentioned by Agustinus takes up this opposition if given, confer: wa-yyaxtêv (wa-cons.) vs. simple yaxtîv. In this context, Agustinus assumes: > The narrative yaktub-ø, however, still looked very much like the > imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-ø to > stand in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a > conjunction wa- was prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol > ("converted imperfect") is always clause initial. As far as I know, the waw-consecutivum construction is not bound to imperfective verb forms. Rather, it basically marks a consecutive clause, preceded by a clause in either the prefective or the imperfective. There is some kind of crossing principle: If the first clause is perfective, then the second clause takes the imperfective wa-consecutivum construction (then having a perfective function). But if the first clause is imperfective, then the second clause takes the perfective waw-consecutivum construction (then having an imperfective function) (sure, with many exceptions). Only in a later stage, the imperfective-based waw-consecutivum construction became possible also in text initial sequences.Hence, the waw-consecutivum construction did not elaborate the narrative function of the older *yaktub-form, but showed up as a general option to mark secondary elements in a chain of subsequent event images (quite parallel to Arabic fa-). In addition, the fact that the 'imperfective' waw-consecutivum construction makes use of the jussive paradigm (if different) suggests that it has started from the zero-form *yaktub, and not from the newer imperfective form *yaktub-u. Now, as for the so-called 'optative' yaktub-a (better perhaps: finalis): > The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a > was dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. As far as I know there is hardly any evidence available that Hebrew ever knew the Arabic-like -a-finalis. The history of this element is rather obscure. Some people think of relating it to the so-called 'status energicus' of Arabic, South Arabic, and Ugarit etc. (-an) that would have dropped its -n just as it is true with 'nunated' and 'non-nunated' forms of nouns (e.g. Arabic bait-u-n 'a house' vs. al-bait-u 'the house'). But this is more like a guess.... > The strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its > 2nd and 3rd persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized > into what BH grammar calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we > wish to write'. Well, it should be kept in mind that the so-called cohortative (marked by the 'he cohortativum/voluntativum/paragogicum') is -â, and not -a. This cohortative (which may (rarey) occur, by the way, with the 2.Sg imperative and 3Sg:M imperfective, too) has occasionally been related to the above-mentioned status energicus (-â < -an). But again, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to set up a final decision. In other words: The cohortative simply continues would seems to have been given already in Late West Semitic (or even beyond). To sum up: I cannot fully understand, why > BH opted for an ever complex grammaticalization As far as I can see, there are no new grammatical categories that would have emerged in Hebrew via grammaticalization. The loss of final -u did not condition the creation of such a new category. Whether Hebrew ever knew the structure yaktub-a remains controversial. Thus, the paradigms at issue did not single out in a number of new sub-paradigms (idealiter addressing 'new' functional domains) but are simply marked for functional re-arrangment. Best wishes, Wolfgang -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Mar 18 06:27:23 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:27:23 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D825C92.5080905@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: But this is another example of how it isn't clear what it means to be 'more complex'. The Biblical Hebrew tense/aspect system distinguished between verbal forms which have almost completely fallen together morphologically but maintained radically different functions (not just the 'imperfect' but also the 'perfect') by having one occur only in clause-initial position prefixed with va- (and) and the other occur only in non-clause-initial position. As someone who has worked with this language a lot and gotten used to it, it isn't at all clear to me that this system is more complex than the one that preceded it. More typologically unusual, certainly. But why is it more 'complex' to make a distinction by prefixing a conjunction than by suffixing an agreement/tense-aspect marker? John Quoting Tom Givon : > > > I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is > not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG > > ============================ > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Complexity > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 > From: A.Gianto > To: Tom Givon > > > > The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a > grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, > Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. > > > > The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called > "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle > the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the > end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests > that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, > i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-ר (=zero); jussive: > yaktub-ר, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form > but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels > dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special > use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized > as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that > introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story > goes on. The narrative yaktub-ר, however, still looked very much like the > imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-ר to stand > in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was > prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always > clause initial. > > > > The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was > dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The > strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd > persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar > calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. > > > > At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old > imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative > *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called > narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive > and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are > now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. > > > > The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH > and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex > grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization > process to the basics. > > Gus > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Mar 18 13:59:59 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:59:59 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <1300429643.4d82fb4b8d727@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. As Givón and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 14:41:31 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:41:31 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <1300429643.4d82fb4b8d727@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I agree. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > But this is another example of how it isn't clear what it means to be > 'more complex'. The Biblical Hebrew tense/aspect system distinguished > between verbal forms which have almost completely fallen together > morphologically but maintained radically different functions (not > just the 'imperfect' but also the 'perfect') by having one occur only > in clause-initial position prefixed with va- (and) and the other > occur only in non-clause-initial position. As someone who has worked > with this language a lot and gotten used to it, it isn't at all > clear to me that this system is more complex than the one that > preceded it. More typologically unusual, certainly. But why is it > more 'complex' to make a distinction by prefixing a conjunction than > by suffixing an agreement/tense-aspect marker? > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > >> >> >> I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is >> not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG >> >> ============================ >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Complexity >> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 >> From: A.Gianto >> To: Tom Givon >> >> >> >> The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a >> grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, >> Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. >> >> >> >> The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called >> "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle >> the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the >> end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests >> that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, >> i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-ר (=zero); jussive: >> yaktub-ר, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form >> but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels >> dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special >> use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized >> as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that >> introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story >> goes on. The narrative yaktub-ר, however, still looked very much like the >> imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-ר to stand >> in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was >> prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always >> clause initial. >> >> >> >> The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was >> dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The >> strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd >> persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar >> calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. >> >> >> >> At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old >> imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative >> *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called >> narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive >> and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are >> now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. >> >> >> >> The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH >> and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex >> grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization >> process to the basics. >> >> Gus >> >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 14:40:34 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:40:34 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D836724.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Tahir, I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? > Tahir > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 14:45:11 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:45:11 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D83655F.4060605@panix.com> Message-ID: This is an important point. As Ong and Goody have shown, literacy can affect grammar in interesting ways. That is another example, by the way, of culture playing a direct role in shaping (at least parts of) grammars. Dan On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. > > As Givón and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. > > I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > From sclancy at uchicago.edu Fri Mar 18 18:40:19 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:40:19 -0500 Subject: SCLC 2011 - Second call for papers Message-ID: American University (Washington, DC, USA) and the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association present THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION (SCLC-2011) October 14-16, 2011 American University (Washington, DC, USA) The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the Call for Papers for the 2011 annual conference. The conference will be held on the campus of American University (Washington, DC, USA) on Friday, October 14 through Sunday, October 16, 2011. Keynote speakers: Gilles Fauconnier, UC San Diego Jacques Moeschler, Université de Genève Naomi Baron, American University CALL FOR PAPERS Abstracts are invited for presentations addressing issues of significance for cognitive linguistics with some bearing on data from the Slavic languages. As long as there is a cognitive orientation, papers may be on synchronic or diachronic topics in any of the traditional areas of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, or sociolinguistics. In addition to the Slavic Languages, relevant papers on other languages of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also acceptable. Abstracts may be submitted up until the deadline of April 8, 2011 to sclcAbstracts at gmail.com. Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2011. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf file as an attachment to an email message with “SCLC abstract submission” in the subject headline. Abstracts should be anonymous, but the author’s name, affiliation and contact information should be included in the email message. Most presentations at SCLC are given in English, but may be in the native (Slavic) language of the presenter. However, if the presentation is not to be made in English we ask that you provide an abstract in English in addition to an abstract in any other SCLA language. Each presentation will be given 20 minutes and will be followed by a 10-minute discussion period. FURTHER INFORMATION Information on transportation, accommodations, and the conference venue will be forthcoming. Please see the organization and conference websites for further information: http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla http://www.american.edu/cas/sclc/index.cfm If you have questions, contact Alina Israeli (aisrael at AMERICAN.EDU>) or Tore Nesset (tore.nesset at uit.no). We hope you will be able to join us for SCLC-2011. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. Sincerely, Tore Nesset Dagmar Divjak Alina Israeli President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA Conference Organizer and Host, American University on behalf of the SCLA officers and the 2011 SCLA organizing committee From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Mar 18 16:10:29 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:10:29 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity Message-ID: What about adding lexical complexity into the mix- grammar doesn't form in a vacuum. Isolating, analytical languages often seem to have ancient dead morphology (or its remnants) fused into smaller materials to yield larger numbers of 'roots', detectable only through historical analysis. At the other end polysynthetic languages have reduced numbers of simplex roots. I'd gather nobody has any idea how many times the basic lexicon has been through the mixer and grinder since language evolved. Formerly overtly expressed morphological content becomes covert and lexical, decoupled from its moorings and eventually, with historical change, unsupported cognitively. I would suppose that similar things can happen to the lexicon, or at least parts of it, where so much morphology has cumulated and fused, that the old lexical root gets lost in the shuffle (Chinook verbs, for example). Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Mar 18 16:14:18 2011 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:14:18 +0800 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <219A4E39-D658-4F0F-9516-F4AA52AD3532@daneverett.org> Message-ID: True. However, one wonders if the complexity shown in written language also shows up in the oral, spontaneous form, a form that is believed to be the "real" form of language. Besides, even if a person's written language has affected her own speech, it is still doubtful if her speech will make much (or any?) difference on the speech of the entire community. So, I am inclined to agree with what Aya seems to imply: language will change, but probably not in terms of complexity (Complexity in one aspect is often compensated for by simplicity in another) or versatility (A language is always versatile; All languages are equally versatile for the purposes in their respective speech communities). Rong -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Everett Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:45 PM To: Angus B. Grieve-Smith Cc: Funknet Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Fwd: Complexity This is an important point. As Ong and Goody have shown, literacy can affect grammar in interesting ways. That is another example, by the way, of culture playing a direct role in shaping (at least parts of) grammars. Dan On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. > > As Givón and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. > > I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 19:13:49 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:13:49 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: > Tahir, > > I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. > > It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. > > If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. > > --Aya > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >> Tahir >> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 21:00:13 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:00:13 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The last line is moving closer to something I can agree with, Aya. Our languages fit their cultural niches. If you take English speakers to the Amazon, their language and culture will need to be seriously adapted for them to survive. They will need to expand beyond what they currently do. I am not talking about underlying capacity (a red herring) I am talking about actual vocabularies, expressions, etc. Every new science makes a language more versatile. Every new philosophy. Every new word. If you want to say that they are not more versatile because other languages are capable of having the same words faced by the same circumstances, then - aside from the fact that it is difficult to give content to that assertion - we mean different things by versatility. I doubt that there is any profound disagreement here. But there is a real danger of just using the slogans we learned in graduate school e.g. 'all languages have the same expressive power', until we both define that more precisely (not merely as grammatical rules) and show how it could be tested. All languages do have one common problem to solve, the communication problem, as sketched out by Claude Shannon more than 50 years ago. And they all have or they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean there is parity on all other things to be talked about. Have a nice weekend. It is one minute away from beer time here in Boston. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:50, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. > > English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. > > But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. >> >> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >> >> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. >> >> Dan >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >>> >>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >>> >>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>>> >>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:00:40 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:00:40 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. > > Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. > > I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. > > And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. > > Dan > > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tahir, >> >> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >> >> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >> >> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >> >>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>> Tahir >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:19:05 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:19:05 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >> >> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >> >> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>> >>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>> >>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>> >>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>> >>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>> >>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>> >>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>> >>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>> >>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tahir, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>> >>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>> Tahir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:14:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:14:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fellow Funknetters, This discussion concerning whether borrowing leads to versatility reminds me to ask: would any of you like me to send you a review copy of my just published book "Ping & the Snirkelly People"? Although it is a story about little girl learning English under total immersion, it actually touches on the issue of the morphological opacity that afflicts native speakers of English because they have been blinded to derivational morphology by a language that is full of borrowing. The main character, because she comes from a language where lexemes are largely morphologically transparent, can understand the morphology of English better than her native speaker classmates. If you would like to review the book, email me your address and I will send it. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Press-Release-Ping-the-Snirkelly-People From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 21:19:49 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:19:49 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, Yes, I think we're close to agreement. And I agree that we shouldn't go by slogans like "all languages have the same expressive power" without defining what that means or looking for evidence that it is true. I'm not motivated by political correctness, just a desire for a little more rigor and a lot more evidence. Have a great weekend! Best, --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > The last line is moving closer to something I can agree with, Aya. Our languages fit their cultural niches. If you take English speakers to the Amazon, their language and culture will need to be seriously adapted for them to survive. They will need to expand beyond what they currently do. I am not talking about underlying capacity (a red herring) I am talking about actual vocabularies, expressions, etc. > > Every new science makes a language more versatile. Every new philosophy. Every new word. > > If you want to say that they are not more versatile because other languages are capable of having the same words faced by the same circumstances, then - aside from the fact that it is difficult to give content to that assertion - we mean different things by versatility. I doubt that there is any profound disagreement here. > > But there is a real danger of just using the slogans we learned in graduate school e.g. 'all languages have the same expressive power', until we both define that more precisely (not merely as grammatical rules) and show how it could be tested. > > All languages do have one common problem to solve, the communication problem, as sketched out by Claude Shannon more than 50 years ago. And they all have or they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean there is parity on all other things to be talked about. > > Have a nice weekend. It is one minute away from beer time here in Boston. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:50, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. >> >> English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. >> >> But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. >> >> Best, >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. >>> >>> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >>> >>> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >>>> >>>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >>>> >>>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>>>> >>>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:06:05 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:06:05 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <5107538.1300464630063.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jess, Yes, there's constant recycling: syntax to morphology, morphology to phonology, and so on and so forth. Old roots get lost, new roots form from multimorphemic units that are fused, lost grammatical morphology is replaced by syntax which eventually becomes morphology again. Nowhere is there any evidence that all these changes lead to "progress." The basic information conveying function of language remains the same. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, jess tauber wrote: > What about adding lexical complexity into the mix- grammar doesn't form in a vacuum. Isolating, analytical languages often seem to have ancient > dead morphology (or its remnants) fused into smaller materials to yield >larger numbers of 'roots', detectable only through historical analysis. >At the other end polysynthetic languages have reduced numbers of simplex >roots. I'd gather nobody has any idea how many times the basic lexicon >has been through the mixer and grinder since language evolved. Formerly >overtly expressed morphological content becomes covert and lexical, >decoupled from its moorings and eventually, with historical change, >unsupported cognitively. I would suppose that similar things can happen >to the lexicon, or at least parts of it, where so much morphology has >cumulated and fused, that the old lexical root gets lost in the shuffle (Chinook verbs, for example). > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:16:42 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:16:42 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <38F614E0-C3CA-4BDF-AFB7-74AD589AE9A7@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Dan, Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. > > Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. > > Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >> >> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >> >> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >> >> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >> >> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >> >> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>> >>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>> >>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>> >>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Tahir, >>>> >>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>> >>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:06:24 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:06:24 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. > > The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. > > Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. > > When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. > > This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. > > Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >> >> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >> >> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >> >> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tahir, >>> >>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>> >>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>> >>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>> >>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:36:23 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:36:23 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <7CD38722-236E-4A2E-8375-A43F42547DF9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. > > That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>> >>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>> >>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>> >>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>> >>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>> >>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>> >>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>> >>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>> >>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>> >>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>> >>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:39:31 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: > The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. > > In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. > > The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >> >> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>> >>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>> >>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>> >>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>> >>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>> >>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>> >>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>> >>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:50:43 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:50:43 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <41C1EABD-78F2-47A0-9938-2FA1E4EF5F92@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Dan, One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. Best, --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. > > The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. > > Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. > > Dan > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: > >> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >> >> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >> >> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>> >>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>> >>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>> >>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>> >>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>> >>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Fri Mar 18 21:44:39 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:44:39 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that a computational search of actual new words and a look at how they are coined might be helpful at this point. I can't do it myself, but lots of people these days know how. Lise On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as > need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. > > English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point > in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive > borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. > > But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one > that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do > as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a > bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English > would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: > because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes >> a neologism and they are very rare. >> >> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >> >> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as >> they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could >> not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations >> (including contact) to do so. >> >> Dan >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". >>> In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do >>> not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a >>> functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need >>> arises. >>> >>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of >>> its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was >>> once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like >>> "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not >>> recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used >>> interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not >>> felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the >>> language that are ongoing even now. >>> >>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most >>> languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a >>> small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a >>> historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like >>>> 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't >>>> really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. >>>> Neologisms are much rarer. >>>> >>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack >>>> of use of blick. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. >>>>> You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, >>>>> that's all. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. >>>>>> Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than >>>>>> loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral >>>>>> pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include >>>>>> propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our >>>>>> language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like >>>>>> in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the >>>>>> years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show >>>>>> 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never >>>>>> actually become a word of English. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our >>>>>> language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the >>>>>> borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables >>>>>> us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no >>>>>> evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. >>>>>> That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to >>>>>>> show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change >>>>>>> leads to more versatility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to >>>>>>> another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that >>>>>>> the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the >>>>>>> borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential >>>>>>> between the two groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the >>>>>>> word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived >>>>>>> from the organic material of the language, using native >>>>>>> morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words >>>>>>> this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and >>>>>>> in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume >>>>>>> that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in >>>>>>> its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There >>>>>>> is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing >>>>>>> something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a >>>>>>> particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being >>>>>>> adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use >>>>>>> it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is >>>>>>> adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a >>>>>>> better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the >>>>>>> circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages >>>>>>>> could become more versatile over time. We have to ask >>>>>>>> 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for >>>>>>>> talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it >>>>>>>> isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages >>>>>>>> becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from >>>>>>>> languages in contact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at >>>>>>>> communication than others in particular environments. There >>>>>>>> is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively >>>>>>>> equal than that they are different. No study proves either, >>>>>>>> though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but >>>>>>>> not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences >>>>>>>> that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become >>>>>>>>> either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of >>>>>>>>> complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system >>>>>>>>> in the language results in a decrease of complexity >>>>>>>>> elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in >>>>>>>>> language change, and language does not improve in efficiency >>>>>>>>> over time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be >>>>>>>>> demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, >>>>>>>>> and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing >>>>>>>>>> complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on >>>>>>>>>> versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From language at sprynet.com Sat Mar 19 09:39:18 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:39:18 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, English, and German: "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a better job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentzündung and Harnröhre for meningitis and urethra. "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" Full text of this piece is available at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? Tahir -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal > > From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 12:00:29 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:00:29 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Alex, That's a very good example! There is no reason for a word like "elbow" to be morphologically opaque in English, except for the influence of massive borrowing. While new lexemes are gained by borrowing, old lexemes lose their internal morphological boundaries, and this affects the cognition of speakers in so many ways, such as the example you gave, of being less aware of how their bodies work. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, alex gross wrote: > Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to > unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for > high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such > equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to > greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of > this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, > English, and German: > > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them > today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones medical > people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you every day, > yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But there is clear > evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once had other names. > The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly something like the > 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to > lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern > German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' (sich > beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as foot-measure > bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All bones and all > locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which > people is likely to be on better terms with their bodies--one that has names > such as these or one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to > doctors? German continues to a better job here even today with such words as > Gehirnhautentzündung and Harnröhre for meningitis and urethra. > > "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words like > Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not > understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" > > Full text of this piece is available at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if > anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly > versatile? > Tahir > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >> >> > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Mar 19 12:14:58 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:14:58 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Dear Alex, let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', coming close to English bruise. Best, Wolfgang Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: > Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due > to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English > for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when > such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can > lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some > examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms > across Chinese, English, and German: > > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for > them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the > ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important > to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at > all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that > these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' > the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' > from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an > inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the > words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' > (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as > foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All > bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names > in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their > bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is > linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a > better job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentzündung and > Harnröhre for meningitis and urethra. > > "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words > like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would > not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" > > Full text of this piece is available at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I > wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language > become increasingly versatile? > Tahir > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >> >> > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Mar 19 16:06:13 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:06:13 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for > them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the > ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important > to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at > all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that > these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' > the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' > from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an > inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the > words are die Elle and die Speiche." An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's mostly used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a young age, although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who studied classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in the /Lord of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is which. I don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and "forearm," and leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If someone said to me, "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I wouldn't feel particularly better informed. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 16:23:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:23:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D84D475.7050404@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, You probably also don't feel that speakers are deprived of knowing the morphological boundary in the word elbow. This is often what native speakers will say: I don't feel deprived by not knowing what I have always not known. In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language works just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it works differently from the way it would have worked without the massive borrowing that made the language's derivational system so irregular that speakers tend to disregard it when parsing words, even words like rooster whose component morphemes are both known to them. --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century >> poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but >> also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's mostly > used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a young age, > although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who studied > classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in the /Lord > of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. > > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use > them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I would > venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and "ulna" > since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is which. I > don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and "forearm," and > leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If someone said to me, > "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I wouldn't feel > particularly better informed. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Mar 19 17:15:30 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:15:30 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/19/2011 12:23 PM, A. Katz wrote: > In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language > works just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it > works differently from the way it would have worked without the > massive borrowing that made the language's derivational system so > irregular that speakers tend to disregard it when parsing words, even > words like rooster whose component morphemes are both known to them. I think speakers tend to parse sentences in frequent chunks and often disregard their components. Everyone knows "cell" and "phone," but how many people think about cells when they say "cell phone"? Or about Eskimos when eating Eskimo pie? Or facsimiles when sending faxes? For me a drivers license is more useful in buying sudafed than in driving. Etymology can be interesting and fun; I regularly get a kick out of realizing that the "efharesto" that I learned at the eye doctor's is the same as the Eucharist, or that State Senator Dan Garodnick and transit construction chief Michael Horodniceanu have the same last name. But that's me, I'm interested in words. Etymology can teach us a lot when we have time to study and contemplate it, but its day-to-day practical application in understanding words is minor in any language. One thing that I've learned from studying English's quirky etymology is that it's often formed by analogy instead of compositionality (think "intranet" which makes no sense from a compositional standpoint, or "devil's food cake"). It might be that languages that have more regular derivational morphology rely on compositionality more, but it could also be that they work just as much by analogy, but it's harder to tell the difference. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 18:41:30 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:41:30 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D84E4B2.1080209@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, Yes, all of what you say is valid. But I also think that analogy and compositionality are functionally equivalent in a language with a very regular derivational system. An irregular system discourages componential analysis, because often the results are useless. So it happens that speakers in such languages regard etymology as purely historical. This is not a problem for speakers, because we both know they can communicated just fine either way, though it does affect how they conceptualize some things. It does become a problem among linguists, when people are told "that's not what the word means, it's just its etymology" without realizing that it's a psychological issue that varies from speaker to speaker, and sometimes based on expanded horizons due to bilingualism. What is just a historical derivation for one speaker can be a synchronic analysis for another. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 3/19/2011 12:23 PM, A. Katz wrote: >> In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language works >> just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it works >> differently from the way it would have worked without the massive borrowing >> that made the language's derivational system so irregular that speakers >> tend to disregard it when parsing words, even words like rooster whose >> component morphemes are both known to them. > > I think speakers tend to parse sentences in frequent chunks and often > disregard their components. Everyone knows "cell" and "phone," but how many > people think about cells when they say "cell phone"? Or about Eskimos when > eating Eskimo pie? Or facsimiles when sending faxes? For me a drivers > license is more useful in buying sudafed than in driving. > > Etymology can be interesting and fun; I regularly get a kick out of > realizing that the "efharesto" that I learned at the eye doctor's is the same > as the Eucharist, or that State Senator Dan Garodnick and transit > construction chief Michael Horodniceanu have the same last name. But that's > me, I'm interested in words. Etymology can teach us a lot when we have time > to study and contemplate it, but its day-to-day practical application in > understanding words is minor in any language. > > One thing that I've learned from studying English's quirky etymology is > that it's often formed by analogy instead of compositionality (think > "intranet" which makes no sense from a compositional standpoint, or "devil's > food cake"). It might be that languages that have more regular derivational > morphology rely on compositionality more, but it could also be that they work > just as much by analogy, but it's harder to tell the difference. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Sat Mar 19 19:08:00 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:08:00 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have some difficulty understanding the arguments around the words "ell" and "elbow". It is rather questionable if "ell" was really ever primarily the name of a bone; in Old English, "eln" seems to have been mainly a unit of measure, with the earlier meaning 'forearm'; likewise, the Latin word "ulna", which is obviously cognate, is translated in dictionaries as 'forearm' and 'arm'; in other IE languages, the meaning 'elbow' also shows up. I do not understand what "massive borrowing" could have helped erasing the morpheme boundary in "elbow"; rather, I assume the meaning became opaque once "ell" was replaced in its concrete sense by the transparent but entirely Germanic "forearm". In Swedish, the cognate of "elbow" has been eggcornified into "armbåge", or 'arm-bow'; hardly anyone makes a connection to the now obsolete measure "aln" 'ell'. - östen From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 19:36:51 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:36:51 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Osten, If the only thing that had happened here is the loss of a single morpheme, el-, then speakers might be interpreting the word elbow as X-bow, where X stands for an unknown morpheme. After all, the word "bow" is still part of the active English vocabulary. It is available as a noun, and with a slightly different pronunciation, as a verb. The massive borrowing into English from latinate sources weakened the ability of English speakers to recognize subcomponents of words, even when all the subcomponents are commonly used, as in the example of "rooster" roost-er. It's one thing not to know what part of a word means, because that part has disappeared from the lexicon. It's another thing not to be in the habit of parsing words at all. This is why I speak of psychological componential opacity as opposed to circumstantial componential opacity. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Östen Dahl wrote: > I have some difficulty understanding the arguments around the words "ell" and "elbow". It is rather questionable if "ell" was really ever primarily the name of a bone; in Old English, > "eln" seems to have been mainly a unit of measure, with the earlier >meaning 'forearm'; likewise, the Latin word "ulna", which is obviously >cognate, is translated in dictionaries as 'forearm' and 'arm'; in other >IE languages, the meaning 'elbow' also shows up. I do not understand what "massive borrowing" could have helped erasing the morpheme boundary in "elbow"; rather, I assume the meaning became opaque once "ell" was replaced in its concrete sense by the transparent but entirely Germanic "forearm". In Swedish, the cognate of "elbow" has been eggcornified into "armbåge", or 'arm-bow'; hardly anyone makes a connection to the now obsolete measure "aln" 'ell'. > > - östen > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sun Mar 20 05:11:07 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:11:07 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '- erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they actually cite published sources of the words they're listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over themselves. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From language at sprynet.com Sun Mar 20 07:36:46 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:36:46 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to their speeakers than English ones are. Very best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" To: "alex gross" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > Dear Alex, > let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word > "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've > never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German > children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German > equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', coming > close to English bruise. > Best, > Wolfgang > > > Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to >> unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for >> high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such >> equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to >> greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of >> this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, >> English, and German: >> >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth >> Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take >> an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die >> Speiche." >> >> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' >> (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as >> foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All >> bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in >> Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their >> bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is >> linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a better >> job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentzündung and Harnröhre >> for meningitis and urethra. >> >> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not >> understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >> >> Full text of this piece is available at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >> >> >> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder >> if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become >> increasingly versatile? >> Tahir >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München > > Ludwigstraße 25 > > D-80539 München > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen > enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail > irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und > vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte > Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen > e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. > Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere > durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. > > From a.heuboeck at pgr.reading.ac.uk Sun Mar 20 08:23:58 2011 From: a.heuboeck at pgr.reading.ac.uk (Alois Heuboeck) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:23:58 +0000 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Wuetschwunder" - if I may venture a conjecture: perhaps a double typo for "Quetschwunde"? Best wishes, Alois On 20/03/2011 07:36, alex gross wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is > the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named > Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just > come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd > terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the > reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to > their speeakers than English ones are. > > Very best! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" > > To: "alex gross" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > >> Dear Alex, >> let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word >> "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've >> never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German >> children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German >> equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', >> coming close to English bruise. >> Best, >> Wolfgang >> >> >> Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >>> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due >>> to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English >>> for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when >>> such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course >>> can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave >>> some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical >>> terms across Chinese, English, and German: >>> >>> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for >>> them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the >>> ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important >>> to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them >>> at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that >>> these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' >>> the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the >>> 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you >>> an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where >>> the words are die Elle and die Speiche." >>> >>> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or >>> 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words >>> translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and >>> rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar >>> down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on >>> better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or >>> one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? >>> German continues to a better job here even today with such words as >>> Gehirnhautentzündung and Harnröhre for meningitis and urethra. >>> >>> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >>> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would >>> not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >>> >>> Full text of this piece is available at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >>> >>> All the best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >>> >>> >>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I >>> wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language >>> become increasingly versatile? >>> Tahir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft >> >> Dept. II / F 13 >> >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München >> >> Ludwigstraße 25 >> >> D-80539 München >> >> Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) >> >> 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) >> >> Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 >> >> Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de >> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de >> >> >> Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html >> >> Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte >> Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind >> bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte >> umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte >> Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher >> e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im >> Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für >> jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene >> e-Mails ausgeschlossen. >> >> > From language at sprynet.com Sun Mar 20 08:47:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:47:58 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Thanks, Angus, i purposely did not go into the measurement side of "el," (beyond mentioning the maid unwilling to give an inch) since it quickly gets muddled over French, Scottish, & English els, cubits, etc. > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use > them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I > would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and > "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is > which. The ulna or el is the lower one that merchants used to put down to measure cloth amid cries of dishonesty from customers. Is the subject intrinsically unimportant to you, or could our available vocabulary possibly be playing a role? Even today these bones are still important to people who need to know something about anatomy: artists and illustrators, martial artists, dancers, acrobats, and of course massage therapists, acupuncturists, & western doctors. Or to anyone foolish enough to enter an arm wrestling contest with the wrong opponent. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth >> Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take >> an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die >> Speiche." > > An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's > mostly used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a > young age, although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who > studied classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in > the /Lord of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. > > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I > use them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I > would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and > "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is > which. I don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and > "forearm," and leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If > someone said to me, "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I > wouldn't feel particularly better informed. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Mar 20 08:48:02 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:48:02 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D85B99E.7080501@reading.ac.uk> Message-ID: Yes, this sounds extremely reasonable (hence = 'contused wound') ( instead of , and the final being just a 'hypertrophy'): I have asked my children what they would associate with this term (by itself totally unknown to them). All they said is that it could be some kind of bruise ('Quetschung'), neglecting the second part of the compound 'Wunde' (wound). To add one point: Alex wrote > German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to > their speeakers than English ones are. Well, you should bare in mind that in Germany, true medical (technical) terms are strongly related to some kind of Latin/Greek-based special language rendering a doctor's verbalized diagnostics often a secret code. The use of this code is part of the habitual language of doctors etc., symbolizing their 'power' over both illnesses and patients. The everyday nomenclature of medical terms is usually avoided by doctors etc., because it is said to be correlated with non-expertise. Maybe that in English, the same contrast had once been present. But contrary to German traditions, the 'doctor's language' seems to have been widely adopted in everyday speech in the English culture.... I guess others will know much more about that point than I. Best Wolfgang Am 20.03.2011 09:23, schrieb Alois Heuboeck: > "Wuetschwunder" - if I may venture a conjecture: perhaps a double typo > for "Quetschwunde"? > > Best wishes, > Alois > > > > On 20/03/2011 07:36, alex gross wrote: >> Dear Wolfgang, >> >> Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is >> the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named >> Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just >> come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd >> terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the >> reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to >> their speeakers than English ones are. >> >> Very best! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" >> >> To: "alex gross" >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >> >> >>> Dear Alex, >>> let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word >>> "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've >>> never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German >>> children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German >>> equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', >>> coming close to English bruise. >>> Best, >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >>>> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due >>>> to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English >>>> for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when >>>> such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course >>>> can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave >>>> some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical >>>> terms across Chinese, English, and German: >>>> >>>> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for >>>> them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the >>>> ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important >>>> to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them >>>> at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that >>>> these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' >>>> the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the >>>> 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you >>>> an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where >>>> the words are die Elle and die Speiche." >>>> >>>> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or >>>> 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words >>>> translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and >>>> rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar >>>> down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on >>>> better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or >>>> one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? >>>> German continues to a better job here even today with such words as >>>> Gehirnhautentzündung and Harnröhre for meningitis and urethra. >>>> >>>> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >>>> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would >>>> not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >>>> >>>> Full text of this piece is available at: >>>> >>>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >>>> >>>> All the best to everyone! >>>> >>>> alex >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >>>> >>>> >>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I >>>> wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language >>>> become increasingly versatile? >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>>>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft >>> >>> Dept. II / F 13 >>> >>> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München >>> >>> Ludwigstraße 25 >>> >>> D-80539 München >>> >>> Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) >>> >>> 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) >>> >>> Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 >>> >>> Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de >>> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de >>> >>> >>> Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html >>> >>> Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte >>> Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind >>> bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte >>> umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte >>> Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher >>> e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im >>> Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für >>> jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene >>> e-Mails ausgeschlossen. >>> >>> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut für Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Ludwigstraße 25 D-80539 München Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anhänge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 12:24:39 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:24:39 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johanna, If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. I'm the one on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language change, but there is also no regression. Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this irregularity induces. One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, Alex alluded to this in his post. I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The answer: "a linguist" had him totally confused. It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved comprehension. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in > word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has > become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with > zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've come > up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have > 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. > > If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out > wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they actually > cite published sources of the words they're listing. English wordcraft is > thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! > > Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is no > problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that way > before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early English > prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to accept this > democratic solution. People who object that it's "grammatically plural" don't > seem to have noticed that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a > singular for hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these > people need to get over themselves. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Mar 20 17:03:36 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:03:36 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning (although it is certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many 'transparent' terms have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin Louise was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Johanna, > > If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we > don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just > fine. I'm the one on this list who said that no matter what you lose > in one place through language change, you gain someplace else, so > overall it's always pretty much the same, and no progress is made > through language change, but there is also no regression. > > Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was > addressing was the way in which this is largely an irregular > process, and the blindness to internal boundaries in already derived > words that this irregularity induces. > > One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal > boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide > between doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors > from having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some > extent, Alex alluded to this in his post. > > I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical > specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was > talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I > wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I > answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The > answer: "a linguist" had him totally confused. > > It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can > only parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in > regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a > linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. > > So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about > comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved > comprehension. > > Best, > > --Aya > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '- >> meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. >> >> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >> in it! >> >> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing >> as how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I >> see no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who >> object that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed >> that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for >> hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these people >> need to get over themselves. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >> Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Dept. >> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 18:07:21 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:07:21 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <8591EA72-8B53-4A30-986E-E0DE3D6D1DB1@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise, Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But it might make becoming conversant a little easier. However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its location. Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in Grant's Tomb. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf Best, --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet a new > technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning (although it is > certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the specialized > meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many 'transparent' terms > have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin Louise > was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that > didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers the > whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease > and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. > Lise > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Johanna, >> >> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we don't >> lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. I'm the one >> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place through >> language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's always pretty >> much the same, and no progress is made through language change, but there >> is also no regression. >> >> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing was >> the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the blindness to >> internal boundaries in already derived words that this irregularity >> induces. >> >> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from having >> intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, Alex >> alluded to this in his post. >> >> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical specialist in >> great depth, and because I understood what he was talking about, he assumed >> I was a professional. When I told him I wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but >> you're a biologist, right? When I answered that I wasn't, he asked, >> perplexed, then what are you? The answer: "a linguist" had him totally >> confused. >> >> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only parse >> the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in regular >> derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a linguist to >> understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >> >> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved comprehension. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >> >>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in >>> word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has >>> become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with >>> zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've >>> come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we >>> now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>> >>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out >>> wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they >>> actually cite published sources of the words they're listing. English >>> wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! >>> >>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is >>> no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that >>> way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early >>> English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to >>> accept this democratic solution. People who object that it's >>> "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that "grammatically >>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. Unless >>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over themselves. >>> >>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>> Professor, Linguistics >>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>> English Dept. >>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>> >>> >>> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > From hopper at cmu.edu Sun Mar 20 19:00:47 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:00:47 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks by speakers? - Paul On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: > Lise, > > > Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of > the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But > it might make becoming conversant a little easier. > > However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause > peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor > who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical > discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite > living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know > where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield > Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never > imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its > location. > > Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect > proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in > Grant's Tomb. > > > For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: > > > http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf > > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >> (although it is >> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >> 'transparent' terms >> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >> Louise >> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >> Parkinson's disease >> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> >> >>> Johanna, >>> >>> >>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>> I'm the one >>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>> change, but there is also no regression. >>> >>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>> irregularity induces. >>> >>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>> Alex >>> alluded to this in his post. >>> >>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>> confused. >>> >>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>> >>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>> comprehension. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>> >>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>> in it! >>>> >>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>> "grammatically >>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>> Unless >>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>> themselves. >>>> >>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>> English Dept. >>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> >> > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Sun Mar 20 19:12:28 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:12:28 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <6796534deec110180ac111155f74ec42.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: There was research in the late 70s following up on the original observations by Jean Berko Gleason. Bruce Derwing published work on this issue; he had adults rate the phonological and semantic similarity of word pairs like "wild/wilderness". Other people answered two questions that I contributed, such as "Does WILDERNESS come from WILD?". And they were also asked "Have you ever thought of this before?". In the 80s morpheme identification was a major issue in studies of atypical language development and it is still used as a part of language assessment. ron p.s. I'm 60 and in response to a previous msg, I do think that "rooster" must come from "roost", but I had never thought of it before. r ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which > people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and > evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An > elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain > holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat > turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, > both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are > repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there > really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar > survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might > think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks > by speakers? > > - Paul > > > On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: > > Lise, > > > > > > Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of > > the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But > > it might make becoming conversant a little easier. > > > > However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause > > peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor > > who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical > > discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite > > living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know > > where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield > > Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never > > imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its > > location. > > > > Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect > > proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in > > Grant's Tomb. > > > > > > For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: > > > > > > http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > > > > >> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet > >> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning > >> (although it is > >> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the > >> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many > >> 'transparent' terms > >> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin > >> Louise > >> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that > >> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers > >> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including > >> Parkinson's disease > >> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Johanna, > >>> > >>> > >>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we > >>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. > >>> I'm the one > >>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place > >>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's > >>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language > >>> change, but there is also no regression. > >>> > >>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing > >>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the > >>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this > >>> irregularity induces. > >>> > >>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal > >>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between > >>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from > >>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, > >>> Alex > >>> alluded to this in his post. > >>> > >>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical > >>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was > >>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I > >>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I > >>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The > >>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally > >>> confused. > >>> > >>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only > >>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in > >>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a > >>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. > >>> > >>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about > >>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved > >>> comprehension. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility > >>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've > >>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English > >>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and > >>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' > >>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' > >>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. > >>>> > >>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, > >>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary > >>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're > >>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor > >>>> in it! > >>>> > >>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, > >>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it > >>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as > >>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see > >>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object > >>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that > >>>> "grammatically > >>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. > >>>> Unless > >>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over > >>>> themselves. > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > >>>> Professor, Linguistics > >>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor > >>>> English Dept. > >>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > >>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > >>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > >>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > >>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > >>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > >>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Linguistics and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 20:51:44 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:51:44 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <6796534deec110180ac111155f74ec42.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Paul, Those are good anecdotes! Yes, of course, it can happen in Hebrew, too. My point is not that it never happens to Hebrew speakers, but that when it does happen it is less frequent. Examples include the trick question: "Who is the father of Yehoshua bin Nun?" (The obvious answer being Nun, but nervous Bible students who think they are being tested on their begats might have a momentary brain freeze and be unable to answer.) I don't know of any studies specifically aimed at componential opacity, but in Bolozky's "Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: the Case of Israeli Hebrew" (1999) which I have as a reference in my Lacus article, there were not only tests where productivity was demonstrated, but also judgment tests of lexicality of words so produced. I suppose this is not the same as studying the inability to recognize a derivation, but it is very closely related. --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which > people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and > evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An > elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain > holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat > turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, > both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are > repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there > really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar > survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might > think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks > by speakers? > > - Paul > > > On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: >> Lise, >> >> >> Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of >> the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But >> it might make becoming conversant a little easier. >> >> However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause >> peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor >> who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical >> discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite >> living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know >> where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield >> Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never >> imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its >> location. >> >> Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect >> proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in >> Grant's Tomb. >> >> >> For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: >> >> >> http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: >> >> >>> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >>> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >>> (although it is >>> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >>> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >>> 'transparent' terms >>> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >>> Louise >>> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >>> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >>> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >>> Parkinson's disease >>> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Johanna, >>>> >>>> >>>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>>> I'm the one >>>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>>> change, but there is also no regression. >>>> >>>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>>> irregularity induces. >>>> >>>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>>> Alex >>>> alluded to this in his post. >>>> >>>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>>> confused. >>>> >>>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>>> >>>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>>> comprehension. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>>> >>>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>>> in it! >>>>> >>>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>>> "grammatically >>>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>>> Unless >>>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>>> English Dept. >>>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Linguistics and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Mar 20 21:26:02 2011 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:26:02 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? I blush. :) Ron Smyth wrote: > There was research in the late 70s following up on the original > observations by Jean Berko Gleason. Bruce Derwing published work on this > issue; he had adults rate the phonological and semantic similarity of word > pairs like "wild/wilderness". Other people answered two questions that I > contributed, such as "Does WILDERNESS come from WILD?". And they were > also asked "Have you ever thought of this before?". > > In the 80s morpheme identification was a major issue in studies of > atypical language development and it is still used as a part of language > assessment. > ron > p.s. I'm 60 and in response to a previous msg, I do think that "rooster" > must come from "roost", but I had never thought of it before. > r > > =============================================================================== > Ron Smyth, Associate Professor > Linguistics & Psychology > University of Toronto > ============================================================================ > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > > >> Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which >> people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and >> evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An >> elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain >> holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat >> turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, >> both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are >> repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there >> really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar >> survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might >> think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks >> by speakers? >> >> - Paul >> >> >> On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Lise, >>> >>> >>> Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of >>> the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But >>> it might make becoming conversant a little easier. >>> >>> However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause >>> peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor >>> who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical >>> discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite >>> living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know >>> where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield >>> Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never >>> imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its >>> location. >>> >>> Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect >>> proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in >>> Grant's Tomb. >>> >>> >>> For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >>>> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >>>> (although it is >>>> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >>>> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >>>> 'transparent' terms >>>> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >>>> Louise >>>> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >>>> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >>>> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >>>> Parkinson's disease >>>> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Johanna, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>>>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>>>> I'm the one >>>>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>>>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>>>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>>>> change, but there is also no regression. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>>>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>>>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>>>> irregularity induces. >>>>> >>>>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>>>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>>>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>>>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>>>> Alex >>>>> alluded to this in his post. >>>>> >>>>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>>>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>>>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>>>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>>>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>>>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>>>> confused. >>>>> >>>>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>>>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>>>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>>>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>>>> >>>>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>>>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>>>> comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>>>> in it! >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>>>> "grammatically >>>>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>>>> Unless >>>>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>>>> themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>>>> English Dept. >>>>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> Paul J. Hopper >> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities >> Department of English >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> and >> Senior External Fellow >> School of Linguistics and Literature >> Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) >> Albertstr. 19 >> D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. >> Germany >> >> >> > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Mar 20 21:45:13 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:45:13 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D8670EA.5060502@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ > was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is > /roo/? I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? -- Sherman Wilcox, Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 871131 From dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au Sun Mar 20 22:53:25 2011 From: dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au (dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:53:25 +1100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <638CB699-2AD5-4E4F-A23F-607BA3273B38@unm.edu> Message-ID: I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > >>The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what >>is /roo/? > >I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might >mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? > >-- >Sherman Wilcox, Professor >Department of Linguistics >University of New Mexico >Albuquerque, NM 871131 -- David Harvey 60 Gipps Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia Tel: 61-2-9719-9170 From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sun Mar 20 23:31:05 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:31:05 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG ==================== On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: > I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't > realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. > > At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >> >>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>> was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what >>> is /roo/? >> >> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >> with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >> out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might >> mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 871131 > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Mar 20 23:38:21 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:38:21 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D868E39.6020801@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint > exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the > semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. > Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the > meaning of the compound drifts away from the original composite > meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic incentive to > cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the predictability > of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & lower over time. > In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused as a > single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two > original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic > conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as > usual, history. TG > > ==================== > > > > On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people >> don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >> >> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of / >>>> rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ >>>> ster/, but what is /roo/? >>> >>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >>> with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >>> out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- >>> might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >>> >>> -- >>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>> Department of Linguistics >>> University of New Mexico >>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 23:48:17 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:48:17 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D868E39.6020801@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, But this generalization, however valid, ignores the situations where no phonological changes have taken place, no subcomponent is lost as an independent unit, yet the speaker is not able to see the parts for the whole -- psychological componential opacity. It likewise ignores the situations where there has been reduction and even assimilation, as in Hebrew, but the components are transparent: circumstantial opacity but psychological transparency. --Aya P.S. Did you read the LACUS article? http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint exemplars > lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic & > phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts > co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound > drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a > growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given > that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & > lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused > as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two > original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in > compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG > > ==================== > > > > On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >> >> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? >>> >>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has >>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops >>> the sun's rays? >>> >>> -- >>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>> Department of Linguistics >>> University of New Mexico >>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 23:49:48 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:49:48 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2CE82A0B-741F-41AF-B4E5-71595DCF8127@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise, Could you share some references to specific article that are point? Best, --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work on > what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't > ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > Lise > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >> semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the >> two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the >> compound drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, >> there is a growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a >> composite, given that the predictability of the compound meaning from its >> parts gets lower & lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological >> sequences becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the >> similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical >> "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as >> usual, history. TG >> >> ==================== >> >> >> >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>> >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>> >>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >>>>> /roo/? >>>> >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun >>>> has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >>>> chops the sun's rays? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>> Department of Linguistics >>>> University of New Mexico >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>> >>> >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Mon Mar 21 00:16:16 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:16:16 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I know a lot of Latinate and Greek-derived morphology, but I, too, didn't notice that "rooster" is analyzable until it was cited here. Also, I didn't notice until my mid-40's that "mistake" was "mis-" + "take." Latinate morphology is also not beautifully transparent, as we all know. We have those pesky sets: the '-ceive' set – 'transceive,' 'receive,' 'conceive,' 'perceive,' which then do their crazy alternations to '-cept' and '-ception.' And the '-mit' series: 'transmit,' 'submit,' 'commit,' 'permit,' 'admit,' which alternate with '-ssion.' Since educated people stopped studying Latin, these roots, and most of the prefixes, are opaque. Assimilation in the negative prefix also masks compositionality: 'illegal,' 'irresponsible,' 'indecent.' For some reason this brings to mind something that might well be irrelevant, but that Pam Munro's note about "-ster" reminded me of. Ever since I've been teaching phonetics/phonology, I've noticed that a large number of students don't break up syllables according to the patterns linguists expect. It wouldn't surprise me if they divided 'rooster' into 'roo-ster', as they tend to keep clusters together regardless of where they appear in the word. It's armchair guessing, but I think one thing that led me to be blind to 'mis-take' was that I thought of the word as 'mi-stake,' even though, as a linguist, I "know better." While I'm on the subject of students not conforming to linguist's expectations, there is another behavior my students, as native speakers, are "not supposed" to do. Very many of them do not perceive the "hierarchical" structure of a complex word as we would expect them to. For instance, given a word like 'repayment,' they're just as likely to analyze it as 're+payment' as 'repay+ment.' In other words, they show very little sensitivity to the relation between category of root and category the affix applies to. Since our linguistic descriptions are supposed to be based on what native speakers do, I've always wondered how linguists would explain these behaviors. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.ed URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Mar 21 00:41:38 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:41:38 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Mon Mar 21 00:43:41 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:43:41 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, there are too many good articles in The Mental Lexicon to list here - which ones to look at depend on the reader's specific interests. Here's the publisher's link so people can check out the contents: http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=ml NB: Issue 3:2 is currently available online as a free sample. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:49 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Lise, > > Could you share some references to specific article that are point? > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of >> psycholinguistic work on what people consciously and unconsciously >> know about compounds; it's not necessary to rely on anecdote and >> introspection. Check out the journal The Mental Lexicon. Obviously >> no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't ignore the very >> good science that has been done in this area. >> Lise >> >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of >>> quaint exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with >>> both the semantic & phonological changes that affect compound >>> expressions. Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, >>> and once the meaning of the compound drifts away from the original >>> composite meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic >>> incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the >>> predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & >>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences >>> becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the >>> similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is >>> a typical "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. >>> Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>> ==================== >>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people >>>> don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of / >>>>>> rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ >>>>>> ster/, but what is /roo/? >>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>>>> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come >>>>> up with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't >>>>> figure out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/ >>>>> copt/- might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >>>>> -- >>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of >> Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Mon Mar 21 00:45:25 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:45:25 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: Yes - and again, psycholinguists have been working with this kind of base/derivative relative frequency effect for a long time. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think > one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more > frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have > become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less > frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus > roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of > roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be > able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, > like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From jbybee at unm.edu Mon Mar 21 01:34:53 2011 From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:34:53 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2CE82A0B-741F-41AF-B4E5-71595DCF8127@colorado.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research on the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these points. No need to rely on anecdotes. Joan On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work > on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists > shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > Lise > > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic >> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts >> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a >> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given >> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & >> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused >> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two >> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in >> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >> >> ==================== >> >> >> >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>> >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops >>>> the sun's rays? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>> Department of Linguistics >>>> University of New Mexico >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > -- Joan Bybee HC 66 Box 118 Mountainair, NM 87036 505-847-0137 From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 03:10:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:10:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, This is a plausible explanation for this particular example, but I'm not entirely convinced. When I tested rural Missourians, they seemed to have as much trouble as urban dwellers-- even when they had real life experiences with roosters. --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one > important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent > than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and > less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities > to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant > as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English > speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a > "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like > "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Mar 21 03:41:00 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:41:00 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/20/2011 11:10 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Angus, > > This is a plausible explanation for this particular example, but I'm > not entirely convinced. When I tested rural Missourians, they seemed > to have as much trouble as urban dwellers-- even when they had real > life experiences with roosters. It would not be enough for them to have real life experiences with roosters, they would need to have experience with roost/ing/ at a frequency in at least the same general range. Once the derived term is in common use, the conditions of derivation never need to apply again. It makes me wonder if the derivation is transparent to birdwatchers and ornithologists. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From batia.seroussi at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 09:34:48 2011 From: batia.seroussi at gmail.com (Batia Seroussi) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:34:48 +0200 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello all, One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native speakers of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, dealt with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent = less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. Batia Seroussi 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee > I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research > on > the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my > 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these > points. No need to rely on anecdotes. > > Joan > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > > > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work > > on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's > not > > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal > The > > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists > > shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > > Lise > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint > >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the > semantic > >> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two > parts > >> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound > >> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there > is a > >> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, > given > >> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets > lower & > >> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes > fused > >> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the > two > >> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic > conspiracy" in > >> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG > >> > >> ==================== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: > >> > >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't > >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. > >>> > >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ > was > >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is > /roo/? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. > Everyone > >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ > >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun > has > >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that > chops > >>>> the sun's rays? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor > >>>> Department of Linguistics > >>>> University of New Mexico > >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > Boulder CO 80302 > > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > University of Colorado > > > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > > > Campus Mail Address: > > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > > > Campus Physical Address: > > CINC 234 > > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Joan Bybee > HC 66 Box 118 > Mountainair, NM 87036 > 505-847-0137 > From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 12:55:25 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:55:25 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Batia, Is your thesis available online? It sounds very pertinent to this discussion, and we could all profit by reading it. Best, --Aya On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Batia Seroussi wrote: > Hello all, > One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native speakers > of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, dealt > with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns > with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and > others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of > compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent = > less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the > root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for > example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with > unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly > semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. > Batia Seroussi > 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee > >> I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research >> on >> the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my >> 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these >> points. No need to rely on anecdotes. >> >> Joan >> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> >>> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work >>> on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's >> not >>> necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal >> The >>> Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists >>> shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. >>> Lise >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >>>> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >> semantic >>>> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two >> parts >>>> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >>>> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there >> is a >>>> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, >> given >>>> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets >> lower & >>>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes >> fused >>>> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the >> two >>>> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic >> conspiracy" in >>>> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>>> >>>> ==================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>>>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>>> >>>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >> was >>>>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >> /roo/? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >> Everyone >>>>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun >> has >>>>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >> chops >>>>>> the sun's rays? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joan Bybee >> HC 66 Box 118 >> Mountainair, NM 87036 >> 505-847-0137 >> > > From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Mon Mar 21 14:40:15 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:40:15 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: While I've been reluctant to get into this flurry, I have to share two small points. First, it never occurred to me that 'rooster' was related to 'roost', because it never occurred to me that 'roosters' 'roost'. I don't know where or how male chickens sleep, but I'd always thought it was the females that 'roosted'. 'Rooster' is therefore, to me, quite different from 'baker', 'singer', 'liar', because the semantics is completely opaque. In response to Jo, I think the syllabification your students come up with is correct--both the Maximum Onset Principle and the fact that primary stress attracts consonants would lead to roo.ster, which I think is how English syllabifies. Else we would have an aspirated [t], which we don't--at least in my dialect it's typical voiceless unaspirated (as in 'stir') (i.e. VOT between 0 and 40 ms. for the three I just said). Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 8:41:38 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:01:57 2011 From: lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com (Lachlan Mackenzie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:01:57 +0000 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2137378160.1457670.1300718415577.JavaMail.root@starship.merit.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Just a little remark from a native speaker of British English. Rooster is not a word we use, so I feel very aware of the morphological complexity of roost-er; we simply call the little fella' a cock. Mencken explains in his The American Language (Ch. 4, Section 5) that the word was invented in the 19th-century US as a euphemism because of the other sense of cock. Similarly for drumstick rather than the potentially titillating word leg. I imagine that Americans also have found a way of avoiding breast as a cut of chicken. Would roost-er not just be an example of a locative -er formation, i.e. denizen of the roost? Like cottager, etc.? Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:40:15 -0400 > From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu > To: grvsmth at panix.com > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > While I've been reluctant to get into this flurry, I have to share two small points. > First, it never occurred to me that 'rooster' was related to 'roost', because it never occurred to me that 'roosters' 'roost'. I don't know where or how male chickens sleep, but I'd always thought it was the females that 'roosted'. 'Rooster' is therefore, to me, quite different from 'baker', 'singer', 'liar', because the semantics is completely opaque. > > > In response to Jo, I think the syllabification your students come up with is correct--both the Maximum Onset Principle and the fact that primary stress attracts consonants would lead to roo.ster, which I think is how English syllabifies. Else we would have an aspirated [t], which we don't--at least in my dialect it's typical voiceless unaspirated (as in 'stir') (i.e. VOT between 0 and 40 ms. for the three I just said). > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 8:41:38 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one > important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more > frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have > become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less > frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus > roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. > In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell > you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like > "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From batia.seroussi at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:18:32 2011 From: batia.seroussi at gmail.com (Batia Seroussi) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:18:32 +0200 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I am not sure whether sending attachments is allowed on this list since I am fresh here as an active contributor. My doctoral thesis, submitted a few months ago, is still waiting for its final approval. Anyway, if you are interested, I will gladly send selected presentations of talks that I gave and the whole study, as soon as it is approved, to your private mail. best, Batia 2011/3/21 A. Katz > Batia, > > Is your thesis available online? It sounds very pertinent to this > discussion, and we could all profit by reading it. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Batia Seroussi wrote: > > Hello all, >> One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native >> speakers >> of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, >> dealt >> with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns >> with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and >> others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of >> compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent >> = >> less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the >> root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for >> example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with >> unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly >> semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. >> Batia Seroussi >> 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee >> >> I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research >>> on >>> the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check >>> my >>> 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on >>> these >>> points. No need to rely on anecdotes. >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn >>> wrote: >>> >>> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work >>>> on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's >>>> >>> not >>> >>>> necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal >>>> >>> The >>> >>>> Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists >>>> shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. >>>> Lise >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >>>>> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >>>>> >>>> semantic >>> >>>> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two >>>>> >>>> parts >>> >>>> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >>>>> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there >>>>> >>>> is a >>> >>>> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, >>>>> >>>> given >>> >>>> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets >>>>> >>>> lower & >>> >>>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes >>>>> >>>> fused >>> >>>> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the >>>>> >>>> two >>> >>>> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic >>>>> >>>> conspiracy" in >>> >>>> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>>>> >>>>> ==================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>>>>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> was >>> >>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> /roo/? >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Everyone >>> >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>>>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the >>>>>>> sun >>>>>>> >>>>>> has >>> >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >>>>>>> >>>>>> chops >>> >>>> the sun's rays? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>>> >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joan Bybee >>> HC 66 Box 118 >>> Mountainair, NM 87036 >>> 505-847-0137 >>> >>> >> >> From kemmer at rice.edu Mon Mar 21 16:38:34 2011 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:38:34 -0500 Subject: analyzability [was versatility] Message-ID: I have to weigh in too, because I was amazed that 'rooster' would be given as an example of how English speakers are less sensitive to component morphology than speakers of other languages -- because of all the loanwords 'obviously'. As I understand it, rooster is not an invented word, exactly, because it was a British dialect word for cockerel/cock. Another dialect word was 'roost-cock'. (cf. expression 'cock o' the roost'.) But rooster was taken up in the U.S. as a euphemism, as Mencken says. 'Roost' meant to me, as an (urban) child, sit on eggs in a chicken house, i.e. something that hens do. I wondered why the 'boy chicken' was called the 'rooster' and not the girl. In college I learned that 'roost' technically means 'perching higher than the ground when sleeping.' Migrating birds congregate in certain places on their journey to roost for a few days or weeks before heading on. (My university was such a roosting place.) There's also the old saying about the chickens 'coming home to roost'. But I wouldn't be surprised if other native speakers understand 'roost' as sit on eggs like a chicken, and wouldn't connect that infrequent word with rooster. Probably farmers don't even typically analyze the word, given the lexical considerations mentioned in other posts. Both male and female fowl roost in the sense of perching above the ground to sleep, but the male also sits up on a perch during the day to guard his pullets. Maybe 'roost' in farmyards was generalized to apply to '(barnyard fowl) sitting up on a perch', so the cockerel, doing this more visibly, was called the rooster. Or maybe it just meant the one that was king of the roost like Lachlan suggested. In any case, morphological analyzability in English and Hebrew should be investigated with regard to frequency and other such lexical considerations (whether or not one component is a bound morpheme comes to mind), as has been discussed already in the thread, but also in the context of their very different types of morphological structure. Comparing languages of more similar morphological structure would be a better start than directly comparing English with Hebrew. There are so many other variables, like education, background etc. that would factor in but probably some generalizations could be drawn. Putting 'relative numbers of loanwords' into the mix would be pretty complex for many reasons, but it could be looked at. Right now, no linguist is going to take up the simple story of the loanwords given what we know about other factors that demonstrably affect analyzability. SK From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 17:54:22 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:54:22 -0700 Subject: analyzability [was versatility] In-Reply-To: <0963293E-F624-4996-8190-EE498E0DC9E9@rice.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Suzanne Kemmer wrote: > > In any case, morphological analyzability in English and Hebrew > should be investigated with regard to frequency and other such lexical considerations > (whether or not one component is a bound morpheme comes to mind), > as has been discussed already in the thread, but also in the context of their very different types of > morphological structure. Comparing languages of more similar > morphological structure would be a better start than directly comparing English with Hebrew. > There are so many other variables, like education, background etc. that would factor > in but probably some generalizations could be drawn. Putting 'relative numbers of loanwords' > into the mix would be pretty complex for many reasons, but it could be looked at. > Right now, no linguist is going to > take up the simple story of the loanwords given what we know about other > factors that demonstrably affect analyzability. > > SK > Suzanne, I am in complete agreement with you that the subject of psychological opacity or tranparency should be investigated with regard to frequency. I am hoping that some of Batia Seroussi's research, which I am looking into, will shed more light on the subject. But I also think that regularity in the lexical system is a factor, and that this factor can best be studied in the context of languages with dramatically different typologies as far as lexical cohesion is concerned. I would disagree with the idea that whether or not one component is bound is of much importance to this issue. This is why I look at data from languages that have different typologies as to boundedness in lexeme formation. Mandarin has components that remain phonologically independent, even when they are part of a multimorphemic lexeme. Hebrew has discontinuous roots, and almost every lexical derivation requires resyllabification and reducation of syllables that are too far removed from the stress. Nevertheless, both Hebrew and Mandarin enjoy componential transparency to a much greater degree than English. Does education play a role in being able to parse a word? Of course, it does. To read more about how literacy affect lexicality, you might want to look at this paper: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/29/katzAya.pdf Best, --Aya From feist at louisiana.edu Mon Mar 21 20:16:04 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele I Feist) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:16:04 -0500 Subject: EMCL Final Call: Applications due 22 March 2011 In-Reply-To: <1828602874.484001.1300738099354.JavaMail.root@zimbra-mbox02> Message-ID: ***Final Call: Application deadline 22 March 2011*** The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) — Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 – 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics – EMCL 5.2 – to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 – 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively – one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. Application deadline extended by request to 22 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 20:55:26 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Grenoble/Furbee - Language Documentation Message-ID: Language Documentation Practice and values Edited by Lenore A. Grenoble and N. Louanna Furbee University of Chicago / University of Missouri, Columbia 2010. xviii, 340 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 1175 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8783 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 Language documentation, also often called documentary linguistics, is a relatively new subfield in linguistics which has emerged in part as a response to the pressing need for collecting, describing, and archiving material on the increasing number of endangered languages. The present book details the most recent developments in this rapidly developing field with papers written by linguists primarily based in academic institutions in North America, although many conduct their fieldwork elsewhere. The articles in this volume — position papers and case studies — focus on some of the most critical issues in the field. These include (1) the nature of contributions to linguistic theory and method provided by documentary linguistics, including the content appropriate for documentation; (2) the impact and demands of technology in documentation; (3) matters of practice in collaborations among linguists and communities, and in the necessary training of students and community members to conduct documentation activities; and (4) the ethical issues involved in documentary linguistics. Table of contents Contributors ix–xii Preface N. Louanna Furbee and Lenore A. Grenoble xiii–xviii Part 1. Praxis and values Language documentation: Theory and practice N. Louanna Furbee 3–24 The linguist’s responsibilities to the community of speakers: Community-based research Keren Rice 25–36 Language documentation: Whose ethics? Martha J. Macri 37–48 Part 2. Adequacy in documentation Adequacy in documentation Anna Berge 51–66 Necessary and sufficient data collection: Lessons from Potawatomi legacy documentation Laura Buszard-Welcher 67–74 Documenting different genres of oral narrative in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Verónica Vázquez Soto 75–88 Constructing adequate language documentation for multifaceted cross-linguistic data: A case study from the Virtual Center for Study of Language Acquisition Barbara Lust, Suzanne Flynn, María Blume, Elaine Westbrooks and Theresa Tobin 89–108 Part 3. Documentation technology Valuing technology: Finding the linguist’s place in a new technological universe Jeff Good 111–132 Using the E-MELD School of Best Practices to create lasting digital documentation Jessica Boynton, Steven Moran, Helen Aristar-Dry and Anthony Rodrigues Aristar 133–146 Sharing data in small and endangered languages: Cataloging and metadata, formats, and encodings Nicholas Thieberger and Michel Jacobson 147–158 Representing minority languages and cultures on the World Wide Web David Golumbia 159–170 Part 4. Models of successful collaborations Beyond expertise: The role of the linguist in language revitalization programs Donna B. Gerdts 173–192 Models of successful collaboration Arienne Dwyer 193–212 Working with language communities in unarchiving: Making the J. P. Harrington notes accessible Martha J. Macri 213–220 Saving languages, saving lives: Tojolabal (Mayan) language revival within a health research NGO Hermelindo Aguilar Méndez, Teresa López Méndez, Juan Méndez Vázquez, Maria Bertha Sántiz Pérez, Ramon Jiménez Jiménez, N. Louanna Furbee, Louanna del Socorro Guillén Rovelo and Robert A. Benfer 221–230 Language documentation in the Tohono O’odham community Colleen M. Fitzgerald 231–240 Documentation of pragmatics and metapragmatics: Language shift and pragmatic change in the Hmong language in Wisconsin Susan M. Burt 241–252 Part 5. Training and careers in field linguistics Training graduate students and community members for native language documentation Judith M. Maxwell 255–274 Native speakers as documenters: A student initiative at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa Frances Ajo, Valérie Guérin, Ryoko Hattori and Laura C. Robinson 275–286 Part 6. Conclusion 287–288 Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field Lenore A. Grenoble 289–310 Selected online resources 311–314 Name index 315–336 General index 337–340 “The traditional language documentation apparatus of grammar, dictionary and text collection is no longer adequate for modern documentary linguistics. Today we want to preserve performance data as well, which entails additional community participation and heavy use of modern technology. Consequently, we encounter a multitude of new questions about intellectual property rights, adequate documentation, maximizing and standardizing the potential of technology, cooperation with revitalization efforts, and more. This book collects experts' and beginners' position papers and case studies covering the wide range of issues to be considered in the practice of today's documentary linguistics. It is an important textbook and reference guide for both seasoned and new practitioners from inside and outside of academia.” David S. Rood, University of Colorado “Tant de bo aquest llibre, fet amb erudició i gran professionalitat, rebi l'atenció que es mereix fora de les fronteres dels Països Catalans i que la seva difusió arribi als filòlegs, romanistes, historiadors i altres estudiosos d'arreu del món interessats pels processos de codificació en general i per la llengua catalana en particular.” Esther Gimeno Ugaldo, Universitat de Viena, in Llengua i ús, Número 47 (2010) “The contributors to this volume all share a sense of commitment and enthusiasm for the hard work of language documentation. Although they present may perspectives, their works all exhibit a preoccupation with the ethical practice of language documentation. As those persons labor to save languages that are endangered, or at least save a persistent and useable record of them, they are more concerned with the impact of the manner of their work than many of their predecessors have been.” SirReadaLot.org, February 2011 “This rich collection addresses the many sides of language documentation and the issues they raise: the practical, methodological, intellectual, technological, cultural, interpersonal, and ethical. The contributions are varied but impressively coherent. As a group, the contributors bring a wealth of experience working with different languages and communities to the discussion, and expertise in all aspects of the documentation process. At the same time, certain threads run through the set, not the least of which is the value of collaboration between community members and linguists. Useful reading for anyone contemplating, embarking on or engaged in a language documentation project.” Marianne Mithun, University of California, Santa Barbara “This is an indispensable volume, that should become a classroom staple. A terrific collection of rich, readable, thought-provoking, and very practical chapters.” Jane Hill, University of Arizona “Here is abundance, coming at just the right time. The drive to document languages is a new pressing imperative for linguists, but a dense thicket of issues – intellectual, practical, social, ethical – threaten to frustrate their attempts to fulfill it. This book points out the hazards, and charts a path through them, combining focused position papers with the revealing experiences of dozens of practitioners.” Nicholas Ostler, Foundation for Endangered Languages “This is an exciting, wide-ranging exploration of the still-developing field of language documentation. It highlights the roles of technological advances and of ethical considerations in moving fieldwork from a solo enterprise to a multipurpose enterprise undertaken by and for diverse stakeholders, including both researchers and speaker communities. The collection is anchored by solid position papers, interspersed with illuminating case studies. Readers will come away from the volume fired by the possibilities of this field while also sobered by its intellectual and ethical challenges.” Nancy Dorian, Bryn Mawr College -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 20:58:04 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:58:04 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Rothstein/Thieroff - Mood in the Languages of Europe Message-ID: Mood in the Languages of Europe Edited by Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff University of Bochum / University of Osnabrück Studies in Language Companion Series 120 2010. xvi, 647 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0587 2 / EUR 110.00 / USD 165.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8763 2 / EUR 110.00 / USD 165.00 This book is the first comprehensive survey of mood in the languages of Europe. It gives readers access to a collection of data on mood. Each article presents the mood system of a specific European language in a way that readers not familiar with this language are able to understand and to interpret the data. The articles contain information on the morphology and semantics of the mood system, the possible combinations of tense and mood morphology, and the possible uses of the non-indica­tive mood(s). The papers address the explanation of mood from an empirical and descriptive perspective. This book is of interest to scholars of mood and modality, language contact, and areal linguistics and typology. Table of contents Preface Björn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff ix–x List of contributors xi–xii List of abbreviations xv–xvi Moods, moods, moods Rolf Thieroff 1–30 Part I. Germanic Mood in Icelandic Halldór Ármann Sigurdsson 33–55 Mood in Norwegian Kristin Melum Eide 56–70 Mood in Swedish Björn Rothstein 71–84 Mood in Danish Tanya Karoli Christensen and Lars Heltoft 85–102 Mood in English Alexander Bergs and Lena Heine 103–116 Mood in Dutch Ronny Boogaart and Theo Janssen 117–132 Mood in German Rolf Thieroff 133–154 Part II. Romance Mood in French Walter De Mulder 157–178 Mood in Portuguese Martin Becker 179–197 Mood in Spanish Brenda Laca 198–220 Mood in Catalan Josep Quer 221–236 Mood in Italian Mario Squartini 237–250 Mood in Rumanian Martin Becker 251–270 Part III. Celtic Mood in Irish Dónall P. Ó Baoill 273–291 Mood in Breton Stephen Hewitt 292–308 Mood in Welsh Johannes Heinecke 309–322 Part IV. Slavic Mood in Russian Bjorn Hansen 325–341 Mood in Polish Bjorn Hansen 342–357 Mood in Czech and Slovak Roland Meyer 358–375 Mood in Sorbian Lenka Scholze 376–393 Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Luka Szucsich 394–408 Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian Jouko Lindstedt 409–422 Part V. Baltic Mood in Latvian and Lithuanian Axel Holvoet 425–444 Part VI. Other Indo-European languages Mood in Albanian Walter Breu 447–472 Mood in Greek Hartmut Haberland 473–491 Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian Jasmine Dum-Tragut 492–508 Part VII. Finno-Ugric Mood in Finnish Hannu Tommola 511–527 Mood in Estonian Helle Metslang and Maria-Maren Sepper 528–550 Mood in Hungarian Casper de Groot 551–568 Part VIII. Other European languages Mood in Maltese Martine Vanhove 571–583 Mood in Turkish Astrid Menz 584–602 Mood in Modern Georgian Winfried Boeder 603–632 Mood in Basque Martin Haase 633–643 Index 644–647 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 21:03:47 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:03:47 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Clancy - The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic Message-ID: The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic Steven J. Clancy University of Chicago Studies in Language Companion Series 122 2010. xvii, 297 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0589 6 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book – Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8742 7 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 The complex diachronic and synchronic status of the concepts be and have can be understood only with consideration of their full range of constructions and functions. Data from modern Slavic languages (Russian, Czech, Polish, Bulgarian) provides a window into zero copulas, non-verbal have expressions, and verbal constructions. From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, be and have are analyzed in terms of a blended prototype model, wherein existence/copula for be and possession/relationship for have are inseparably combined. These concepts are related to each other in their functions and meanings and serve as organizing principles in a conceptual network of semantic neighbors, including give, take, get, become, make, and verbs of position and motion. Renewal and replacement of be and have occur through processes of polysemization and suppletization involving lexical items in this network. Topics include polysemy, suppletion, tense/mood auxiliaries, modality, causatives, evidentiality, function words, contact phenomena, syntactic calques, and idiomatic constructions. Table of contents List of tables ix–x List of figures and capsules xi–xii Abbreviations and symbols used xii–xiv A note on the content and format of this book xv–xvii Chapter 1. Why be and have? 1–8 Chapter 2. The relationship between be and have 9–66 Chapter 3. Be in the modern Slavic languages 67–120 Chapter 4. Have in the modern Slavic languages 121–158 Chapter 5. Grammaticalization of be and have 159–230 Chapter 6. Language contact and borrowing 231–250 Chapter 7. Conclusions 251–264 Appendix Data sources 265–284 Bibliography 285–290 Author index 291–292 Language index 293–294 Subject index 295–298 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Mar 23 23:01:59 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:01:59 -0700 Subject: New Benjamins title: Clancy - The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic In-Reply-To: <4D8A6033.8040503@benjamins.com> Message-ID: Sorry to ask this, but is it OK for publishers to advertise books on Funknet? I get so much mail, I would really rather not get book advertising. Today there were three Benjamins ads in my mailbox. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From reng at rice.edu Wed Mar 23 23:22:32 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:22:32 -0500 Subject: Book announcements on Funknet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johanna (and all), Yes, announcement of functionally-relevant books is certainly welcome on Funknet. This is especially true for authors who may be subscribed to the list and want to let the rest of us know about their forthcoming books; and we have generally kept an open policy to publishers as well, as long as the books do have a functional orientation. Same goes for conference calls. BTW, this parallels what other lists, such as Cogling, also do. If you feel someone is abusing this, or if you have other concerns about admin policies, please contact me privately at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu . Best, --Robert Englebretson, Funknet list admin From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 13:15:40 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:40 -0400 Subject: Grammars and Texts Message-ID: Hi all, I have been working with a number of legacy materials related to the Coeur d'Alene language (Salish/USA) which is no longer learned by children and spoken by perhaps 3 elderly speakers. I have created a website where the majority of the materials can be accessed online. However, I would like to create one or two print volumes that contain all the information in one place. I would like to update the grammar that was published in 1938 (e.g. update orthography of examples from Boazian to IPA, update what is now known of person marking), as well as provide the texts in updated orthography and with English glosses and facsimiles of originals. I'm wondering if any one can direct me to examples of (a) descriptive grammars, and (b) text analysis that are widely considered excellent in terms of organization and presentation. Thanks, Shannon From busylinguist at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 06:21:24 2011 From: busylinguist at gmail.com (carey benom) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:21:24 +0900 Subject: Deadline extended: MA program in Japanese Humanities at Kyushu University in English Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, As part of the G-30 program for internationalization, my colleagues and I have created an English-language Master’s Program in Japanese Humanities at Kyushu University, and our program has begun accepting applications from qualified undergraduates. I think of our program as an excellent chance for top-tier students interested in Japan to experience life in Japan, learn about a broad spectrum of Japanese humanities, particularly linguistics, history, literature, and philosophy, and attain a graduate degree from a top-ranked Japanese university, all without needing to speak or read Japanese (at the commencement of the program). The program is particularly suitable for students who have some Japanese skills, but do not feel ready to directly enter a graduate program using only Japanese. By continuing to improve their language skills during the course of the program, we expect that they will be ready to enter a PhD program entirely in Japanese after completion of our program, if they so desire. All core courses are taught in English, but there are many optional courses offered in Japanese. Students will choose to focus their studies on Japanese linguistics, history, or literature/philosophy. Alternatively, students may choose not to focus, but to approach the program from a "regional studies" perspective. In that case, they will take several courses in each area. There will be roughly a 2:1 or 3:1 student-teacher ratio in the program, with respect to advisees:advisors (some courses may have additional students due to the presence of students from other programs or majors, but it is very unlikely that the vast majority of courses will have more than 4-5 students). All core linguistics courses will approach Japanese linguistics from a cognitive/functional perspective. These courses include "Japanese from a Typological and Contrastive Perspective", "Current Issues in Japanese Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics", "Japanese: Language and Gender", and "A History of the Japanese Language". The program will begin in October, 2011. *The deadline for receipt of applications has been extended to April 21, 2011* due to congestion in the Japanese postal system. (The application is relatively short and simple, so there is still time for students to begin the process.) Fukuoka, where Kyushu University is located, is more than 1200 km (800 miles) away from where the recent disasters occurred, essentially on the "opposite end" of Japan. As such, we have not been directly affected by the disasters (e.g. no contamination of the air, water or food supply by radiation, supermarket shelves remain fully stocked with food, all public transportation is running smoothly, etc.). More information about the program, including applications, can be found at: http://www2.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/impjh/, where you will also find a Q&A on seismic and nuclear safety and the current situation at Kyushu University. Carey Benom Associate Professor, Japanese Linguistics Kyushu University From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Mar 31 09:48:58 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:48:58 +0300 Subject: simplicity Message-ID: Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 10:02:20 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:02:20 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Esa, In fact, there is at least one very active group that works with evaluating claims of simplicity and complexity, Josh Tenenbaum's lab at MIT's BCS Department. Their approach is quite different than you might expect, though, testing the relative complexity of the grammars needed to describe a language. Ted Gibson and Amy Perfors have worked with Josh and others to produce some interesting studies in this vein. One paper that has emerged from this research is here: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Perfors%20et%20al%20InPress%20LingReview.pdf -- Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 05:48, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Mar 31 10:06:30 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:06:30 +0300 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Dan: It is NOT "quite different" from what I expect, as you will see if you care actually to have a look at what I wrote. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Everett Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] simplicity To: Esa Itkonen , Funknet > Dear Esa, > > In fact, there is at least one very active group that works with > evaluating claims of simplicity and complexity, Josh Tenenbaum's lab > at MIT's BCS Department. Their approach is quite different than you > might expect, though, testing the relative complexity of the grammars > needed to describe a language. Ted Gibson and Amy Perfors have worked > with Josh and others to produce some interesting studies in this > vein. One paper that has emerged from this research is here: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Perfors%20et%20al%20InPress%20LingReview.pdf > > -- Dan > > > On 31 Mar 2011, at 05:48, Esa Itkonen wrote: > > > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and > only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 > and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of > simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around > the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the > same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, > for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity > are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. > It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no > way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this > so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from > my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' > and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical > and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' > (= 2011, to a > > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You > are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this > topic back in 2009. > > > > Esa > > > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 31 10:08:39 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:08:39 -0600 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... Keep on truckin', Esa. TG =================== On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 10:15:23 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:15:23 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: <4D9452A7.3060602@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom is absolutely right on here. And that was the point of the link I just sent as well. Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 06:08, Tom Givon wrote: > > Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... > > Keep on truckin', Esa. TG > > =================== > > On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >> >> Esa >> >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi Thu Mar 31 11:57:51 2011 From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kaius_Sinnem=E4ki?=) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:57:51 +0300 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Esa's claim about the interconnectedness of simplicity and complexity is well-founded. But how could these notions not be interconnected? I think Nicholas Rescher (1998) has described complexity in a helpful way. To Rescher, complexity is on the one hand a matter of real world entities, like biological systems or languages. On the other hand, our best practical index/measure of complexity depends, to some extent, on definitions & perspectives. Complexity is thus at the same time a matter of real world entities and a matter of the observer. Like Tom said, it would be a bit deflating for science if complexity was just a matter of definitions, being merely a property of our models and not of the reality they attempt to model. Yet, many have viewed complexity ultimately in this way (e.g. Karl Popper, Herbert Simon and Murray Gell-Mann). But if complexity was merely a matter of our models, I think the whole notion would not have been as helpful in science as it has been thus far. For those interested in the history of complexity research, Michel Alhadeff-Jones' (2008) brief article is an infomative introduction to the issue. In my dissertation I also write about complexity from a typological point of view. If it's accepted in the review this spring, I could send a copy or the URL to those interested. Kaius Sinnemäki References: Rescher, Nicholas 1998. Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction. Alhadeff-Jones, Michel 2008. Three generations of complexity theories: Nuances and ambiguities. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(1): 66-82. 31.3.2011 13:15, Daniel Everett kirjoitti: > Tom is absolutely right on here. And that was the point of the link I just sent as well. > > Dan > > > On 31 Mar 2011, at 06:08, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions& perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition& perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon& others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being d one in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... >> >> Keep on truckin', Esa. TG >> >> =================== >> >> On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >>> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >>> >>> Esa >>> >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Thu Mar 31 12:00:00 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:00:00 -0700 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: <4D9452A7.3060602@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Not all of us, even among the functionalists, think that language is a biologically based system. My take on it is that it is an abstract code, subject to the mathematics of information theory. Could language become more complex? Yes, but then who would be able to process it in real time? The biological bottleneck is the problem. It's not in the language. It's in us. --Aya On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to > be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to > evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself > (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify > the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all > others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on > definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we > should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In > the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, > but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system > complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. > Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others > have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something > analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the > Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe > dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that > language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to > investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... > > Keep on truckin', Esa. TG > > =================== > > On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, >> you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it >> was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity >> (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, >> as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed >> about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just >> indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to >> apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if >> the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the >> simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some >> hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on >> 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected >> writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual >> background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also >> free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in >> 2009. >> >> Esa >> >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 12:02:41 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:02:41 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I talk about complexity and simplicity as issues of the mind rather than language both in my 2012 book, Cognitive Fire, and in my LingBuzz paper, You drink. You drive. You go to jail. Where's Recursion? Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 08:00, A. Katz wrote: > Not all of us, even among the functionalists, think that language is a biologically based system. > > My take on it is that it is an abstract code, subject to the mathematics of information theory. > > Could language become more complex? Yes, but then who would be able to process it in real time? The biological bottleneck is the problem. It's not in the language. It's in us. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... >> >> Keep on truckin', Esa. TG >> >> =================== >> >> On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >>> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> >> > From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Thu Mar 31 19:45:01 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:45:01 -0400 Subject: simplicity Message-ID: Hi, I just started following FUNKNET and saw the discussion about simplicity. If I understand the discussion correctly, I think there is an alternative way to think about complexity, one that is empirically driven and informed by psycholinguistics. I understand that this argument can easily become circular, but that depends on the specific claims. Hal Tily and I discuss this approach and summarize psycholinguistic findings over the last four decades that speak to both 'complexity' (of processing) and 'communicative suitability' (Jaeger and Tily, 2011, WIRE: Cognitive Science, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.126/pdf). It's a very short article, perhaps of interest to this discussion? There are actually several labs that seek to address what's complex, using both behavioral and computational methods and investigation acquisition, comprehension, and production (what's complex to acquisition isn't necessarily complex to production, etc.). A lot of this work relies on information theoretic and Bayesian derivations of "ideal speakers", "ideal comprehenders", etc. and the proposals capture and extend ideas that have been around for a long time in functional linguistics. In case you are interested in knowing more about these lines of work, some people that I would consider working on these topics are: Masha Fedzechkina, Ramon Ferrer i Cancho, John Hale, Roger Levy, Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin, Ting Qian, Amy Perfors, and Steven Piantadosi, Hal Tily, and myself (this is still a very biased and much too short list). This field provides both theoretical solutions to what is "complex", "simple", or "suited for communication" and psycholinguistics, as well as cross-linguistics, empirical evaluations of these theories (for a summary see the linked article above). Apologies if I misunderstood and this is irrelevant to your discussion. Florian From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Thu Mar 31 23:20:37 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:20:37 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, thanks to Fritz Newmeyer for pointing out that the article I mentioned in my previous email is hard to download from WIREs. I've now uploaded a pre-final draft (proofs) on my academia.edu page: http://rochester.academia.edu/tiflo/Papers/497247/Jaeger_T._F._and_Tily_H._2011._Language_Processing_Complexity_and_Communicative_Efficiency._WIRE_Cognitive_Science_pages_TBA . Hopefully, that will work =). Florian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Florian, > > Is there some other way to access this paper? Wiley does not make it easy > (even though I published something on WIRES myself). > > 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] > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, T. Florian Jaeger wrote: > > Hi, >> >> I just started following FUNKNET and saw the discussion about simplicity. >> If >> I understand the discussion correctly, I think there is an alternative way >> to think about complexity, one that is empirically driven and informed by >> psycholinguistics. I understand that this argument can easily become >> circular, but that depends on the specific claims. >> >> Hal Tily and I discuss this approach and summarize psycholinguistic >> findings >> over the last four decades that speak to both 'complexity' (of processing) >> and 'communicative suitability' (Jaeger and Tily, 2011, WIRE: Cognitive >> Science, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.126/pdf). It's a >> very short article, perhaps of interest to this discussion? >> >> There are actually several labs that seek to address what's complex, using >> both behavioral and computational methods and investigation acquisition, >> comprehension, and production (what's complex to acquisition isn't >> necessarily complex to production, etc.). A lot of this work relies on >> information theoretic and Bayesian derivations of "ideal speakers", "ideal >> comprehenders", etc. and the proposals capture and extend ideas that have >> been around for a long time in functional linguistics. In case you are >> interested in knowing more about these lines of work, some people that I >> would consider working on these topics are: Masha Fedzechkina, Ramon >> Ferrer >> i Cancho, John Hale, Roger Levy, Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin, Ting >> Qian, >> Amy Perfors, and Steven Piantadosi, Hal Tily, and myself (this is still a >> very biased and much too short list). This field provides both theoretical >> solutions to what is "complex", "simple", or "suited for communication" >> and >> psycholinguistics, as well as cross-linguistics, empirical evaluations of >> these theories (for a summary see the linked article above). >> >> Apologies if I misunderstood and this is irrelevant to your discussion. >> >> Florian >> >> > From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Thu Mar 3 11:16:28 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 06:16:28 -0500 Subject: Neural Circuits Message-ID: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228151752.htm This is vxt new? Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Thu Mar 3 18:18:57 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:18:57 -0700 Subject: Neural Circuits In-Reply-To: <8906897.1299150988822.JavaMail.root@wamui-cynical.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: As far as I can see, it's a new experimental task, and as such, it's one of a large number of experiments over the past decade that have shown that the 1-to-1 assignment of what we think of as 'processes' to particular areas of the brain is wrong.But it would have been very hard to come up with anything better than that simple idea until brain imaging became sufficiently sensitive to show the rich (but not amorphous!) patterns of activation involved in doing anything cognitive. Tom Givon pointed out on a Facebook discussion yesterday that the old picture has been successfully challenged already, and that this is not a natural task. Both are true, but that doesn't detract from its value as another piece of the new picture. Lise On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:16 AM, jess tauber wrote: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110228151752.htm > > This is vxt new? > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From rjl at ehop.com Sat Mar 5 18:02:01 2011 From: rjl at ehop.com (rjl at ehop.com) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 19:02:01 +0100 Subject: Exemplar Semantics workshop Message-ID: Please find below a meeting announcement -- Ren?-Joseph Lavie MoDyCo (Universit? Paris Ouest Nanterre la D?fense et CNRS) rjl at ehop.com http://rjl.ehop.com 33 (0)1 4370 4467 ---- 33 (0)6 0818 6973 Cavete: SMS non accipiuntur. Je ne re?ois pas de SMS. Text messages not received. =================== EXEMPLAR SEMANTICS, A ONE DAY WORKSHOPla D?fense Date: March 18, 2011 (9:00 ? 18:00). Location: Universit? Paris Ouest Nanterre la D?fense, room G614. Details on this page [1]. Download the summaries [2]. The meeting is open. To facilitate the organization please state your intention to attend by sending a message to rjl AT ehop Dot com CONTEXT Exemplars have been around in psychology for thirty years. In linguistics, exemplars are promising as an alternative base for theoretical linguistics, understood as that which together seeks to account for linguistic productivity, learnability and linguistic change: exemplars would make up for the limits of abstraction-based theories. Over the last fifteen years, exemplars have been used mainly in phonology and in morphology, a little in syntax. Today, their use in semantics is just emerging. Parallel to this, philosophers propose to circumvent the shortages of Fregean descriptivism with notions such as 'object file' or 'mental file'. Exemplars and mental files both substitute one abstract entity with a set of more concrete ones. This character is shared by a number of approaches that vary however in scope, intent, and in the way they profile the exemplars and subject them to their goals. So a scene is currently building up that is promising, and that is both unitary and diverse. PURPOSE AND INTENT Survey recent advances in linguistics tending to show why exemplars are wanted in semantics and how their proponents configure them. Identify what is meant by 'exemplar' as far as semantics is concerned: is the concept univocally defined, what the different acceptations are, how they compare, what merits each has. Assess what stage different approaches have reached: programmatic / partial achievements / identified open issues / directions for progress. PROGRAMME 9-9:30 Bernard Laks (Vice Pr?sident d?l?gu? ? la Recherche, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la D?fense, France) Allocution de bienvenue. Les d?buts des exemplaires en linguistique. (Opening address. Early history of exemplars in linguistics.) 9:30-10:30 William Croft (Professor of linguistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA) Exemplar semantics: cross-linguistic and language internal evidence. 10:30-11 Break 11-12 Andrea Sans? (Professore di linguistica, Universit? di Insubria, Como, Italia) Exemplar semantics and diachrony, applications and open questions. 12-14 Lunch 14-15 Dominique Legallois (Ma?tre de conf?rences, Universit? de Caen, France) Mod?lisation de l'interpr?tation abductive fond?e sur des exemplaires. (Exemplar-based modelling of abductive interpretation.) 15-15:30 Agathe Cormier (Doctorante, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la D?fense, France) La signification dans les _Recherches Philosophiques_ de Wittgenstein : une s?mantique des occurrences pour rendre compte du savoir-faire linguistique. (Signification in Wittgenstein's _Philosophical Investigations_: a semantics of occurrences to account for linguistic know-how.) 15:30-16 Break 16-17 Ren?-Joseph Lavie (Membre associ?, MoDyCo, U. Paris Ouest Nanterre la D?fense, France) Backing exemplar-based semantics to exemplar-based syntax. 17-18 General discussion. Assessment, perspectives. LANGUAGE The languages of the meeting are French and English. Links: ------ [1] http://www.modyco.fr/index.php?view=details&id=268&option=com_eventlist&Itemid=5&lang=fr [2] http://www.modyco.fr/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=524&Itemid=4&lang=fr From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 17:03:38 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:03:38 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Van linden et al. - Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Message-ID: Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research Edited by An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete and Kristin Davidse University of Leuven In collaboration with Hubert Cuyckens Typological Studies in Language 94 2010. viii, 344 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0675 6 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8767 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 This collective volume focuses on the crucial role of formal evidence in recognizing and explaining instances of grammaticalization. It addresses the hitherto neglected issue of system-internal factors steering grammaticalization and also revisits formal recognition criteria such as Lehmann and Hopper?s parameters of grammaticalization. The articles investigate developments of such phenomena as modal auxiliaries, attitudinal markers, V1-conditionals, nominalizers, and pronouns, using data from a wide range of languages and (in some cases) from diachronic corpora. In the process, they explore finer mechanisms of grammaticalization such as modification of coding means, structural and semantic analogy, changes in frequency and prosody, and shifts in collocational and grammatical distribution. The volume is of particular interest to historical linguists working on grammaticalization, and general linguists working on the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics, as well as that between synchrony and diachrony. Table of contents Acknowledgements vii?viii Introduction Kristin Davidse, An Van linden and Jean-Christophe Verstraete 1?16 On problem areas in grammaticalization: Lehmann?s parameters and the issue of scope Olga Fischer 17?42 Grammaticalization within and outside of a domain Zygmunt Frajzyngier 43?62 Delexicalizing di: How a Chinese noun has evolved into an attitudinal nominalizer Foong Ha Yap, Fanny Pik-ling Choi and Kam-siu Cheung 63?92 Should conditionals be emergent ?: Asyndetic subordination in German and English as a challenge to grammaticalization research Daan Van den Nest 93?136 From manner expression to attitudinal discourse marker: The case of Dutch anders Hans Smessaert and William Van Belle 137?190 Grammaticalization and lexicalization effects in participial morphology: A Construction Grammar approach to language change Mirjam Fried 191?224 Frequency as a cause of semantic change: With focus on the second person form omae in Japanese Shibasaki Reijirou 225?244 The role of frequency and prosody in the grammaticalization of Korean -canh- Sung-Ock Sohn 245?274 Emergence of the indefinite article: Discourse evidence for the grammaticalization of yige in spoken Mandarin Mei-chun Liu 275?288 To dare to or not to: Is auxiliarization reversible? Julia Schl?ter 289?326 Author index 327?329 Index of languages and language families 331?332 Subject index 333?344 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 16:58:14 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 11:58:14 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Boas - Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar Message-ID: Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar Edited by Hans C. Boas University of Texas, Austin Constructional Approaches to Language 10 2010. vii, 244 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0432 5 / EUR 90.00 / USD 135.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8760 1 / EUR 90.00 / USD 135.00 The papers in this volume provide a contrastive application of Construction Grammar. By referencing a well-described constructional phenomenon in English, each paper provides a solid foundation for describing and analyzing its constructional counterpart in another language. This approach shows that the semantic description (including discourse-pragmatic and functional factors) of an English construction can be regarded as a first step towards a "tertium comparationis" that can be employed for comparing and contrasting the formal properties of constructional counterparts in other languages. Thus, the meaning pole of constructions should be regarded as the primary basis for comparisons of constructions across languages ? the form pole is only secondary. This volume shows that constructions are viable descriptive and analytical tools for cross-linguistic comparisons that make it possible to capture both language-specific (idiosyncratic) properties as well as cross-linguistic generalizations. Table of contents Acknowledgments vii?viii Comparing constructions across languages Hans C. Boas 1?20 Comparing comparatives: A corpus-based study of comparative constructions in English and Swedish Martin Hilpert 21?42 Contrasting constructions in English and Spanish: The influence of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse factors Francisco Gonz?lvez Garc?a 43?86 Conditional constructions in English and Russian Olga Gurevich 87?102 Results, cases, and constructions: Argument structure constructions in English and Finnish Jaakko Leino 103?136 A contrastive study of the caused-motion and ditransitive constructions in English and Thai: Semantic and pragmatic constraints Napasri Timyam and Benjamin K. Bergen 137?168 On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese Yoko Hasegawa, Russell Lee-Goldman, Kyoko Hirose Ohara, Seiko Fujii and Charles J. Fillmore 169?200 Revising Talmy?s typological classification of complex event constructions William Croft, J?hanna Barddal, Willem Hollmann, Violeta Sotirova and Chiaki Taoka 201?236 Index of constructions 237?238 Index of languages 239?240 Author index 241?242 Subject index 243?244 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Sun Mar 6 17:01:00 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:01:00 -0500 Subject: New Benjamins title: Bril - Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy Message-ID: Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy. Syntax and pragmatics. Edited by Isabelle Bril CNRS-LACITO Studies in Language Companion Series 121 2010. viii, 632 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0588 9 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8758 8 / EUR 105.00 / USD 158.00 This collective volume explores clause-linkage strategies in a cross-linguistic perspective with greater emphasis on subordination. Part I presents some theoretical reassessment of syntactic terminologies and distinctive criteria for subordination, as well as typological methods based on sets of variables and statistics allowing cross-linguistic comparability. Part II deals with strategies relating to clause-chaining, conjunctive conjugations, converbial constructions, masdars. Part III centers on the interaction between the syntax, pragmatics, and semantics of clause-linking and subordination, in relation to informa?tional structure, to referential hierarchy, and correlative constructions. Part IV presents insights in the clause-linking and subordinating functions of some T.A.M. markers, verbal inflectional morphology and conjugation systems, which may also interact with informa?tional hierarchy, via the backgrounding effects and lack of illocutionary force of some aspect and mood forms. The volume is of particular interest to linguists and typologists working on clause-linkage systems and on the interface between syntax, pragmatics, and semantics. Table of contents List of contributors vii?viii Editor?s introduction: The syntax and pragmatics of clause linkage and clause hierarchy: Some new perspectives Isabelle Bril 1?24 Part I. Syntactic terminology and typological methods Clause linkage and Nexus in Papuan languages William Foley 27?50 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis Balthasar Bickel 51?102 Part II. Clause-chaining, converbs, masdars, absolutive constructions, etc. Specialized converbs and adverbial subordination in Axaxd?r? Akhvakh Denis Creissels 105?142 Finite and non-finite: Prosodic distinctions on Budugh verb stems Gilles Authier 143?164 Converbs and adverbial clauses in Badaga, a South-Dravidian language Christiane Pilot-Raichoor 165?202 Coordination, converbs and clause chaining in Coptic Egyptian typology and structural analysis Chris H. Reintges 203?266 Part III. Subordination, informational hierarchy and referential hierarchy Informational and referential hierarchy: Clause-linking strategies in Austronesian-Oceanic languages Isabelle Bril 269?312 Comment clause: Crossing the boundaries between simple and complex sentences Zygmunt Frajzyngier 313?332 Deixis, information structure and clause linkage in Yafi? Arabic (Yemen) Martine Vanhove 333?354 The role of the Berber deictic and TAM markers in dependent clauses in Zenaga Catherine Taine-Cheikh 355?398 Deixis and temporal subordinators in Pomak (Slavic, Greece) Evangelia Adamou 399?420 Correlative markers as phoric ?Grammaticalised Category Markers? of subordination in German Colette Cort?s 421?448 Part IV. Informational hierarchy and TAM markers? functions in clause-linkage Focus, mood and clause linkage in Umpithamu (Cape York Peninsula, Australia) Jean-Christophe Verstraete 451?468 Clause chaining and conjugations in Wolof: A typology of parataxis and its semantics St?phane Robert 469?498 Pragmatic demotion and clause dependency: On two atypical subordinating strategies in Lo-Toga and Hiw (Torres, Vanuatu) Alexandre Fran?ois 499?548 Tense-mood concordance and clause chaining in Mankon (a Grassfields Bantu language) Jacqueline Leroy 549?580 Clause dependency relations in East Greenlandic Inuit Nicole Tersis 581?602 Coordination and subordination: ?ma in Bulgarian dialectal Greek Eleni Valma 603?618 Author index 619?621 Language index 623?624 Topic index 625?632 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From language at sprynet.com Wed Mar 9 06:46:03 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 01:46:03 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... Message-ID: Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to understand how language works. That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a challenge I absolutely will not accept. Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as we might. All the very best! alex From hopper at cmu.edu Wed Mar 9 22:23:27 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:23:27 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <3E60EA342A414E76B5B29B4D523381E3@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From pustetrm at yahoo.com Thu Mar 10 08:24:23 2011 From: pustetrm at yahoo.com (REGINA PUSTET) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:24:23 -0800 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <023a67ed002b4c3b0c09c9c30bad8ddc.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: I agree, Paul. These are things that have been in need of an explicit statement for a long time. Regina ________________________________ From: Paul Hopper To: alex gross Cc: Tom Givon ; Funknet Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:23:27 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From ff244 at nyu.edu Thu Mar 10 10:42:00 2011 From: ff244 at nyu.edu (Franca Ferrari-Bridgers) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:42:00 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <788829.84387.qm@web110308.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe that we as linguists should use our weapons of war to argue for the survival of our discipline in the academia rather than use these weapons within our circles. Linguistics is at its lowest hiring point and soon, once the famous net warriors will retire, there flame wars will extinguish by themselves for lack of intellectual fire. Perhaps it is time to use all our flaming thoughts, weapons and words to get together and fight battles for new jobs that will bring new blood on the field. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: REGINA PUSTET Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:24:23 To: Paul Hopper; alex gross Cc: Tom Givon; Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... I agree, Paul. These are things that have been in need of an explicit statement for a long time. Regina ________________________________ From: Paul Hopper To: alex gross Cc: Tom Givon ; Funknet Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:23:27 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Well said, Alex. A dignified response to a cruel ad hominem "joke". Paul >Hey, you finally broke a FUNKNET record. Care to guess which one? TG On Wed, March 9, 2011 01:46, alex gross wrote: > Tom, I like to imagine that I possess a sense of fitness and > of humor. So let me tell you in no uncertain terms that I have not the > slightest intention of ever engaging in a flame war with you (though I bet > if I did, I would win :-) ). This is because I have deep respect for you > and for everyone here, including those I do not agree with, simply because > you have all collectively undertaken the often thankless task of trying to > understand how language works. > > That said, with all respect I can't help wondering if it was entirely > appropriate for you, seconded by Chris, to suggest that the apparent lack > of response to some of my messages might just indicate that my presence > here may be superfluous. Based on my experience since 1991 with > discussions on learned groups, in my opinion both those messages could be > interpreted as an invitation and/or instigation to a flame war, a > challenge I > absolutely will not accept. > > Flame wars are not merely bad Netiquette, they are boring and/or > irritating to read, they shed no light but only heat and passion, and they > diminish standards of discussion for everyone wherever they occur. > > I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you to consider that > perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is > sometimes curtailed here, why some contributors might think twice about > posting, and why a number of us may not always receive as many replies as > we might. > > All the very best! > > > alex > > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From thomasa.pinto at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:26:20 2011 From: thomasa.pinto at gmail.com (Thomas Pinto) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:26:20 -0700 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... Message-ID: Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ?may not always receive as many replies as you might? is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures than he ever had the right to do?and he has left a few traces of his activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, the UK, the US, and Holland. > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors might think twice about posting. From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Thu Mar 10 18:45:05 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:45:05 -0500 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: More stinking flaming. What is WRONG with you people? If you don't like something that someone says, why can't you say so in a civil tone? Thomas, the problem with flaming is that you make yourself look worse than the person you are castigating. You have definitely accomplished that here. I don't know you, but given what you have just written I have no desire to ever come across you. None of this is academic. There's no place for it on an academic list. If the members can't control their base urges why not either shut it down completely or block each person immediately when they send a flaming message? No need to moderate beforehand. Let them spew their venom and then forever hold their pace. Then let's get back to work. ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Thu, 10 Mar 2011, Thomas Pinto wrote: > Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ?may not always receive as many > replies as you might? is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious > self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both > laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ > > >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures > than he ever had the right to do?and he has left a few traces of his > activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into > his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, > the UK, the US, and Holland. > > > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek > Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal > Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in > Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the > causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. > > Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and > insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a > Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp > researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least > they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not > like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. > > As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, > Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one > reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors > might think twice about posting. > From brian.nolan at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:46:54 2011 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:46:54 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Guys, This rant below is really quite inappropriate for this type of list..and very immature. Brian Sent from my iPhone ____________________ Dr. Brian Nolan On 10 Mar 2011, at 18:26, Thomas Pinto wrote: > Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ?may not always receive as many > replies as you might? is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious > self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both > laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ > >> A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures > than he ever had the right to do?and he has left a few traces of his > activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into > his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, > the UK, the US, and Holland. > >> Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek > Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal > Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in > Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the > causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. > > Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and > insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a > Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp > researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least > they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not > like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. > > As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, > Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one > reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors > might think twice about posting. From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Thu Mar 10 18:57:50 2011 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (v.evans at bangor.ac.uk) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:57:50 +0000 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Thomas, You are clearly a tosser, and you I would be happy to flame. This discussion is unhelpful. I suggest colleagues stick to the facts and the enemy. Vyv ---- Prof. Vyv Evans Professor of Linguistics www.vyvevans.net -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Pinto Sender: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:26:20 To: Subject: [FUNKNET] Why Netiquette matters... Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ?may not always receive as many replies as you might? is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures than he ever had the right to do?and he has left a few traces of his activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, the UK, the US, and Holland. > Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors might think twice about posting. From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Mar 10 19:49:16 2011 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:49:16 -0800 Subject: Why Netiquette matters... In-Reply-To: <268DA7D1-1A5A-4163-BDD8-FAD80D96BCA9@gmail.com> Message-ID: amazingly vitriolic. Please take it offline. On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Brian Nolan wrote: > Guys, > > This rant below is really quite inappropriate for this type of list..and very immature. > > Brian > > Sent from my iPhone > ____________________ > Dr. Brian Nolan > > On 10 Mar 2011, at 18:26, Thomas Pinto wrote: > >> Alex Gross have you ever considered why you ?may not always receive as many >> replies as you might? is probably due to the fact that you are pretentious >> self indulgent attention whore? Your bio presented on your website is both >> laughable and embarrassing. http://language.home.sprynet.com/ >> >>> A practicing polyglot, Alex Gross has meddled in more nations and cultures >> than he ever had the right to do?and he has left a few traces of his >> activities behind him in all of them. Selig-like, he seamlessly blended into >> his surroundings and propelled both artistic and political motion in Germany, >> the UK, the US, and Holland. >> >>> Over the last thirty-five years Chinese Medicine, the Ancient Greek >> Theatre, Artificial Intelligence, the Unabomber, Dramaturgy for the Royal >> Shakespeare Company, Translation in Theory and Practice, Radio Announcing in >> Spain, and unceasingly Language and Linguistics have been just some of the >> causes and activities where he has left tangible and legible traces. >> >> Ugh. Ego much? Your observations and ideas often have some merit and >> insight but these are offset by your use of this discussion group as a >> Kleenex for your mental masturbation. Yes, Jess Tauber and the chimp >> researcher Aya Katz also seem to enjoy posting and ruminating but at least >> they have proper training and a background in language and linguistics not >> like your ad hoc hodge podge set of skills and supposed qualifications. >> >> As you so aptly pointed out I wonder if it might not be appropriate for you, >> Alex Gross, to consider that perhaps you yourself might conceivably be one >> reason why debate is sometimes curtailed here and why some contributors >> might think twice about posting. From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Mon Mar 14 10:03:57 2011 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:03:57 +0000 Subject: CFP KEY 2011, Cardiff University, May 23-24 Message-ID: Please find below a reminder of the call for papers for the KEY 2011 conference. We hope you will think of joining us in Cardiff in May. best wishes Lise Fontaine and Michelle Aldridge KEY 2011: Keystroke Language (and Text) Production: perspectives from cognitive and functional linguistics 23-24 May 2011 Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales The use of keystroke logging as a methodology in language research is not a new field of study since the first Computer Keystroke Logging conference was held at Ume? University in Sweden in 2002. However to date this area of research has primarily focussed on written composition and translation studies. The KEY 2011 workshop and conference intends to broaden this perspective by extending the contributions keystroke logging can make to language production generally, including spontaneous language such as chat messaging. Its theme is to explore functional and cognitive perspectives on the use of keystroke logging in language research where the focus of interest is on the dynamic process of production rather than on the static product of language production. Keynote Speakers Professor Kristyan Spelman Miller (University of Winchester) Dr Mick O?Donnell (Universidad Aut?noma de Madrid and Wagsoft Software) Call for papers Papers are invited on the general theme of the conference, dealing with the use of keystroke logging in linguistic and language-related research. Presentations will be 20 minutes with 10 minutes discussion time. Papers which present work in progress or that focus on software development and methodology are also welcome. Although we will consider all contributions that relate to the main theme in general, we especially encourage papers that explore: ?Evidence of cognitive processing in electronic language production ?Corpora and the study of electronically produced language ?Language or text as dynamic process (rather than static product) ?Human-Computer Interaction as related to language and keyboard competence ?Linguistic competence (including translation competence) ?Descriptive work that enhances our understanding of electronically produced language ?Functional accounts of language production (including manual and cognitive errors) ?Methodological and/or ethical issues in the use of keystroke logging software Abstracts An abstract of approximately 400 words should be submitted electronically at the following webpage: http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/KEY2011. Please state, where appropriate, research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. Abstracts will be refereed anonymously by members of the programme committee. The deadline for submissions is 16 March 2011. Notification will be sent to authors by 4 April 2011. KEY2011 website: http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/newsandevents/events/conferences/key2011/ email: linc-network at cf.ac.uk From sclancy at uchicago.edu Mon Mar 14 18:31:29 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 13:31:29 -0500 Subject: Final CFP: EMCL-5.2 - Chicago Message-ID: The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) ? Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 ? 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ? EMCL 5.2 ? to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 ? 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively ? one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. The original application deadline is 15 March 2011, but we will continue to accept applications through the extended deadline of 22 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From fjn at u.washington.edu Tue Mar 15 22:50:25 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:50:25 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity Message-ID: Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 ama01 at uni-koeln.de Wed Mar 16 11:34:29 2011 From: ama01 at uni-koeln.de (ama01 at uni-koeln.de) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:34:29 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. Best, Bernd > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related > change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the > language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the > resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the > formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in > English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English > grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather > than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think > of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --fritz From harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 08:20:49 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:20:49 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz ? When I saw your invitation ? (whose results I?d certainly be interested in having you sum up!) ? it occurred to me that it might be useful if you said a few more words about your take on complexity. >>From one perspective (cf. Dahl 2004 on the growth of linguistic complexity) the overall result of the rise of a new grammatical item is inevitably more complexity: the grammar of the language now needs to have another paragraph. >>From another perspective (cf. Roberts and Rousseau 2003), the change from lexical to grammatical (?functional?) status inevitably involves an element of simplification, cf. the familiar ?attrition? processes. The way I see it, complexity has logical priority: When grammar arose phylogenetically, the key change was that utterances became structurally complex. Later, processes of grammaticalization may serve to simplify some complex structures (as when in Danish s? Gud hj?lpe mig ?so God help me? ends up as the particle sgu.). But note that the language still gets an extra grammatical element out of it. Peter Harder, University of Copenhagen Peter Harder Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________________ Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Frederick J Newmeyer [fjn at u.washington.edu] Sendt: 15. marts 2011 23:50 Til: Funknet Emne: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk Wed Mar 16 09:44:09 2011 From: BartlettT at cardiff.ac.uk (Tom Bartlett) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:44:09 +0000 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: How about when our ancestors moved from holistic cries to two-item complexes? Tom. From: Frederick J Newmeyer To: Funknet Date: 16/03/2011 03:09 Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Sent by: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Funknetters, I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. --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 oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Wed Mar 16 12:28:55 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:28:55 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I sent the text below a little while ago as a personal message to Fritz, but I see now that I had better post it to the list. ----------------------------------- "Obligatorification", the process by which markers and markings become obligatory, is usually seen as a central part of grammaticalization. In particular, if a lexical item turns into an obligatory grammatical marker, this would ceteris paribus increase the complexity of grammar -- a language with a certain grammatical marker has a more complex grammar than one without it, on any definition of complexity. For instance, the modern Germanic and Romance languages have articles -- early Germanic and Latin did not, so in this respect the modern languages have more complex grammars than their ancestors. The relationship is obscured by the fact that usually many things go on at once, and that often, it may seem that a newly introduced marker replaces an old one, in which case there is no obvious increase in complexity (maybe there will rather be a decrease, if the new system is simpler than the old one). So you may still have to choose your examples a bit carefully. In the case of the West European articles, people may say "well but the modern languages lost their case systems" -- although that is not true for all of them (such as German, Icelandic, and other conservative North Germanic varieties). If you don't want to argue about such situations, you could take an example like English reflexives -- Old English had got rid of the old Indo-European reflexives in s- (like German sich), and did not distinguish 'He washed him' and 'He washed himself'. (Apparently Frisian still does not.) So this would have been a simplification of the grammar, which was later reverted by the introduction of the new reflexives in -self. Your formulation "however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user" suggests that you think of grammaticalization as a process driven by users' conscious needs. While that may be true of the initial stages of a grammaticalization process, I think it is not an adequate description of grammaticalization in general. In particular, obligatorification means that speakers lose the possibility of choosing between two alternatives, and so are worse off. You might want to look at my 2004 book "The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity" (Benjamins), where I discuss these and similar questions extensively. Best, ?sten > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet- > bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Frederick J Newmeyer > Sent: den 15 mars 2011 23:50 > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, > however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, > ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical > system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct > grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. > One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there > are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. > Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 amnfn at well.com Wed Mar 16 12:40:06 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 05:40:06 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, The way you describe what you are looking for, any kind of split, whether phonological, morphological or syntactic, would be such a grammaticalization-related increase in complexity. So when a stop becomes a fricative in specific environments, that increases the complexity of the phonological system. When a lexeme is recruited as a grammatical marker for a new category, say leich/li/ly to adjectival/adverbial marker, there is increased complexity. When a change in word order, which used to be optional, like putting the verb first, becomes marked for semantic purposes, like question formation, then that increases the grammatical complexity. Of course, all these changes usually result in a loss of complexity somewhere else in the language. --Aya On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, > ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical >system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct >grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of >verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because >there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct >properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other >languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Mar 16 13:04:58 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:04:58 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <20110316123429.14987d2dsc0dz1ol@webmail.uni-koeln.de> Message-ID: Dear Bernd and Fritz, languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of explicitness' instead.... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > Best, > Bernd > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --fritz > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From dan at daneverett.org Wed Mar 16 13:13:40 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:13:40 -0400 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: What Wolfgang says here is true and it is perennial source of confusion in some grammars. As readers of this list know, it is quite possible for a language to use a semantic category without expressing that category formally in the lexicon or morphology. So claiming that a language lacks a past tense or definiteness distinctions (or numbers, or recursivity, etc) in the morphology doesn't mean that they lack it in the semantics or vice-versa. That is one reason why it is so difficult to answer Fritz's question - we need to be clear what we mean by 'grammar' by 'complexity' and so on. And on the general subject of complexity, Osten's book is one of those that should be read by all (as well Tom Givon's on grammatical complexity). Dan On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Wolfgang Schulze wrote: > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. From harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 13:57:57 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 14:57:57 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang - Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Peter Harder Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________________ Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sendt: 16. marts 2011 14:04 Til: ama01 at uni-koeln.de Cc: Funknet; Frederick J Newmeyer Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Dear Bernd and Fritz, languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of explicitness' instead.... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > Best, > Bernd > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --fritz > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Wed Mar 16 15:17:55 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 08:17:55 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461A@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter and others, This is a very important observation. David Kronenfeld -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html On 3/16/2011 6:57 AM, Peter Harder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang - > > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: > > In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. > > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. > > Peter Harder > Professor, dr.phil. > telf. +45 35 32 86 09 > Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies > University of Copenhagen > DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 > Copenhagen S > ________________________________________ > Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] > Sendt: 16. marts 2011 14:04 > Til: ama01 at uni-koeln.de > Cc: Funknet; Frederick J Newmeyer > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that > speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. > All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to > symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article > system is not of the type X> X + Y, but rather X:Y> X + Y. A rise in > complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic > explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of > 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' > (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of > language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but > constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not > (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon > (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic > categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that > there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). > However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state > that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is > more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering > another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But > this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number > of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with > respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such > sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and > thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument > around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' > something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one > may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered > even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially > functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, > typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard > ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and > many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in > linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I > prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of > explicitness' instead.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: >> Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to >> come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible >> for an increase in overall complexity of the type X> X + Y. It all >> depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". >> But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and >> definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are >> many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. >> Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic >> and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is >> well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one'> indefinite >> article, and demonstrative attribute> definite article, >> respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in >> overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean >> that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If >> you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. >> Best, >> Bernd >> >>> Funknetters, >>> >>> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >>> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >>> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >>> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >>> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >>> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >>> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >>> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >>> other/better examples from other languages? >>> >>> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >>> >>> --fritz >> >> > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut f?r Allgemeine& Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen > > Ludwigstra?e 25 > > D-80539 M?nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend > den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren > sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder > etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Mar 16 17:24:13 2011 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:24:13 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I probably did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. One category splitting into two (the example I gave) increases complexity in one way (a bigger inventory of categories results), but perhaps not in other ways, particularly if the new category encodes a coherent semantic class. Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) are irregular in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that class. --fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Funknetters, > > I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other languages? > > Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > > --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 harder at hum.ku.dk Wed Mar 16 17:24:37 2011 From: harder at hum.ku.dk (Peter Harder) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:24:37 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80EA16.9030607@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang - Thank you taking up this discussion of principle (which David and I believe is important!) Thank you also for your clarifying comments, which show that the disagreement is different from what I thought. I think the issue comes out best in the following comment (PH1:) These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - (WS comment:) Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? PH2: you take 'complex' to equal 'difficult' - and that was not the intended meaning. The point I wanted to make was that there was an inherent complexity in the language, e.g. in the agreement system (which you implicitly agree with in your comment above) - which need not have anything to do with cognitive difficulty, your native Navajo being a plausible illustration of this. (The issue of complexity and difficulty is dealt with in Dahl 2004:39). Based on the implicit agreement, it appears we should also be able to agree that you can measure complexity of language (as a phenomenon!) provided you take care not to draw simplistic conclusions about cognitive capacity or difficulty from such descriptions. Best, Peter Professor, dr.phil. telf. +45 35 32 86 09 Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies University of Copenhagen DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 Copenhagen S ________________________________ Fra: Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] Sendt: 16. marts 2011 17:49 Til: Peter Harder Cc: Funknet Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity Dear Peter, these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: Right! In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Sure, there is not doubt about this! Best wishes, Wolfgang -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed Mar 16 16:49:26 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:49:26 +0100 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461A@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter, these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is identical to cognitive complexity. No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. > After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a natural assumption to make, and this also makes it is worth putting a question mark against it: Right! > In addition to being the possession of an individual, a language is also a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood. Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. > These affordances/constraints may be more or less complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. > and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. > In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. > Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. Sure, there is not doubt about this! Best wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Wed Mar 16 19:05:34 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 21:05:34 +0200 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <4D80B57A.4050204@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Maybe not, but it's pretty tough to explain definiteness to a native speaker of Japanese or Russian, even if their knowledge of a language with articles is generally pretty good. I've spent enough time trying to do this to be skeptical of claims that these people really do know the concept of definiteness. Best, John Quoting Wolfgang Schulze : > Dear Bernd and Fritz, > languages without an article system do not (necessarily) imply that > speakers of that language do not know the concept of (in)definiteness. > All we can say is that they do not use specific linguistic signs to > symbolize this feature. In other words: The development of an article > system is not of the type X > X + Y, but rather X:Y > X + Y. A rise in > complexity would then be nothing but a strengthening of linguistic > explicitness. I think this holds for most instances of > 'grammaticalization'. In my eyes, speakers rarely 'invent' or 'create' > (for their language) new linguistic categories (better: sets of > language-based symbolic signs used to encode conceptual categories), but > constantly waver between symbolizing these conceptual categories or not > (this problem is directly connected with the famous Menon paradoxon > (Platon)). From the 'outside', that is by looking at these linguistic > categories as an observer, we are often left with the impression that > there has been something 'new' going on (e.g. rise in complexity). > However, this is a matter of the observer's view point. (S)he may state > that a set of elements and structures that outnumbers another set is > more complex; or, (s)he may argue that a set of elements outnumbering > another set with respect to its structures alone is more complex. But > this is a mere quantitative argument. What, if a set has the same number > of elements as another system, but differs from the other set with > respect to the degree of fusion (X:Y = X + Y)? When perceiving such > sets, the set (X + Y) superficially takes more time to be processed and > thus looks as being more complex. However, we can turn the argument > around: (X:Y) could likewise be called more complex, because it 'has' > something that the (X+Y) set lacks, namely 'fusion'. Consequently, one > may doubt whether the concept of complexity (itself sometimes considered > even as an autological term) is of any real use in (especially > functional and cognitive) linguistics (except for didactic purpose, > typological counting and statistics etc.). Unfortunately, the standard > ways of defining complexity in e.g. system theory (Warren Weaver and > many others) are of little help for judging upon complexity in > linguistics, as far as I can see (but I may be wrong). Therefore, I > prefer to skip this term at all and to use something like 'degree of > explicitness' instead.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > Am 16.03.2011 12:34, schrieb ama01 at uni-koeln.de: > > > > Thanks for raising this issue, dear Fritz. I don't think it is hard to > > come up with further examples where grammaticalization was responsible > > for an increase in overall complexity of the type X > X + Y. It all > > depends of course on how you define "resultant grammatical system". > > But if you assume, for example, that a language with (indefinite and > > definite) articles is more complex than one without then there are > > many languages in the world that have moved from less to more complex. > > Neither Proto-Germanic nor Latin had articles, while modern Germanic > > and Romance languages do, and the nature of the processes is > > well-known (in most cases via a development numeral 'one' > indefinite > > article, and demonstrative attribute > definite article, > > respectively). In this sense then there has been an increase in > > overall complexity (it goes without saying that this does not mean > > that Modern English is overall "more complex" than Proto-Germanic). If > > you want a hundred of more examples of this kind, please let me know. > > Best, > > Bernd > > > >> Funknetters, > >> > >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related > >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the > >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the > >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the > >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in > >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English > >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather > >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of > >> other/better examples from other languages? > >> > >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. > >> > >> --fritz > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut f�r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M�nchen > > Ludwigstra�e 25 > > D-80539 M�nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch�tzte > Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. > diese e-Mail irrt�mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend > den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren > sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder > etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in > Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f�r jeglichen > Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails > ausgeschlossen. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From amnfn at well.com Wed Mar 16 18:04:46 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:04:46 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, In that case, it seems you are looking for an increase in irregularity, which would be a decrease in rule-based phenomena. So by complexity, you mean more things to memorize, fewer things to decode? --Aya On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I probably > did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. One category > splitting into two (the example I gave) increases complexity in one way (a > bigger inventory of categories results), but perhaps not in other ways, > particularly if the new category encodes a coherent semantic class. > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of > grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical > example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns grammaticalizing into > prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) > are irregular in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that > class. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the resultant >> grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the formation of the >> distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in English out of a >> subclass of verbs. One might argue that English grammar is now more complex >> because there are two categories rather than one and each have very >> distinct properties. Can anybody think of other/better examples from other >> languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --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 david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Wed Mar 16 18:46:13 2011 From: david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu (David Kronenfeld) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:46:13 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: <715459018915F5409A423D87679013EEA7F40D461D@post> Message-ID: Dear Peter and Wolfgang, First, thanks for the exchange--I am learning much from it ! Second, let me offer that language can be seen as a system of variously interacting subsystems (where "interacting" means that the subsystems are not totally independent of one another). One can, I think, speak reasonably of (and thus evaluate) the complexity of each of those subsystems--and of the learning/coding problems that each presents (whether in absolute terms or relative to some other specific already known system). In principle one can put those separate complexities together into some net evaluation, but with an awareness of two problems: a) while we know the major subsystems, I am not so certain we have down all the more minor ones (sub-subsystems and such), and b) the "variously interacting" relations among the subsystems--i.e., their degrees of non-independence--make the putting together tricky. Best, David On 3/16/2011 10:24 AM, Peter Harder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang - > > > > Thank you taking up this discussion of principle (which David and I believe > > is important!) Thank you also for your clarifying comments, which show that > > the disagreement is different from what I thought. I think the issue comes out > > best in the following comment > > (PH1:) These affordances/constraints may be more or less > > complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples > > of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - > > > > (WS comment:) Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? > > PH2: you take 'complex' to equal 'difficult' - and that was not the intended meaning. The point I wanted to make was that there was an inherent complexity in the language, e.g. in the agreement system (which you implicitly agree with in your comment above) - which need not have anything to do with cognitive difficulty, your native Navajo being a plausible illustration of this. (The issue of complexity and difficulty is dealt with in Dahl 2004:39). > > Based on the implicit agreement, it appears we should also be able to agree that you can measure complexity of language (as a phenomenon!) provided you take care not to draw simplistic conclusions about cognitive capacity or difficulty from such descriptions. > > Best, > Peter > > > Professor, dr.phil. > telf. +45 35 32 86 09 > Inst.f. Engelsk, Germansk og Romansk/Dept of English, Germanic and Romance Studies > University of Copenhagen > DK-2300 Njalsgade 130 > Copenhagen S > ________________________________ > Fra: Wolfgang Schulze [W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de] > Sendt: 16. marts 2011 17:49 > Til: Peter Harder > Cc: Funknet > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] grammaticalization and complexity > > Dear Peter, > these are really helpful remarks. Let me nevertheless comment upon some of them (sorry to bother you all again with my horrible English!): > > Your argument presupposes that linguistic complexity is > > identical to cognitive complexity. > > No, that's not what I have tried to say. Starting from your formulation this would mean that linguistic complexity reflects parallel complexity in cognition and vice versa. This is just what I wanted to question. First of all, it is rather obscure to my what should be meant by 'cognitive complexity'. The term would only make 'sense' if correlated with the assumption that where would be some kind of 'cognitive simplicity'. Such a categorization would perhaps make sense in case you compare say the cognition of humans with that of a jellyfish (if ever). But in our case, we deal with human cognition only. Thankfully, the assumption of human cognitions that would differ as for complexity has since long been abandoned. The only instance, where such a term will perhaps make sense seems to be developmental psychology. But even in this case, one might wonder what's the use of the term. In my eyes, the cognitive system of any animate being is (more or less) accommodated to its actual environment and shaped by assimilating crucial features of its actual environment. It hence is a an expression of adequateness. A linguistic 'system' reflects only parts of the cognitive 'world' of humans (much of language in a diachronically distorted manner, that is not in terms of immediate, synchronic causal/symbolic relations, but by reflection of older relations mediated over times and from generation to generation). As I have said before: I think that 'linguistic complexity' is just another heuristic tool to capture the degree of explicitness in language. There is no need to correlate this term to the extremely problematic term of 'cognitive complexity'. > > After fifty years of cognitive science, this is a > > natural assumption to make, and this also makes it > > is worth putting a question mark against it: > > > Right! > > In addition to being the possession of an individual, > > a language is also a set of social affordances for > > and constraints on making yourself understood. > > Sorry to say, but here I cannot follow you. First, language (according to my humble opinion) is nothing that can be possessed (that is an 'object'). Language is always and only given in the individual, not in terms of an 'object', but in terms of a network of symbolic routines, emergent processes and schematic cognitive events. Eben if we look at it 'from the outside' (that is as linguistics), language first of all is a phenomenon, not an object. Its characterization (and construction!) heavily depends from the viewpoint of the observer and his/her experiential horizon (often formulated in terms of 'theories'). The process of 'reification' enables us to take language as an 'object' and to make it describable, but we must not transfer this secondarily construed 'object' into the cognition of an individual. Second, I do not think that language is conditioned by "a set of social affordances for and constraints on making yourself understood". Many sociological models suggest that the feature of 'being understood' is not governed by language, but mainly by social norms and habitual attitudes/practices represented by a potential perceiver. According to my understanding of language, it is first of all conditioned and structured to express 'cognitive needs', regardless whether there is an audience immediately addressed or not (language is a system of 'cognitive cries', if you want). Only secondarily, the corresponding knowledge system becomes (by learning) socialized and integrated into the set of norms and behavioral 'rules' present in a given speech community. These norms etc. naturally have a strong impact on the use of a language by its speaker, but they do not figure as a primary part of its ontology. > > These affordances/constraints may be more or less > > complex for the encoder to match - obvious examples > > of extra complexity being elaborate agreement systems - > > > > Honestly said, I do not fully understand this point. Sure, a L2-learner will happily turn to say Haitian Creole after having struggled with Navajo, but why should this hold for L1-learners? Navajo speakers did not by large abandon their language before the intrusion of English even though other 'less complex' languages had been available in their region. The present-day preference for English is not necessarily due to the fact that it is less complex that Navajo, but because it has social relevance and social 'marks' that are estimated more profitable for young Navajo speakers. But all this again depends from whether Navajo and English are both (!) learnt by the corresponding individual. A Navajo child will perhaps switch from L1-Navajo to L2-English because English is structurally more 'transparent' than Navajo, it would never do when not exposed to English at all (which sounds trivial). Disregarding the competing existence of English, L1-Navajo speakers are not faced with more problems of language learning and encoding than L1-English speakers - else Navajo would have - since long - been a 'dead language'. > > and that is a different question from the question of how complex the intended message is. > > What do you mean by 'message'? As I understand this term, it is immediately related the expression of cognitive states, enriched by aspects of intentionality. I cannot fully see what the criteria of complexity would be here. > > In your terms, language is in itself a form of 'explicitness', not just a cognitive structure. > > > Explicitness by itself means that certain ensembles of cognitive concepts, schemas etc. are symbolized in a more fine-grained way than others. But as I have said before: This does not mean that the 'fine-grained' properties of these concepts, schemas etc. are not present and active if not symbolized at all. Rather we have to deal with the typical relation between the micro and macro layers of a given concept. Sometimes, the symbolization of the macro layer suffices to match the conventions, norms and the collective's set of cognitive concepts etc., sometimes the symbolization of its micro layer may have become relevant, for which reason so ever. > > Another way of saying this is that you presuppose that encoding comes for free and adds no extra complexity. > > I guess you mean symbolization = encoding, right? Naturally, a symbolic system that constantly refers to the micro layer of a concept is more detailed than a symbolic system that constantly refers to the macro layer. But the second system does not 'lose' information. Personally, I have a pronounced preference for gestalt oriented psychology. And in this perspective, we may even claim that the first type of symbolic systems is even less 'complex' than the second one, because it is less informative with respect to the 'gestalt' of the concept. > > Even in a hypothetical case where we assume that an intended message is identically specified for three different potential languages, and the speaker knows all language equally well, the encoding tasks are not the same. > > > Sure, there is not doubt about this! > > Best wishes, > Wolfgang > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Institut f?r Allgemeine& Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > Dept. II / F 13 > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen > Ludwigstra?e 25 > D-80539 M?nchen > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. > -- David B. Kronenfeld, Professor Emeritus Phone 951-682-5096 Department of Anthropology Message 951 827-5524 University of California Fax 951 827-5409 Riverside, CA 92521 email david.kronenfeld at ucr.edu Department: http://anthropology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/kronenfeld/index.html Personal: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/david-judy/david.html From tgivon at uoregon.edu Wed Mar 16 23:34:59 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:34:59 -0600 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz & all, I think Fritz has once again raised a beautiful question that, as before, can also be a can of warms. I will try to say something about the narrower question he posed in his second message, but I think the way several people took the discussion may be interesting enough to maybe merit going first. One way of looking at the topic is comparing the two extremes of pre-grammatical (pidgin) communication and grammaticalized language, then asking (as some of you have alluded): Is there a difference between "complexity of the linguistic signal system as analyzed by the linguists" and "complexity of the cognitive task for the speaker/hearer"? Take grammatical morphology first: Pidgin communication with no def/indef articles for nouns & no TAM markers for verbs seems--to us--simpler. Fewer coded distinctions. But to the speaker/hearer the processing task is more difficult, requiring more scanning & analyzing of the context--lexical, propositional, discourse, social, etc. So, when a hearer needs to decide whether "horse" is a first introduction (indef, presentative) or accessible/predictable (def), s/he cannot rely on morphological clues & make automated decisions, but has to spend much more time & mental effort on contextual scanning & analysis. And likewise, is "run"--past, future, present, habitual etc.? Same with syntactic construction: In Bambara &Old Hittite, REL clauses look like conjoined/chained clauses, only intonation might furnish some clues. So the decision how to interpret the information--as asserted or presupposed--require contextual analysis, rather than grammatical clues. Again, the system as it looks to the linguist is simpler, fewer coded clause-types. But the processing task--at least to the hearer--is more complex, in a sense that more sources of information need to b e considered. Lastly, Fritz's narrowed-down question: There is a difference between early & late grammaticalization. The former is communicatively-driven & create relatively clean morphological systems. The latter is largely phonologically driven, with the advent of de-stressing & assimilation rules, and creates irregularities, morphophonemics &, eventually, total zeroing of grammatical morphology. This is the so-called "cycle". So if I can interpret Fritz's narrow question, the answer is that ALL grammaticalization in its later stages results in such "complexity". Best, TG ====================== On 3/16/2011 11:24 AM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear all, > > Thanks so much for your replies! As some of them have indicated, I > probably did not give the ideal example to illustrate what I am after. > One category splitting into two (the example I gave) increases > complexity in one way (a bigger inventory of categories results), but > perhaps not in other ways, particularly if the new category encodes a > coherent semantic class. > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the > result of grammaticalization is more irregularity and idiosyncracy. As > a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns > grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant > prepositions (or whatever) are irregular in some way with respect to > other pre-existing members of that class. > > --fritz > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser > University > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > >> Funknetters, >> >> I am looking for nice examples of where a grammaticalization-related >> change, however motivated it might be from the point of view of the >> language user, ends up increasing the overall complexity of the >> resultant grammatical system. One example that came to mind is the >> formation of the distinct grammatical category of Modal Auxilary in >> English out of a subclass of verbs. One might argue that English >> grammar is now more complex because there are two categories rather >> than one and each have very distinct properties. Can anybody think of >> other/better examples from other languages? >> >> Thanks! I'll summarize if there is any interest. >> >> --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 W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Mar 17 07:58:44 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:58:44 +0100 Subject: Complexity and Decoding In-Reply-To: <1300302334.4d8109fe10eed@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear colleagues, maybe that it is useful to divide the current discussion into two topics (as illustrated in Tom's posting). Here, I want to take up just the general issue of complexity. John's remarks are a very helpful point to start with: > (...) but it's pretty tough to explain definiteness to a native speaker of > Japanese or Russian, even if their knowledge of a language with > articles is > generally pretty good. I've spent enough time trying to do this to be > skeptical > of claims that these people really do know the concept of definiteness. Well, I've made the same experience when working with speakers of say Slovak or of some languages of the Eastern Caucasus. Nevertheless, I hesitate subscribing to your final conclusion: It is intimately related to the question whether the givenness of mental concepts is dependent from their linguistic symbolization and thus touches upon the problem of linguistic relativity. Personally, I take the stance that mental concepts cannot be learned as such by assimilating corresponding linguistic symbols. Rather, I assume that during L1-acquisition, given mental (dynamic) concepts become by and by elaborated, specified, metaphorized and 'networked' due to the individual entrenchment of conventionalized sets of linguistic symbols. Some of these conceptual domains may evolve into seemingly 'new' concepts, others remain rather basic. The individual's reference towards its own knowledge state (memory) maybe one of those basic features that an individual cannot escape from (else, human cognition wouldn't work the way it works). So, in case an individual activates a referential concept, (s)he will probably always co-activate some kind of reference towards 'givenness' or 'newness' or 'typicity' (that is some kind of conceptual (in)definiteness). The only question is whether the individual has at his/her disposal practices to refer to this type of conceptual (in)definiteness in terms of linguistic symbols. This goes together with the question whether a language community has conventionalized this way of reference or not. Naturally, the more a mental concept has become symbolized via language, the more an individual may become conscious of this concept. But this does not mean that it is inexistent without. Also, I'm not fully convinced by the empirical scenario you have referred to. Normally, native speakers (not trained in linguistic categorization e.g. via L2-acquisition, schooling etc.) do not have any pronounced, conscious and 'active' knowledge of such categories as linguistic (in)definiteness (just ask a linguistically unbiased, rudimentarily schooled person in the street whether (s)he knows what is 'dative' is, or what the meaning is of (say) German -t in 'sag-t' (says).Probably, you won't get an answer. But this does not mean that the speaker does not 'know' the corresponding semantics in terms of linguistic practice). If you try to explain a linguistic category to a native speaker who has already experienced a linguistic training (be it in terms of L2-acquisition or else), (s)he will logically start from his/her categorial knowledge and try to find it in the system under question. But then, the candidate is no longer that type of 'naive' speaker we normally need to disclose linguistic knowledge. Also, the point you have made again has to do with the opposition 'producer/perceiver': The producer of a sentence like Russian /c(elovek uvidel z(ens(c(inu v ulice/ (person sees woman in street) will surely know for him/herself, whether (s)he refers to 'a person' or 'the/that person', to 'a woman' or 'the/that woman', to 'a street' or 'the/that street'. The problem lies on the side of the perceiver. (S)he will have to refer to other symbols, context, and situational features to decide whether to parse 'a' or 'the' (there are many such indirect symbolizations and clues in every chain of utterances articulated in which language so ever, I guess), confer Tom's posting: > So, when a hearer needs to decide whether "horse" is a first > introduction (indef, presentative) or accessible/predictable (def), > s/he cannot rely on morphological clues & make automated decisions, > but has to spend much more time & mental effort on contextual scanning > & analysis. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the perceiver has to spend more time and mental effort on scanning etc. A perceiver is normally confronted with a sequence of utterances that (idealiter) has its proper starting point (being sometimes replaced by situational features). Hence, when a speaker starts talking about a horse the perceiver memorizes (at least in short term memory) the 'first occurrence' of 'horse' indexing it automatically by 'indefiniteness' (or so). The next mentioning of the 'horse' automatically activates the indexed version of the horse changing the index to 'definite' or so. Hence, there is a blend of 'referential entity' with 'type/time of memory activation' that necessarily and automatically produces a feature of conceptual (in)definiteness/typicity etc. In a sense, language specific, conventionalized and fine-grained strategies of applying linguistic symbols for (in)definiteness/typicity etc. 'overspecify' the conceptual layer of (in)definiteness/typicity etc. Such strategies are not necessary, but part of the conventionalization of linguistic practices that organize chains of memory appeal. Perhaps, complexity can be related to this aspect of overspecification: Linguistic structures and symbolic sets that overspecify a given conceptual domain (by exceeding a certain a certain threshold value) may be termed 'more complex' than those that are more close to the 'prototypical' specification of this domain.... Bes wishes, Wolfgang > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From delancey at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 17 06:52:58 2011 From: delancey at uoregon.edu (scott delancey) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:52:58 -0700 Subject: grammaticalization and complexity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > > Here's a better example of what I am looking for. A case where the result of grammaticalization is more > irregularity and idiosyncracy. As a hypothetical example, say we have one or more verbs or nouns > grammaticalizing into prepositions (or whatever), where the resultant prepositions (or whatever) are irregular > in some way with respect to other pre-existing members of that class. But that's always how it happens. Various verbs or nouns make their individual way toward the adposition class, each at its own pace, so that many members or incipient members of the category have idiosyncratic sets of noun- or verb-like behaviors. The classic study, dealing with the verb-adposition cline, is Li and Thompson's "Coverbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions?" in Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1974; for a study of the development of denominal adpositions, see my "Grammaticalization and the gradience of categories: Relator nouns and postpositions in Tibetan and Burmese" in the Giv?n festschrift. For an example connected with the history of English modals, which was a similarly piecemeal process, as Frans Plank has shown, look at the motley set of English quasi-auxiliaries -- be gonna, usta, ('d) better, etc. -- each with its own unique distributional properties. (The classic study is Bolinger's "Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries" in Wege zur Universalien Forschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beitr?ge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler. How else could you imagine this happening? -- Scott DeLancey Department of Linguistics University of Oregon 1290 Eugene, OR 97403-1290, USA 541-346-3901 From john at research.haifa.ac.il Thu Mar 17 10:16:05 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:16:05 +0200 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <4D81BF34.9050707@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. Thanks, John ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Thu Mar 17 10:45:38 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:45:38 +0100 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <1300356965.4d81df656662e@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, for sake of simplicity, let me quote from Wikipedia that has the basic information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_language) "In Russia, Church Slavonic - which evolved from Old Church Slavonic - remained the literary language until the Petrine age (1682-1725), when its usage shrank drastically to biblical and liturgical texts. Legal acts and private letters had been, however, already written in pre-Petrine Muscovy in a less formal language, more closely reflecting spoken Russian. The first grammar of the Russian language was written by Vasily Adodurov in the 1740s, and a more influential one by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1755." It goes on saying: "After the disestablishment of the "Tartar yoke" (...) in the late 14th century, both the political centre and the predominant dialect in European Russia came to be based in Moscow. A scientific consensus exists that Russian and Ruthenian (the predecessor of Belarusian and Ukrainian) had definitely become distinct by this time at the latest (according to some linguists and historians, even earlier). The official language in Russia remained a kind of Church Slavonic until the close of the 18th century, but, despite attempts at standardization, as by Meletius Smotrytsky c. 1620, its purity was by then strongly compromised by an incipient secular literature". "At the same time [starting with the political reforms by Peter the Great, W.S.], there began explicit attempts to fashion a modern literary language as a compromise between Church Slavonic, the native vernacular, and the style of Western Europe. (...). During the 19th century, the standard language assumed its modern form." Naturally, there are much elaborated treatments available, but according to my knowledge, these quotes go into the right direction (leaving enough space for sometimes heated debates among Slavicists).... Best wishes, Wolfgang Am 17.03.2011 11:16, schrieb john at research.haifa.ac.il: > Dear Funknetters, > I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know > when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? > For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. > Thanks, > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut fu"r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universita"t Mu"nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 Mu"nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschu"tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrtu"mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anha"nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung fu"r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 12:52:35 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:52:35 -0400 Subject: Linguistics in the news Message-ID: I thought these might be of interest...the end of TED presentation (and comments at the website) along with the end of the science daily article are also interesting in terms of the language of "profit driven research" and the language of "curiosity driven research"...the attitudes of the public towards such research (via the comments) are also interesting though not surprising... *Science Daily* (Mar. 15, 2011) ? Learning a foreign language literally changes the way we see the world, according to new research. Panos Athanasopoulos, of Newcastle University, has found that bilingual speakers think differently to those who only use one language. And you don't need to be fluent in the language to feel the effects -- his research showed that it is language use, not proficiency, which makes the difference. Working with both Japanese and English speakers, he looked at their language use and proficiency, along with the length of time they had been in the country, and matched this against how they perceived the colour blue. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110314132531.htm ----------------------------------------------- Why I taped my son's childhood By *Deb Roy*, Special to CNN *Cambridge, Massachusetts (CNN)* -- Little did I know that studying how my son learned to speak would come to this: a TED Talk gone viral, partially thanks to Ashton Kutcherand his 6 million Twitter followers -- and a technology platform that may change the way we understand social, political and commercial communications. Six years ago, my wife and I, speech and cognitive scientists respectively, wanted to understand how a child learned language comprehensively and naturally, since most theories on language acquisition were grounded in surprisingly incomplete observational data. In my academic work, which involves teaching machines to learn and speak, a data-based understanding of language development is crucial -- as it is to my wife's work in studying speech disorders. So we decided to create a data set to study. A really, really big data set. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/13/roy.tapes.childhood/index.html?hpt=T2 From wsmith at csusb.edu Thu Mar 17 18:33:36 2011 From: wsmith at csusb.edu (Wendy Smith) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:33:36 -0700 Subject: Question about Russian as the state language of Russia In-Reply-To: <1300356965.4d81df656662e@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I am currently in Belarus on a Fulbright. I will try to find out. On Mar 17, 2011, at 3:16 AM, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > I know this isn't a normal question for Funknet but...Do any of you know > when Russian became the state language of Russia, replacing Church Slavonic? > For some reason I seem to be having trouble finding out this information. > Thanks, > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 17 19:10:10 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:10:10 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Complexity Message-ID: I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG ============================ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Complexity Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 From: A.Gianto To: Tom Givon The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-? (=zero); jussive: yaktub-?, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story goes on. The narrative yaktub-?, however, still looked very much like the imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-? to stand in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always clause initial. The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization process to the basics. Gus From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Mar 18 12:07:50 2011 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:07:50 +0200 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? Tahir -------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Fri Mar 18 12:08:16 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:08:16 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D825C92.5080905@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Just a few remarks concerning Agustinus Gianto's comments posted by Tom: Agustinus has drawn our attention to a set of very interesting data. Nevertheless, I dare to say that - as far as I know - the whole scenario of how the Hebrew (and West Semitic) tense/aspect/mood forms have developed is rather complex and perhaps a bit more complex that described by Agustinus. I understand that he has spoken of just a "skeletal picture", but in order to relate this picture to the question of complexity, some additional comments might be helpful (and necessary) (I'm sure that Agustinus is well aware of all these arguments, but maybe that they are of some help to the Funknet community): > The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a > grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, > Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite > path. > > The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called > "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to > handle the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels > /a,i,u/ at the end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence > (cf. Arabic) suggests that the prefix conjugation in this earlier > stage had at least four forms, i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, > narrative yaktub-? (=zero); jussive: yaktub-?, optative yaktub-a. (The > narrrative and jussive have the same form but they have a > complementary distribution.) According to my knowledge, a 'co-existence' of the two 'aspect'-like forms yaktub-u ('imperfective') and yaktub-? ('perfective/narrative') is mainly reconstructed for Ugarit. The form yaktub-? seems to have been the original form of the 'perfective > narrative' as illustrated by the Accadian perfective 'iprus'-paradigm (competing with the imperfective 'iparras'-paradigm). Most likely, the zero-form also functioned as a 'jussive' in given contexts. The -u-paradigm (the yaktub-u type) probably emerged from an older 'relative/subordinating' paradigm (marked by *-u, as in Akkadian) that could be added to both perfective and imperfective forms (Accadian iprus-u (perfective, relative), iparras-u (imperfective, relative). The 'dynamic' pair iprus(-u)/iparras(-u) stood in opposition to a stative-like, more nominal construction based on some kind of participle (the Accadian paris- ~ paras- ~ parus-type), that later on turned into the standard suffix conjugation (the kataba-type). So, what we have is first a merger of the iprus/iparras-forms (due to phonetic and accentual reasons) in Late West Semitic, resulting in the generalization of the imperfective function, but using the simple iprus-type. However, the underlying perfective notion of the iprus-type still competed with the new perfective paris-type. Hence the augmented form (the relative form marked by -u) had been taken to mark this new imperfective, probably also because in subordinated clauses, the imperfective fucntion conveying background information prevailed. Although the processes alluded to above sound rather complex, they do not suggest - in my eyes - a rise in complexity, but simply a shift in paradigmatic organization. The two basic domains, perfective (~ telic) and imperfective (~ atelic) had been present in all stages of these processes. In addition, the processes to not introduce new material, but simply rearrange given paradigms and sub-functions. Now, as for the processes in Hebrew itself: > When the final short vowels dropped, the forms risk to get confused > with one another and their special use got compromised. In Hebrew, > yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized as the imperfect form in BH. Well, this has not been the case for all verb forms. Some verbs still retain the opposition -imperfective vs. zero-jussive: There are 'Hifil' verb stems (when occurring without a further suffix) that have an -?- or -?- following the second radical in the imperfective, but -?- or -?- in the jussive (compare yaxt?v (3sg:M:JUSS) vs. yaxt?v (3Sg:M:IMPERF). Crucially, the waw-consecutivum construction mentioned by Agustinus takes up this opposition if given, confer: wa-yyaxt?v (wa-cons.) vs. simple yaxt?v. In this context, Agustinus assumes: > The narrative yaktub-?, however, still looked very much like the > imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-? to > stand in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a > conjunction wa- was prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol > ("converted imperfect") is always clause initial. As far as I know, the waw-consecutivum construction is not bound to imperfective verb forms. Rather, it basically marks a consecutive clause, preceded by a clause in either the prefective or the imperfective. There is some kind of crossing principle: If the first clause is perfective, then the second clause takes the imperfective wa-consecutivum construction (then having a perfective function). But if the first clause is imperfective, then the second clause takes the perfective waw-consecutivum construction (then having an imperfective function) (sure, with many exceptions). Only in a later stage, the imperfective-based waw-consecutivum construction became possible also in text initial sequences.Hence, the waw-consecutivum construction did not elaborate the narrative function of the older *yaktub-form, but showed up as a general option to mark secondary elements in a chain of subsequent event images (quite parallel to Arabic fa-). In addition, the fact that the 'imperfective' waw-consecutivum construction makes use of the jussive paradigm (if different) suggests that it has started from the zero-form *yaktub, and not from the newer imperfective form *yaktub-u. Now, as for the so-called 'optative' yaktub-a (better perhaps: finalis): > The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a > was dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. As far as I know there is hardly any evidence available that Hebrew ever knew the Arabic-like -a-finalis. The history of this element is rather obscure. Some people think of relating it to the so-called 'status energicus' of Arabic, South Arabic, and Ugarit etc. (-an) that would have dropped its -n just as it is true with 'nunated' and 'non-nunated' forms of nouns (e.g. Arabic bait-u-n 'a house' vs. al-bait-u 'the house'). But this is more like a guess.... > The strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its > 2nd and 3rd persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized > into what BH grammar calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we > wish to write'. Well, it should be kept in mind that the so-called cohortative (marked by the 'he cohortativum/voluntativum/paragogicum') is -?, and not -a. This cohortative (which may (rarey) occur, by the way, with the 2.Sg imperative and 3Sg:M imperfective, too) has occasionally been related to the above-mentioned status energicus (-? < -an). But again, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to set up a final decision. In other words: The cohortative simply continues would seems to have been given already in Late West Semitic (or even beyond). To sum up: I cannot fully understand, why > BH opted for an ever complex grammaticalization As far as I can see, there are no new grammatical categories that would have emerged in Hebrew via grammaticalization. The loss of final -u did not condition the creation of such a new category. Whether Hebrew ever knew the structure yaktub-a remains controversial. Thus, the paradigms at issue did not single out in a number of new sub-paradigms (idealiter addressing 'new' functional domains) but are simply marked for functional re-arrangment. Best wishes, Wolfgang -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From john at research.haifa.ac.il Fri Mar 18 06:27:23 2011 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john at research.haifa.ac.il) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 08:27:23 +0200 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D825C92.5080905@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: But this is another example of how it isn't clear what it means to be 'more complex'. The Biblical Hebrew tense/aspect system distinguished between verbal forms which have almost completely fallen together morphologically but maintained radically different functions (not just the 'imperfect' but also the 'perfect') by having one occur only in clause-initial position prefixed with va- (and) and the other occur only in non-clause-initial position. As someone who has worked with this language a lot and gotten used to it, it isn't at all clear to me that this system is more complex than the one that preceded it. More typologically unusual, certainly. But why is it more 'complex' to make a distinction by prefixing a conjunction than by suffixing an agreement/tense-aspect marker? John Quoting Tom Givon : > > > I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is > not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG > > ============================ > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Complexity > Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 > From: A.Gianto > To: Tom Givon > > > > The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a > grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, > Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. > > > > The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called > "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle > the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the > end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests > that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, > i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-? (=zero); jussive: > yaktub-?, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form > but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels > dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special > use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized > as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that > introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story > goes on. The narrative yaktub-?, however, still looked very much like the > imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-? to stand > in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was > prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always > clause initial. > > > > The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was > dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The > strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd > persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar > calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. > > > > At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old > imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative > *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called > narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive > and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are > now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. > > > > The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH > and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex > grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization > process to the basics. > > Gus > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Mar 18 13:59:59 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 09:59:59 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <1300429643.4d82fb4b8d727@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. As Giv?n and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 14:41:31 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:41:31 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <1300429643.4d82fb4b8d727@webmail.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: I agree. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote: > But this is another example of how it isn't clear what it means to be > 'more complex'. The Biblical Hebrew tense/aspect system distinguished > between verbal forms which have almost completely fallen together > morphologically but maintained radically different functions (not > just the 'imperfect' but also the 'perfect') by having one occur only > in clause-initial position prefixed with va- (and) and the other > occur only in non-clause-initial position. As someone who has worked > with this language a lot and gotten used to it, it isn't at all > clear to me that this system is more complex than the one that > preceded it. More typologically unusual, certainly. But why is it > more 'complex' to make a distinction by prefixing a conjunction than > by suffixing an agreement/tense-aspect marker? > John > > > > > > > > > Quoting Tom Givon : > >> >> >> I am forwarding a note from A. Gianto, SJ, a noted Semiticist. He is >> not on the list but I think his post is relevant. TG >> >> ============================ >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Complexity >> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:35:20 +0100 >> From: A.Gianto >> To: Tom Givon >> >> >> >> The TAM system in Biblical Hebrew (BH) is a good example of a >> grammaticalization process that adds complexity to a previous system, >> Aramaic, though stemming from the same system as BH, took the opposite path. >> >> >> >> The development of the "prefix conjugation" in BH (generally called >> "imperfect, yixtov 'he writes'; cf. Arabic yaktub-u) is a strategy to handle >> the confusion resulting from the loss of final short vowels /a,i,u/ at the >> end of a word in a previous stage. Comparative evidence (cf. Arabic) suggests >> that the prefix conjugation in this earlier stage had at least four forms, >> i.e, 3masc. sg. imperfect: yaktub-u, narrative yaktub-? (=zero); jussive: >> yaktub-?, optative yaktub-a. (The narrrative and jussive have the same form >> but they have a complementary distribution.) When the final short vowels >> dropped, the forms risk to get confused with one another and their special >> use got compromised. In Hebrew, yixtov< *yaktub< *yaktub-u was generalized >> as the imperfect form in BH. This is a grammaticalization process that >> introduces complexity rather than simplifying the situation. But the story >> goes on. The narrative yaktub-?, however, still looked very much like the >> imperfect. To deal with this, BH only allows the narrative yaktub-? to stand >> in the first-position - and to "seal" this constraint, a conjunction wa- was >> prefixed to it, hence the form wayyiqtol ("converted imperfect") is always >> clause initial. >> >> >> >> The old optative yaktub-a took another path. When the final vowel -a was >> dropped, it became yaktub, making it too similar to the imperfect. The >> strategy taken is interesting. The optative paradigm gave up its 2nd and 3rd >> persons. But the sg and pl of 1st persons got stabilized into what BH grammar >> calls "cohortative" 'ektva: and nektva: 'I/we wish to write'. >> >> >> >> At the beginning Aramaic took a similar path, i.e, generalizing the old >> imperfect into just one form yixtuv< *yaktub< *yaktub-u. The old narrative >> *yaktub disappeared and its function was taken over by the so-called >> narrative participle. Unlike BH, the old optative formally did not survive >> and the category became no longer operative in Aramaic. All kinds of wish are >> now expressed either by the imperfect or jussive. >> >> >> >> The skeletal picture above shows how two closely related languages like BH >> and Aramaic took opposite paths. BH opted for an ever complex >> grammaticalization, Aramaic, so to speak, reduced the grammaticalization >> process to the basics. >> >> Gus >> >> >> >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 14:40:34 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:40:34 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D836724.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Tahir, I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? > Tahir > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 14:45:11 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:45:11 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <4D83655F.4060605@panix.com> Message-ID: This is an important point. As Ong and Goody have shown, literacy can affect grammar in interesting ways. That is another example, by the way, of culture playing a direct role in shaping (at least parts of) grammars. Dan On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. > > As Giv?n and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. > > I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > From sclancy at uchicago.edu Fri Mar 18 18:40:19 2011 From: sclancy at uchicago.edu (Steven Clancy) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:40:19 -0500 Subject: SCLC 2011 - Second call for papers Message-ID: American University (Washington, DC, USA) and the Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association present THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SLAVIC COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS ASSOCIATION (SCLC-2011) October 14-16, 2011 American University (Washington, DC, USA) The Slavic Cognitive Linguistics Association (SCLA) announces the Call for Papers for the 2011 annual conference. The conference will be held on the campus of American University (Washington, DC, USA) on Friday, October 14 through Sunday, October 16, 2011. Keynote speakers: Gilles Fauconnier, UC San Diego Jacques Moeschler, Universit? de Gen?ve Naomi Baron, American University CALL FOR PAPERS Abstracts are invited for presentations addressing issues of significance for cognitive linguistics with some bearing on data from the Slavic languages. As long as there is a cognitive orientation, papers may be on synchronic or diachronic topics in any of the traditional areas of phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, discourse analysis, or sociolinguistics. In addition to the Slavic Languages, relevant papers on other languages of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also acceptable. Abstracts may be submitted up until the deadline of April 8, 2011 to sclcAbstracts at gmail.com. Abstracts should be approximately 500 words, but strict word limits are not required. Notification of acceptance will be provided by May 31, 2011. The abstract should be submitted as a word or pdf file as an attachment to an email message with ?SCLC abstract submission? in the subject headline. Abstracts should be anonymous, but the author?s name, affiliation and contact information should be included in the email message. Most presentations at SCLC are given in English, but may be in the native (Slavic) language of the presenter. However, if the presentation is not to be made in English we ask that you provide an abstract in English in addition to an abstract in any other SCLA language. Each presentation will be given 20 minutes and will be followed by a 10-minute discussion period. FURTHER INFORMATION Information on transportation, accommodations, and the conference venue will be forthcoming. Please see the organization and conference websites for further information: http://languages.uchicago.edu/scla http://www.american.edu/cas/sclc/index.cfm If you have questions, contact Alina Israeli (aisrael at AMERICAN.EDU>) or Tore Nesset (tore.nesset at uit.no). We hope you will be able to join us for SCLC-2011. Please forward this call for papers to your colleagues and graduate students who may be interested in presenting or attending. Sincerely, Tore Nesset Dagmar Divjak Alina Israeli President, SCLA Vice-President, SCLA Conference Organizer and Host, American University on behalf of the SCLA officers and the 2011 SCLA organizing committee From phonosemantics at earthlink.net Fri Mar 18 16:10:29 2011 From: phonosemantics at earthlink.net (jess tauber) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:10:29 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Complexity Message-ID: What about adding lexical complexity into the mix- grammar doesn't form in a vacuum. Isolating, analytical languages often seem to have ancient dead morphology (or its remnants) fused into smaller materials to yield larger numbers of 'roots', detectable only through historical analysis. At the other end polysynthetic languages have reduced numbers of simplex roots. I'd gather nobody has any idea how many times the basic lexicon has been through the mixer and grinder since language evolved. Formerly overtly expressed morphological content becomes covert and lexical, decoupled from its moorings and eventually, with historical change, unsupported cognitively. I would suppose that similar things can happen to the lexicon, or at least parts of it, where so much morphology has cumulated and fused, that the old lexical root gets lost in the shuffle (Chinook verbs, for example). Jess Tauber phonosemantics at earthlink.net From rchen at csusb.edu Fri Mar 18 16:14:18 2011 From: rchen at csusb.edu (Rong Chen) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:14:18 +0800 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <219A4E39-D658-4F0F-9516-F4AA52AD3532@daneverett.org> Message-ID: True. However, one wonders if the complexity shown in written language also shows up in the oral, spontaneous form, a form that is believed to be the "real" form of language. Besides, even if a person's written language has affected her own speech, it is still doubtful if her speech will make much (or any?) difference on the speech of the entire community. So, I am inclined to agree with what Aya seems to imply: language will change, but probably not in terms of complexity (Complexity in one aspect is often compensated for by simplicity in another) or versatility (A language is always versatile; All languages are equally versatile for the purposes in their respective speech communities). Rong -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Everett Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:45 PM To: Angus B. Grieve-Smith Cc: Funknet Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Fwd: Complexity This is an important point. As Ong and Goody have shown, literacy can affect grammar in interesting ways. That is another example, by the way, of culture playing a direct role in shaping (at least parts of) grammars. Dan On Mar 18, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > This may have been addressed earlier in the discussion, but if so, I missed it. > > As Giv?n and others have written in the past, written varieties of language provide more time for editing, which allows people to use and maintain more complex structures. A community of specialist scholars can enable even more elaborate structures to exist, and these are often attracted to liturgical and poetic languages. In contrast, spontaneous conversation allows almost no time for editing, and generally requires a minimum amount of content to be conveyed. > > I would suggest we keep these factors in mind as possible motivators and enablers of complexity. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > Saint John's University > grvsmth at panix.com > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 19:13:49 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:13:49 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: > Tahir, > > I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. > > It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. > > If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. > > --Aya > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >> Tahir >> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 21:00:13 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:00:13 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The last line is moving closer to something I can agree with, Aya. Our languages fit their cultural niches. If you take English speakers to the Amazon, their language and culture will need to be seriously adapted for them to survive. They will need to expand beyond what they currently do. I am not talking about underlying capacity (a red herring) I am talking about actual vocabularies, expressions, etc. Every new science makes a language more versatile. Every new philosophy. Every new word. If you want to say that they are not more versatile because other languages are capable of having the same words faced by the same circumstances, then - aside from the fact that it is difficult to give content to that assertion - we mean different things by versatility. I doubt that there is any profound disagreement here. But there is a real danger of just using the slogans we learned in graduate school e.g. 'all languages have the same expressive power', until we both define that more precisely (not merely as grammatical rules) and show how it could be tested. All languages do have one common problem to solve, the communication problem, as sketched out by Claude Shannon more than 50 years ago. And they all have or they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean there is parity on all other things to be talked about. Have a nice weekend. It is one minute away from beer time here in Boston. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:50, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. > > English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. > > But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. >> >> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >> >> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. >> >> Dan >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >>> >>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >>> >>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>>> >>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:00:40 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:00:40 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. > > Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. > > I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. > > And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. > > Dan > > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: > >> Tahir, >> >> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >> >> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >> >> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >> >>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>> Tahir >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:19:05 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:19:05 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >> >> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >> >> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>> >>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>> >>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>> >>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>> >>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>> >>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>> >>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>> >>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>> >>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Tahir, >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>> >>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>> >>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>> Tahir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:14:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:14:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fellow Funknetters, This discussion concerning whether borrowing leads to versatility reminds me to ask: would any of you like me to send you a review copy of my just published book "Ping & the Snirkelly People"? Although it is a story about little girl learning English under total immersion, it actually touches on the issue of the morphological opacity that afflicts native speakers of English because they have been blinded to derivational morphology by a language that is full of borrowing. The main character, because she comes from a language where lexemes are largely morphologically transparent, can understand the morphology of English better than her native speaker classmates. If you would like to review the book, email me your address and I will send it. Best, --Aya http://hubpages.com/hub/Press-Release-Ping-the-Snirkelly-People From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 21:19:49 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:19:49 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, Yes, I think we're close to agreement. And I agree that we shouldn't go by slogans like "all languages have the same expressive power" without defining what that means or looking for evidence that it is true. I'm not motivated by political correctness, just a desire for a little more rigor and a lot more evidence. Have a great weekend! Best, --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > The last line is moving closer to something I can agree with, Aya. Our languages fit their cultural niches. If you take English speakers to the Amazon, their language and culture will need to be seriously adapted for them to survive. They will need to expand beyond what they currently do. I am not talking about underlying capacity (a red herring) I am talking about actual vocabularies, expressions, etc. > > Every new science makes a language more versatile. Every new philosophy. Every new word. > > If you want to say that they are not more versatile because other languages are capable of having the same words faced by the same circumstances, then - aside from the fact that it is difficult to give content to that assertion - we mean different things by versatility. I doubt that there is any profound disagreement here. > > But there is a real danger of just using the slogans we learned in graduate school e.g. 'all languages have the same expressive power', until we both define that more precisely (not merely as grammatical rules) and show how it could be tested. > > All languages do have one common problem to solve, the communication problem, as sketched out by Claude Shannon more than 50 years ago. And they all have or they wouldn't exist. But that doesn't mean there is parity on all other things to be talked about. > > Have a nice weekend. It is one minute away from beer time here in Boston. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:50, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. >> >> English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. >> >> But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. >> >> Best, >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. >>> >>> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >>> >>> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >>>> >>>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >>>> >>>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>>>> >>>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:06:05 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:06:05 -0700 Subject: Fwd: Complexity In-Reply-To: <5107538.1300464630063.JavaMail.root@wamui-junio.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Jess, Yes, there's constant recycling: syntax to morphology, morphology to phonology, and so on and so forth. Old roots get lost, new roots form from multimorphemic units that are fused, lost grammatical morphology is replaced by syntax which eventually becomes morphology again. Nowhere is there any evidence that all these changes lead to "progress." The basic information conveying function of language remains the same. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, jess tauber wrote: > What about adding lexical complexity into the mix- grammar doesn't form in a vacuum. Isolating, analytical languages often seem to have ancient > dead morphology (or its remnants) fused into smaller materials to yield >larger numbers of 'roots', detectable only through historical analysis. >At the other end polysynthetic languages have reduced numbers of simplex >roots. I'd gather nobody has any idea how many times the basic lexicon >has been through the mixer and grinder since language evolved. Formerly >overtly expressed morphological content becomes covert and lexical, >decoupled from its moorings and eventually, with historical change, >unsupported cognitively. I would suppose that similar things can happen >to the lexicon, or at least parts of it, where so much morphology has >cumulated and fused, that the old lexical root gets lost in the shuffle (Chinook verbs, for example). > > Jess Tauber > phonosemantics at earthlink.net > > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:16:42 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:16:42 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <38F614E0-C3CA-4BDF-AFB7-74AD589AE9A7@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Dan, Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. > > Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. > > Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >> >> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >> >> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >> >> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >> >> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >> >> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>> >>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>> >>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>> >>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Tahir, >>>> >>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>> >>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> >>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:06:24 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:06:24 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. > > The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. > > Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. > > When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. > > This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. > > Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >> >> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >> >> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >> >> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Tahir, >>> >>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>> >>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>> >>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>> >>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:36:23 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:36:23 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <7CD38722-236E-4A2E-8375-A43F42547DF9@daneverett.org> Message-ID: The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. > > That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. > > Dan > > > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>> >>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>> >>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>> >>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>> >>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>> >>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>> >>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>> >>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>> >>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>> >>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>> >>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From dan at daneverett.org Fri Mar 18 20:39:31 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:39:31 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. Dan On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: > The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. > > In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. > > The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. > > --Aya > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >> >> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Dan, >>> >>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>> >>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>> >>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>> >>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>> >>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>> >>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>> >>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>> >>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>> >>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Fri Mar 18 20:50:43 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:50:43 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <41C1EABD-78F2-47A0-9938-2FA1E4EF5F92@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Dan, One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. Best, --Aya On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes a neologism and they are very rare. > > The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. > > Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations (including contact) to do so. > > Dan > > On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: > >> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need arises. >> >> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the language that are ongoing even now. >> >> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. Neologisms are much rarer. >>> >>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack of use of blick. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, that's all. >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never actually become a word of English. >>>>> >>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>> >>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change leads to more versatility. >>>>>> >>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential between the two groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived from the organic material of the language, using native morphology and native phonology. >>>>>> >>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing something. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is adapted to another purpose. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> --Aya >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages could become more versatile over time. We have to ask 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from languages in contact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at communication than others in particular environments. There is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively equal than that they are different. No study proves either, though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences that have been overlooked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system in the language results in a decrease of complexity elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in language change, and language does not improve in efficiency over time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Fri Mar 18 21:44:39 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:44:39 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that a computational search of actual new words and a look at how they are coined might be helpful at this point. I can't do it myself, but lots of people these days know how. Lise On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:50 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Dan, > > One could argue that versatility is the ability to coin new words as > need be, not the presence of the words already in the lexicon. > > English had that ability, too, just like Hebrew, at an earlier point > in its history. It lost the ability to do so due to massive > borrowing as a result of an extreme language contact situation. > > But instead of saying that the more versatile language is the one > that has a stronger derivational system, the way I am inclined to do > as a jingoist Hebrew speaker, or instead of saying that having a > bigger lexicon makes you more versatile, as a proponent of English > would, I would like to submit that it all comes out even in the end: > because we can all say what we need to say in our own language. > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: > >> Exactly. It is inventing new roots out of thin air that constitutes >> a neologism and they are very rare. >> >> The rest is all about adaptations, not neologisms. >> >> Moreover, all of this shows that languages become more versatile as >> they need more words. This is not to say that other languages could >> not become more versatile. But they need cultural motivations >> (including contact) to do so. >> >> Dan >> >> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:36, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> The "lack of use of blick" is due to the lack of a root "blick". >>> In Hebrew, too, we are limited to a certain number of roots. We do >>> not invent new roots out of thin air. But because we have a >>> functioning derivational system, new lexemes can arise as the need >>> arises. >>> >>> In English, due to the facts of its history, and because much of >>> its vocabulary is borrowed, the derivational system, which was >>> once in place, has been greatly weakened. People see words like >>> "bait" and "bite" and as native speakers, they often do not >>> recognize the connection. "Lie" and "lay" are used >>> interchangeably, because the derivation of a causative is not >>> felt. This is definitely driving some of the changes in the >>> language that are ongoing even now. >>> >>> The situation with pronouns is a little different in most >>> languages from the derivation of new lexemes. Pronouns are a >>> small, almost closed group of grammatical words. They, too, have a >>> historical development, but it's usually opaque to speakers. >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> We invent words with morphological devices, as you say, like >>>> 'chocoholic'. And these indeed increase versatility. I don't >>>> really consider these to be neologisms, though, but adaptations. >>>> Neologisms are much rarer. >>>> >>>> That is why the difficulty with the English pronoun and the lack >>>> of use of blick. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:16, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> Languages invent new words all the time. Look at modern Hebrew. >>>>> You just need a good and well functioning derivational system, >>>>> that's all. >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't really see much beyond speculation in this, Aya. >>>>>> Neologisms are a much less likey move towards versatility than >>>>>> loan words. In English most speakers would like a neutral >>>>>> pronoun. Rather than just invent one (which would include >>>>>> propagation) we waffle with 'he/she', 'they' and the like. Our >>>>>> language clearly lacks the expressive versatility we would like >>>>>> in this way. But we do not invent what we need. In all the >>>>>> years that 'blick' has been used in intro classes to show >>>>>> 'possible but not actual' words of English, it has never >>>>>> actually become a word of English. >>>>>> >>>>>> Loan words are the way we increase the versatility of our >>>>>> language. Absolutely it is the contact that informs the >>>>>> borrowing. Whether for power or money or sex the word enables >>>>>> us to communicate more efficiently. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your last line ignores what I said in my post - there is no >>>>>> evidence that all languages are equal in conveying information. >>>>>> That is just a linguistic slogan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 16:00, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The existence of loanwords is a good example to start with to >>>>>>> show some of the pitfalls in assuming that a particular change >>>>>>> leads to more versatility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The borrowing of a word from one culture and language to >>>>>>> another usually occurs in a situation where the concept that >>>>>>> the borrowed word describes isn't originally part of the >>>>>>> borrowing culture. Also, there is usually a power differential >>>>>>> between the two groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, if the new concept had arisen without contact, then the >>>>>>> word would not have been borrowed. It would have been derived >>>>>>> from the organic material of the language, using native >>>>>>> morphology and native phonology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When languages start to accept a large group of borrowed words >>>>>>> this affects their morphological and phonological systems, and >>>>>>> in turn creates changes in the grammar. So you cannot assume >>>>>>> that borrowing is something that merely enriches a language in >>>>>>> its vocabulary without impoverishing it someplace else. There >>>>>>> is a law of conservation. Nothing can be gained without losing >>>>>>> something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not to say that one language might not be better for a >>>>>>> particular purpose at a particular time, due to its being >>>>>>> adapted for that purpose by the culture of the people who use >>>>>>> it. But there's no comparison here to another language that is >>>>>>> adapted to another purpose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Overall, there is no evidence that a particular language is a >>>>>>> better conveyor of information than another, regardless of the >>>>>>> circumstances or subject matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Daniel Everett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that it isn't difficult to imagine that languages >>>>>>>> could become more versatile over time. We have to ask >>>>>>>> 'versatile for what'. If we mean 'a better range of tools for >>>>>>>> talking about things in a particular cultural niche', then it >>>>>>>> isn't far-fetched to imagine that this is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Loan words seem to be prima facie evidence for languages >>>>>>>> becoming more versatile, as does a lot of the evidence from >>>>>>>> languages in contact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see no problem in saying that some languages are better at >>>>>>>> communication than others in particular environments. There >>>>>>>> is a serious research program waiting to be undertaken here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And it is no more obvious that languages are communicatively >>>>>>>> equal than that they are different. No study proves either, >>>>>>>> though the former is assumed by most linguists and many (but >>>>>>>> not all) theories. In fact, I think it is the differences >>>>>>>> that have been overlooked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 18 Mar 2011, at 10:40, A. Katz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tahir, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that language has as yet been shown to become >>>>>>>>> either increasingly complex or increasingly versatile. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there is a principle of conservation of >>>>>>>>> complexity, under which any rise in complexity in one system >>>>>>>>> in the language results in a decrease of complexity >>>>>>>>> elsewhere. This is why there are continuing cycles in >>>>>>>>> language change, and language does not improve in efficiency >>>>>>>>> over time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it were otherwise, then some languages would be >>>>>>>>> demonstrably better for communication purposes than others, >>>>>>>>> and no one has ever been able to show this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --Aya >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing >>>>>>>>>> complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on >>>>>>>>>> versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? >>>>>>>>>> Tahir >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 home page: http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/ Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From language at sprynet.com Sat Mar 19 09:39:18 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:39:18 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, English, and German: "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a better job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentz?ndung and Harnr?hre for meningitis and urethra. "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" Full text of this piece is available at: http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop All the best to everyone! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" To: Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly versatile? Tahir -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer > http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal > > From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 12:00:29 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 05:00:29 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Alex, That's a very good example! There is no reason for a word like "elbow" to be morphologically opaque in English, except for the influence of massive borrowing. While new lexemes are gained by borrowing, old lexemes lose their internal morphological boundaries, and this affects the cognition of speakers in so many ways, such as the example you gave, of being less aware of how their bodies work. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, alex gross wrote: > Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to > unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for > high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such > equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to > greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of > this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, > English, and German: > > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them > today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones medical > people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you every day, > yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But there is clear > evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once had other names. > The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly something like the > 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to > lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern > German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' (sich > beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as foot-measure > bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All bones and all > locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which > people is likely to be on better terms with their bodies--one that has names > such as these or one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to > doctors? German continues to a better job here even today with such words as > Gehirnhautentz?ndung and Harnr?hre for meningitis and urethra. > > "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words like > Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not > understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" > > Full text of this piece is available at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder if > anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become increasingly > versatile? > Tahir > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >> >> > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sat Mar 19 12:14:58 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:14:58 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: Dear Alex, let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', coming close to English bruise. Best, Wolfgang Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: > Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due > to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English > for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when > such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can > lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some > examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms > across Chinese, English, and German: > > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for > them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the > ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important > to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at > all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that > these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' > the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' > from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an > inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the > words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' > (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as > foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All > bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names > in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their > bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is > linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a > better job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentz?ndung and > Harnr?hre for meningitis and urethra. > > "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words > like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would > not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" > > Full text of this piece is available at: > > http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop > > All the best to everyone! > > alex > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" > To: > Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM > Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > > In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I > wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language > become increasingly versatile? > Tahir > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >> >> > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Mar 19 16:06:13 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:06:13 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <3D525AB1C28F435FBA3E60CA6E42F487@aa82807a474cf4> Message-ID: On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: > "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for > them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the > ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important > to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at > all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that > these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' > the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' > from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an > inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where the > words are die Elle and die Speiche." An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's mostly used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a young age, although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who studied classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in the /Lord of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is which. I don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and "forearm," and leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If someone said to me, "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I wouldn't feel particularly better informed. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 16:23:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 09:23:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D84D475.7050404@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, You probably also don't feel that speakers are deprived of knowing the morphological boundary in the word elbow. This is often what native speakers will say: I don't feel deprived by not knowing what I have always not known. In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language works just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it works differently from the way it would have worked without the massive borrowing that made the language's derivational system so irregular that speakers tend to disregard it when parsing words, even words like rooster whose component morphemes are both known to them. --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth Century >> poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take an el') but >> also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die Speiche." > > An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's mostly > used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a young age, > although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who studied > classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in the /Lord > of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. > > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use > them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I would > venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and "ulna" > since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is which. I > don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and "forearm," and > leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If someone said to me, > "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I wouldn't feel > particularly better informed. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Mar 19 17:15:30 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:15:30 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/19/2011 12:23 PM, A. Katz wrote: > In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language > works just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it > works differently from the way it would have worked without the > massive borrowing that made the language's derivational system so > irregular that speakers tend to disregard it when parsing words, even > words like rooster whose component morphemes are both known to them. I think speakers tend to parse sentences in frequent chunks and often disregard their components. Everyone knows "cell" and "phone," but how many people think about cells when they say "cell phone"? Or about Eskimos when eating Eskimo pie? Or facsimiles when sending faxes? For me a drivers license is more useful in buying sudafed than in driving. Etymology can be interesting and fun; I regularly get a kick out of realizing that the "efharesto" that I learned at the eye doctor's is the same as the Eucharist, or that State Senator Dan Garodnick and transit construction chief Michael Horodniceanu have the same last name. But that's me, I'm interested in words. Etymology can teach us a lot when we have time to study and contemplate it, but its day-to-day practical application in understanding words is minor in any language. One thing that I've learned from studying English's quirky etymology is that it's often formed by analogy instead of compositionality (think "intranet" which makes no sense from a compositional standpoint, or "devil's food cake"). It might be that languages that have more regular derivational morphology rely on compositionality more, but it could also be that they work just as much by analogy, but it's harder to tell the difference. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 18:41:30 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:41:30 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D84E4B2.1080209@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, Yes, all of what you say is valid. But I also think that analogy and compositionality are functionally equivalent in a language with a very regular derivational system. An irregular system discourages componential analysis, because often the results are useless. So it happens that speakers in such languages regard etymology as purely historical. This is not a problem for speakers, because we both know they can communicated just fine either way, though it does affect how they conceptualize some things. It does become a problem among linguists, when people are told "that's not what the word means, it's just its etymology" without realizing that it's a psychological issue that varies from speaker to speaker, and sometimes based on expanded horizons due to bilingualism. What is just a historical derivation for one speaker can be a synchronic analysis for another. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > On 3/19/2011 12:23 PM, A. Katz wrote: >> In a way, that's a valid thing to say, since obviously the language works >> just fine without this kind of knowledge in speakers. But... it works >> differently from the way it would have worked without the massive borrowing >> that made the language's derivational system so irregular that speakers >> tend to disregard it when parsing words, even words like rooster whose >> component morphemes are both known to them. > > I think speakers tend to parse sentences in frequent chunks and often > disregard their components. Everyone knows "cell" and "phone," but how many > people think about cells when they say "cell phone"? Or about Eskimos when > eating Eskimo pie? Or facsimiles when sending faxes? For me a drivers > license is more useful in buying sudafed than in driving. > > Etymology can be interesting and fun; I regularly get a kick out of > realizing that the "efharesto" that I learned at the eye doctor's is the same > as the Eucharist, or that State Senator Dan Garodnick and transit > construction chief Michael Horodniceanu have the same last name. But that's > me, I'm interested in words. Etymology can teach us a lot when we have time > to study and contemplate it, but its day-to-day practical application in > understanding words is minor in any language. > > One thing that I've learned from studying English's quirky etymology is > that it's often formed by analogy instead of compositionality (think > "intranet" which makes no sense from a compositional standpoint, or "devil's > food cake"). It might be that languages that have more regular derivational > morphology rely on compositionality more, but it could also be that they work > just as much by analogy, but it's harder to tell the difference. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From oesten.dahl at ling.su.se Sat Mar 19 19:08:00 2011 From: oesten.dahl at ling.su.se (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=D6sten_Dahl?=) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 20:08:00 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have some difficulty understanding the arguments around the words "ell" and "elbow". It is rather questionable if "ell" was really ever primarily the name of a bone; in Old English, "eln" seems to have been mainly a unit of measure, with the earlier meaning 'forearm'; likewise, the Latin word "ulna", which is obviously cognate, is translated in dictionaries as 'forearm' and 'arm'; in other IE languages, the meaning 'elbow' also shows up. I do not understand what "massive borrowing" could have helped erasing the morpheme boundary in "elbow"; rather, I assume the meaning became opaque once "ell" was replaced in its concrete sense by the transparent but entirely Germanic "forearm". In Swedish, the cognate of "elbow" has been eggcornified into "armb?ge", or 'arm-bow'; hardly anyone makes a connection to the now obsolete measure "aln" 'ell'. - ?sten From amnfn at well.com Sat Mar 19 19:36:51 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:36:51 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Osten, If the only thing that had happened here is the loss of a single morpheme, el-, then speakers might be interpreting the word elbow as X-bow, where X stands for an unknown morpheme. After all, the word "bow" is still part of the active English vocabulary. It is available as a noun, and with a slightly different pronunciation, as a verb. The massive borrowing into English from latinate sources weakened the ability of English speakers to recognize subcomponents of words, even when all the subcomponents are commonly used, as in the example of "rooster" roost-er. It's one thing not to know what part of a word means, because that part has disappeared from the lexicon. It's another thing not to be in the habit of parsing words at all. This is why I speak of psychological componential opacity as opposed to circumstantial componential opacity. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, ?sten Dahl wrote: > I have some difficulty understanding the arguments around the words "ell" and "elbow". It is rather questionable if "ell" was really ever primarily the name of a bone; in Old English, > "eln" seems to have been mainly a unit of measure, with the earlier >meaning 'forearm'; likewise, the Latin word "ulna", which is obviously >cognate, is translated in dictionaries as 'forearm' and 'arm'; in other >IE languages, the meaning 'elbow' also shows up. I do not understand what "massive borrowing" could have helped erasing the morpheme boundary in "elbow"; rather, I assume the meaning became opaque once "ell" was replaced in its concrete sense by the transparent but entirely Germanic "forearm". In Swedish, the cognate of "elbow" has been eggcornified into "armb?ge", or 'arm-bow'; hardly anyone makes a connection to the now obsolete measure "aln" 'ell'. > > - ?sten > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sun Mar 20 05:11:07 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:11:07 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '- erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they actually cite published sources of the words they're listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over themselves. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From language at sprynet.com Sun Mar 20 07:36:46 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:36:46 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to their speeakers than English ones are. Very best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" To: "alex gross" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > Dear Alex, > let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word > "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've > never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German > children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German > equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', coming > close to English bruise. > Best, > Wolfgang > > > Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due to >> unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English for >> high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when such >> equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course can lead to >> greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave some examples of >> this in a 1987 interview on translating medical terms across Chinese, >> English, and German: >> >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth >> Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take >> an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die >> Speiche." >> >> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or 'bow' >> (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words translate as >> foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and rowing bone. All >> bones and all locations in the body have similar down-to-earth names in >> Chinese. Which people is likely to be on better terms with their >> bodies--one that has names such as these or one where everything is >> linguistically off-limits except to doctors? German continues to a better >> job here even today with such words as Gehirnhautentz?ndung and Harnr?hre >> for meningitis and urethra. >> >> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would not >> understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >> >> Full text of this piece is available at: >> >> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >> >> All the best to everyone! >> >> alex >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >> >> >> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I wonder >> if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language become >> increasingly versatile? >> Tahir >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft > > Dept. II / F 13 > > Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen > > Ludwigstra?e 25 > > D-80539 M?nchen > > Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) > > 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) > > Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 > > Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de > /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de > > > Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html > > Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen > enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail > irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und > vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte > Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen > e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. > Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere > durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. > > From a.heuboeck at pgr.reading.ac.uk Sun Mar 20 08:23:58 2011 From: a.heuboeck at pgr.reading.ac.uk (Alois Heuboeck) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:23:58 +0000 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Wuetschwunder" - if I may venture a conjecture: perhaps a double typo for "Quetschwunde"? Best wishes, Alois On 20/03/2011 07:36, alex gross wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is > the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named > Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just > come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd > terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the > reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to > their speeakers than English ones are. > > Very best! > > alex > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" > > To: "alex gross" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > >> Dear Alex, >> let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word >> "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've >> never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German >> children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German >> equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', >> coming close to English bruise. >> Best, >> Wolfgang >> >> >> Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >>> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due >>> to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English >>> for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when >>> such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course >>> can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave >>> some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical >>> terms across Chinese, English, and German: >>> >>> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for >>> them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the >>> ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important >>> to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them >>> at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that >>> these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' >>> the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the >>> 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you >>> an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where >>> the words are die Elle and die Speiche." >>> >>> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or >>> 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words >>> translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and >>> rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar >>> down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on >>> better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or >>> one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? >>> German continues to a better job here even today with such words as >>> Gehirnhautentz?ndung and Harnr?hre for meningitis and urethra. >>> >>> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >>> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would >>> not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >>> >>> Full text of this piece is available at: >>> >>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >>> >>> All the best to everyone! >>> >>> alex >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >>> >>> >>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I >>> wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language >>> become increasingly versatile? >>> Tahir >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft >> >> Dept. II / F 13 >> >> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen >> >> Ludwigstra?e 25 >> >> D-80539 M?nchen >> >> Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) >> >> 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) >> >> Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 >> >> Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de >> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de >> >> >> Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html >> >> Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte >> Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind >> bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte >> umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte >> Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher >> e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im >> Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r >> jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene >> e-Mails ausgeschlossen. >> >> > From language at sprynet.com Sun Mar 20 08:47:58 2011 From: language at sprynet.com (alex gross) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:47:58 -0400 Subject: Versatility? Message-ID: Thanks, Angus, i purposely did not go into the measurement side of "el," (beyond mentioning the maid unwilling to give an inch) since it quickly gets muddled over French, Scottish, & English els, cubits, etc. > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I use > them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I > would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and > "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is > which. The ulna or el is the lower one that merchants used to put down to measure cloth amid cries of dishonesty from customers. Is the subject intrinsically unimportant to you, or could our available vocabulary possibly be playing a role? Even today these bones are still important to people who need to know something about anatomy: artists and illustrators, martial artists, dancers, acrobats, and of course massage therapists, acupuncturists, & western doctors. Or to anyone foolish enough to enter an arm wrestling contest with the wrong opponent. All the best! alex ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > On 3/19/2011 5:39 AM, alex gross wrote: >> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for them >> today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the ones >> medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important to you >> every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them at all. But >> there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that these bones once >> had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' the radius possibly >> something like the 'spoke.' We know about the 'el' from Seventeenth >> Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you an inch, you'll soon take >> an el') but also from modern German, where the words are die Elle and die >> Speiche." > > An ell is also a unit of length equivalent to one's forearm; it's > mostly used in measuring coils of rope and such. I've known this from a > young age, although maybe it's because my father was an audio engineer who > studied classics and Old English at the graduate level. It's also used in > the /Lord of the Rings/ where Sam measures a rope in ells. > > I dispute whether the bones are important to me every day. Sure, I > use them all the time, but how often do I have to discuss one of them? I > would venture to say never in my life. I've known the words "radius" and > "ulna" since I was at least ten years old, and I still don't know which is > which. I don't see anything wrong with using vague words like "arm" and > "forearm," and leaving the specialized terms to the specialists. If > someone said to me, "she broke her el," instead of "she broke her arm," I > wouldn't feel particularly better informed. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de Sun Mar 20 08:48:02 2011 From: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de (Wolfgang Schulze) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:48:02 +0100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D85B99E.7080501@reading.ac.uk> Message-ID: Yes, this sounds extremely reasonable (hence = 'contused wound') ( instead of , and the final being just a 'hypertrophy'): I have asked my children what they would associate with this term (by itself totally unknown to them). All they said is that it could be some kind of bruise ('Quetschung'), neglecting the second part of the compound 'Wunde' (wound). To add one point: Alex wrote > German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to > their speeakers than English ones are. Well, you should bare in mind that in Germany, true medical (technical) terms are strongly related to some kind of Latin/Greek-based special language rendering a doctor's verbalized diagnostics often a secret code. The use of this code is part of the habitual language of doctors etc., symbolizing their 'power' over both illnesses and patients. The everyday nomenclature of medical terms is usually avoided by doctors etc., because it is said to be correlated with non-expertise. Maybe that in English, the same contrast had once been present. But contrary to German traditions, the 'doctor's language' seems to have been widely adopted in everyday speech in the English culture.... I guess others will know much more about that point than I. Best Wolfgang Am 20.03.2011 09:23, schrieb Alois Heuboeck: > "Wuetschwunder" - if I may venture a conjecture: perhaps a double typo > for "Quetschwunde"? > > Best wishes, > Alois > > > > On 20/03/2011 07:36, alex gross wrote: >> Dear Wolfgang, >> >> Thanks so much for your query. The obvious source in this interview is >> the interviewer herself, at that time a noted medical translator named >> Sandra Celt. I doubt if she would have used the term if she had not just >> come across it in a medical text she had been translating. Many odd >> terms can crop up in such texts, though none of them detract from the >> reality that German medical terms are often more readily tranparent to >> their speeakers than English ones are. >> >> Very best! >> >> alex >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wolfgang Schulze" >> >> To: "alex gross" >> Cc: >> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >> >> >>> Dear Alex, >>> let me just ask one thing: Where did you get the 'German' word >>> "Wuetschwunder" (for contusion ?) from? Being a native of German, I've >>> never heard this term, and I doubt whether it's current among German >>> children either. Any reference for this word? By the way: The German >>> equivalent of contusion would be 'Prellung, Erguss, Quetschung', >>> coming close to English bruise. >>> Best, >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> Am 19.03.2011 10:39, schrieb alex gross: >>>> Suspect some languages may have problems becoming more versatile due >>>> to unconscious esthetic factors, for instance a preference in English >>>> for high-flown latinate names over more basic equivalents, even when >>>> such equivalents might be theoretically available. Which of course >>>> can lead to greater "complexity," though not in a positive way. Gave >>>> some examples of this in a 1987 interview on translating medical >>>> terms across Chinese, English, and German: >>>> >>>> "A. Take the two bones in our lower arm. The only names we have for >>>> them today are ulna and radius. These are the 'scientific names,' the >>>> ones medical people--and few others--learn. Those bones are important >>>> to you every day, yet you have no everyday way of referring to them >>>> at all. But there is clear evidence from historical linguistics that >>>> these bones once had other names. The ulna was once called the 'el,' >>>> the radius possibly something like the 'spoke.' We know about the >>>> 'el' from Seventeenth Century poetry (maid to lover: 'if I give you >>>> an inch, you'll soon take an el') but also from modern German, where >>>> the words are die Elle and die Speiche." >>>> >>>> "Even in modern English the place where the 'el' makes a bend or >>>> 'bow' (sich beugt) is called the elbow. In Chinese these words >>>> translate as foot-measure bone (close to the meaning of 'el') and >>>> rowing bone. All bones and all locations in the body have similar >>>> down-to-earth names in Chinese. Which people is likely to be on >>>> better terms with their bodies--one that has names such as these or >>>> one where everything is linguistically off-limits except to doctors? >>>> German continues to a better job here even today with such words as >>>> Gehirnhautentz?ndung and Harnr?hre for meningitis and urethra. >>>> >>>> "Q. It also occurs to me that a German child could understand words >>>> like Riss- und Wuetschwunder, whereas an English-speaking child would >>>> not understand 'lacerations and contusions.'" >>>> >>>> Full text of this piece is available at: >>>> >>>> http://language.home.sprynet.com/lingdex/chinmed.htm#totop >>>> >>>> All the best to everyone! >>>> >>>> alex >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tahir Wood" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:07 AM >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Versatility? >>>> >>>> >>>> In the wake of all this discussion about increasing complexity, I >>>> wonder if anyone here has thoughts on versatility. Does language >>>> become increasingly versatile? >>>> Tahir >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer >>>>> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft >>> >>> Dept. II / F 13 >>> >>> Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen >>> >>> Ludwigstra?e 25 >>> >>> D-80539 M?nchen >>> >>> Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) >>> >>> 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) >>> >>> Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 >>> >>> Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de >>> /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de >>> >>> >>> Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html >>> >>> Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte >>> Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind >>> bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte >>> umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte >>> Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher >>> e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im >>> Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r >>> jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene >>> e-Mails ausgeschlossen. >>> >>> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------- *Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schulze * ---------------------------------------------------------- Institut f?r Allgemeine & Typologische Sprachwissenschaft Dept. II / F 13 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit?t M?nchen Ludwigstra?e 25 D-80539 M?nchen Tel.: 0049-(0)89-2180-2486 (Secretary) 0049-(0)89-2180-5343 (Office) Fax: 0049-(0)89-2180-5345 Email: W.Schulze at lrz.uni-muenchen.de /// Wolfgang.Schulze at lmu.de Web: http://www.ats.lmu.de/index.html Personal homepage: http://www.wolfgangschulze.in-devir.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Diese e-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich gesch?tzte Informationen enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind bzw. diese e-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte umgehend den Absender und vernichten Sie diese e-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie das unbefugte Verwenden und Weitergeben vertraulicher e-Mails oder etwaiger, mit solchen e-Mails verbundener Anh?nge im Ganzen oder in Teilen ist nicht gestattet. Ferner wird die Haftung f?r jeglichen Verlust oder Schaden, insbesondere durch virenbefallene e-Mails ausgeschlossen. From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 12:24:39 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 05:24:39 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johanna, If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. I'm the one on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language change, but there is also no regression. Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this irregularity induces. One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, Alex alluded to this in his post. I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The answer: "a linguist" had him totally confused. It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved comprehension. Best, --Aya On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in > word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has > become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with > zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've come > up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have > 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. > > If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out > wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they actually > cite published sources of the words they're listing. English wordcraft is > thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! > > Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is no > problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that way > before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early English > prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to accept this > democratic solution. People who object that it's "grammatically plural" don't > seem to have noticed that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a > singular for hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these > people need to get over themselves. > > Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > Professor, Linguistics > Linguistics Minor Advisor > English Dept. > Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Mar 20 17:03:36 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:03:36 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning (although it is certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many 'transparent' terms have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin Louise was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > Johanna, > > If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we > don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just > fine. I'm the one on this list who said that no matter what you lose > in one place through language change, you gain someplace else, so > overall it's always pretty much the same, and no progress is made > through language change, but there is also no regression. > > Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was > addressing was the way in which this is largely an irregular > process, and the blindness to internal boundaries in already derived > words that this irregularity induces. > > One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal > boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide > between doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors > from having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some > extent, Alex alluded to this in his post. > > I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical > specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was > talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I > wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I > answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The > answer: "a linguist" had him totally confused. > > It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can > only parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in > regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a > linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. > > So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about > comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved > comprehension. > > Best, > > --Aya > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '- >> meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. >> >> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >> in it! >> >> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing >> as how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I >> see no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who >> object that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed >> that "grammatically plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for >> hundreds of years. Unless we're to go back to 'thou,' these people >> need to get over themselves. >> >> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >> Professor, Linguistics >> Linguistics Minor Advisor >> English Dept. >> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 18:07:21 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 11:07:21 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <8591EA72-8B53-4A30-986E-E0DE3D6D1DB1@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise, Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But it might make becoming conversant a little easier. However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its location. Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in Grant's Tomb. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf Best, --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet a new > technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning (although it is > certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the specialized > meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many 'transparent' terms > have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin Louise > was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that > didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers the > whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including Parkinson's disease > and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. > Lise > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> Johanna, >> >> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we don't >> lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. I'm the one >> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place through >> language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's always pretty >> much the same, and no progress is made through language change, but there >> is also no regression. >> >> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing was >> the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the blindness to >> internal boundaries in already derived words that this irregularity >> induces. >> >> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from having >> intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, Alex >> alluded to this in his post. >> >> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical specialist in >> great depth, and because I understood what he was talking about, he assumed >> I was a professional. When I told him I wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but >> you're a biologist, right? When I answered that I wasn't, he asked, >> perplexed, then what are you? The answer: "a linguist" had him totally >> confused. >> >> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only parse >> the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in regular >> derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a linguist to >> understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >> >> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved comprehension. >> >> Best, >> >> --Aya >> >> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >> >>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility in >>> word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've borrowed has >>> become productive derivational morphology! And English is quite free with >>> zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and tons of compounding. We've >>> come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we >>> now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>> >>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, check out >>> wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary because they >>> actually cite published sources of the words they're listing. English >>> wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor in it! >>> >>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, there is >>> no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it was used that >>> way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as how an early >>> English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see no reason not to >>> accept this democratic solution. People who object that it's >>> "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that "grammatically >>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. Unless >>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over themselves. >>> >>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>> Professor, Linguistics >>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>> English Dept. >>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>> >>> >>> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > From hopper at cmu.edu Sun Mar 20 19:00:47 2011 From: hopper at cmu.edu (Paul Hopper) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:00:47 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks by speakers? - Paul On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: > Lise, > > > Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of > the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But > it might make becoming conversant a little easier. > > However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause > peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor > who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical > discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite > living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know > where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield > Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never > imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its > location. > > Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect > proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in > Grant's Tomb. > > > For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: > > > http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf > > > Best, > > > --Aya > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > >> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >> (although it is >> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >> 'transparent' terms >> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >> Louise >> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >> Parkinson's disease >> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >> >> >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >> >> >>> Johanna, >>> >>> >>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>> I'm the one >>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>> change, but there is also no regression. >>> >>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>> irregularity induces. >>> >>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>> Alex >>> alluded to this in his post. >>> >>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>> confused. >>> >>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>> >>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>> comprehension. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>> >>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>> in it! >>>> >>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>> "grammatically >>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>> Unless >>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>> themselves. >>>> >>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>> English Dept. >>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> >> > > -- Paul J. Hopper Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities Department of English Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 and Senior External Fellow School of Linguistics and Literature Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) Albertstr. 19 D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. Germany From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Sun Mar 20 19:12:28 2011 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:12:28 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <6796534deec110180ac111155f74ec42.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: There was research in the late 70s following up on the original observations by Jean Berko Gleason. Bruce Derwing published work on this issue; he had adults rate the phonological and semantic similarity of word pairs like "wild/wilderness". Other people answered two questions that I contributed, such as "Does WILDERNESS come from WILD?". And they were also asked "Have you ever thought of this before?". In the 80s morpheme identification was a major issue in studies of atypical language development and it is still used as a part of language assessment. ron p.s. I'm 60 and in response to a previous msg, I do think that "rooster" must come from "roost", but I had never thought of it before. r ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Linguistics & Psychology University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which > people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and > evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An > elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain > holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat > turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, > both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are > repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there > really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar > survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might > think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks > by speakers? > > - Paul > > > On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: > > Lise, > > > > > > Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of > > the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But > > it might make becoming conversant a little easier. > > > > However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause > > peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor > > who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical > > discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite > > living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know > > where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield > > Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never > > imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its > > location. > > > > Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect > > proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in > > Grant's Tomb. > > > > > > For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: > > > > > > http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > --Aya > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > > > > > >> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet > >> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning > >> (although it is > >> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the > >> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many > >> 'transparent' terms > >> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin > >> Louise > >> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that > >> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers > >> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including > >> Parkinson's disease > >> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise > >> > >> > >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Johanna, > >>> > >>> > >>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we > >>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. > >>> I'm the one > >>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place > >>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's > >>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language > >>> change, but there is also no regression. > >>> > >>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing > >>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the > >>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this > >>> irregularity induces. > >>> > >>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal > >>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between > >>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from > >>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, > >>> Alex > >>> alluded to this in his post. > >>> > >>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical > >>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was > >>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I > >>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I > >>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The > >>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally > >>> confused. > >>> > >>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only > >>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in > >>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a > >>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. > >>> > >>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about > >>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved > >>> comprehension. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> > >>> --Aya > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility > >>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've > >>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English > >>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and > >>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' > >>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' > >>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. > >>>> > >>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, > >>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary > >>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're > >>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor > >>>> in it! > >>>> > >>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, > >>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it > >>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as > >>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see > >>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object > >>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that > >>>> "grammatically > >>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. > >>>> Unless > >>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over > >>>> themselves. > >>>> > >>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. > >>>> Professor, Linguistics > >>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor > >>>> English Dept. > >>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo > >>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 > >>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 > >>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 > >>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 > >>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu > >>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > >> Boulder CO 80302 > >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics > >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > >> University of Colorado > >> > >> > >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > >> > >> > >> Campus Mail Address: > >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > >> > >> > >> Campus Physical Address: > >> CINC 234 > >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Linguistics and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 20:51:44 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:51:44 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <6796534deec110180ac111155f74ec42.squirrel@webmail.andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: Paul, Those are good anecdotes! Yes, of course, it can happen in Hebrew, too. My point is not that it never happens to Hebrew speakers, but that when it does happen it is less frequent. Examples include the trick question: "Who is the father of Yehoshua bin Nun?" (The obvious answer being Nun, but nervous Bible students who think they are being tested on their begats might have a momentary brain freeze and be unable to answer.) I don't know of any studies specifically aimed at componential opacity, but in Bolozky's "Measuring Productivity in Word Formation: the Case of Israeli Hebrew" (1999) which I have as a reference in my Lacus article, there were not only tests where productivity was demonstrated, but also judgment tests of lexicality of words so produced. I suppose this is not the same as studying the inability to recognize a derivation, but it is very closely related. --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which > people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and > evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An > elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain > holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat > turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, > both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are > repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there > really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar > survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might > think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks > by speakers? > > - Paul > > > On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: >> Lise, >> >> >> Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of >> the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But >> it might make becoming conversant a little easier. >> >> However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause >> peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor >> who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical >> discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite >> living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know >> where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield >> Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never >> imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its >> location. >> >> Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect >> proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in >> Grant's Tomb. >> >> >> For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: >> >> >> http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> --Aya >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: >> >> >>> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >>> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >>> (although it is >>> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >>> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >>> 'transparent' terms >>> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >>> Louise >>> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >>> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >>> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >>> Parkinson's disease >>> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Johanna, >>>> >>>> >>>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>>> I'm the one >>>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>>> change, but there is also no regression. >>>> >>>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>>> irregularity induces. >>>> >>>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>>> Alex >>>> alluded to this in his post. >>>> >>>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>>> confused. >>>> >>>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>>> >>>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>>> comprehension. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> --Aya >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>>> >>>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>>> in it! >>>>> >>>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>>> "grammatically >>>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>>> Unless >>>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>>> English Dept. >>>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Paul J. Hopper > Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities > Department of English > Carnegie Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA 15213 > and > Senior External Fellow > School of Linguistics and Literature > Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) > Albertstr. 19 > D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. > Germany > > > From munro at ucla.edu Sun Mar 20 21:26:02 2011 From: munro at ucla.edu (Pamela Munro) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:26:02 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? I blush. :) Ron Smyth wrote: > There was research in the late 70s following up on the original > observations by Jean Berko Gleason. Bruce Derwing published work on this > issue; he had adults rate the phonological and semantic similarity of word > pairs like "wild/wilderness". Other people answered two questions that I > contributed, such as "Does WILDERNESS come from WILD?". And they were > also asked "Have you ever thought of this before?". > > In the 80s morpheme identification was a major issue in studies of > atypical language development and it is still used as a part of language > assessment. > ron > p.s. I'm 60 and in response to a previous msg, I do think that "rooster" > must come from "roost", but I had never thought of it before. > r > > =============================================================================== > Ron Smyth, Associate Professor > Linguistics & Psychology > University of Toronto > ============================================================================ > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Paul Hopper wrote: > > >> Alison Wray in her book on fixed expressions tells of a survey in which >> people were asked what the main ingredient in Rice Krispies was, and >> evidently a surprising number of informants were unable to say. An >> elementary school teacher couldn't get her children to say why a certain >> holiday was called 'Thanksgiving', but got answers like 'because we eat >> turkey', 'because we go to Grandma's' etc. There's plenty of evidence, >> both serious and anecdotal, that compounds (and other sequences) that are >> repeated quite quickly lose their internal structure. But Aya, are there >> really no comparable examples in Hebrew? Has anyone ever done a similar >> survey among Hebrew speakers? Aren't there any compounds that (one might >> think) ought to be transparent but which are produced as unanalyzed chunks >> by speakers? >> >> - Paul >> >> >> On Sun, March 20, 2011 14:07, A. Katz wrote: >> >>> Lise, >>> >>> >>> Of course, I am not suggesting that an understanding of the meaning of >>> the words alone will give you the equivalent of a medical education. But >>> it might make becoming conversant a little easier. >>> >>> However, being accustomed to having everything be opaque can cause >>> peculiar blindness to componential analysis. For instance, the same doctor >>> who didn't understand how being a linguist could help with a medical >>> discussion also had no idea where the Brookfield Zoo was located, despite >>> living in the Chicago area, and having heard of that zoo. "Do you know >>> where Brookfield is?" I asked him. He said yes. I told him the Brookfield >>> Zoo was in Brookfield. This was new information to him, since he never >>> imagined that the name of the zoo could have anything to do with its >>> location. >>> >>> Nothing helps with meaning unless you expect it to. If you don't expect >>> proper names to make sense, then you will never guess who is buried in >>> Grant's Tomb. >>> >>> >>> For a more detailed discussion of this issue, read my LACUS article: >>> >>> >>> http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> --Aya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Transparency in derivation doesn't really give us meanings when we meet >>>> a new technical word - or phrase - that has a specialized meaning >>>> (although it is >>>> certainly important in helping us hold onto the term and to the >>>> specialized meaning once we have learned it). That's why so many >>>> 'transparent' terms >>>> have to be listed in dictionaries, after all. Example: my dear cousin >>>> Louise >>>> was told she had 'motor system disease', a nice transparent phrase that >>>> didn't worry her too much, and only later learned that the term covers >>>> the whole miserable group of degenerative disorders including >>>> Parkinson's disease >>>> and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is what she had. Lise >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:24 AM, A. Katz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Johanna, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If your point is: English works just fine, thank you very much, we >>>>> don't lack for anything, then I agree. Of course, it works just fine. >>>>> I'm the one >>>>> on this list who said that no matter what you lose in one place >>>>> through language change, you gain someplace else, so overall it's >>>>> always pretty much the same, and no progress is made through language >>>>> change, but there is also no regression. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, English derives new words every day. What I was addressing >>>>> was the way in which this is largely an irregular process, and the >>>>> blindness to internal boundaries in already derived words that this >>>>> irregularity induces. >>>>> >>>>> One example is that only very educated people can parse the internal >>>>> boundaries of medical terms, and so it creates a class divide between >>>>> doctors and patients, which can prevent laymen and doctors from >>>>> having intelligent discussions about medical problems. To some extent, >>>>> Alex >>>>> alluded to this in his post. >>>>> >>>>> I had the experience of discussing a problem with a medical >>>>> specialist in great depth, and because I understood what he was >>>>> talking about, he assumed I was a professional. When I told him I >>>>> wasn't a doctor, he said, yes, but you're a biologist, right? When I >>>>> answered that I wasn't, he asked, perplexed, then what are you? The >>>>> answer: "a linguist" had him totally >>>>> confused. >>>>> >>>>> It's amazing what you can pick up about expert jargon if you can only >>>>> parse the words! In cultures where medical terms are couched in >>>>> regular derivations in the native tongue, you don't have to be a >>>>> linguist to understand roughly what the doctor is talking about. >>>>> >>>>> So in essence, my point was less about production than it was about >>>>> comprehension. Regularity in derivation leads to improved >>>>> comprehension. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --Aya >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Johanna Rubba wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I don't get the talk about speakers of English lacking versatility >>>>>> in word-building due to massive borrowing. A lot of what we've >>>>>> borrowed has become productive derivational morphology! And English >>>>>> is quite free with zero derivation, as well. We also do tons and >>>>>> tons of compounding. We've come up with new suffixes like '-oholic' >>>>>> and '-erati' ('glitterati'), we now have 'e-' everything, '-meister' >>>>>> seems to be making a comeback, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you doubt the versatility of English derivational morphology, >>>>>> check out wordspy.com. They're a tad better than Urban Dictionary >>>>>> because they actually cite published sources of the words they're >>>>>> listing. English wordcraft is thriving, and there's a lot of humor >>>>>> in it! >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan spoke of "the pronoun problem." For most speakers of English, >>>>>> there is no problem. The singular generic is 'they.' Apparently, it >>>>>> was used that way before the prescription of generic 'he,' seeing as >>>>>> how an early English prescriptive grammar inveighs against it. I see >>>>>> no reason not to accept this democratic solution. People who object >>>>>> that it's "grammatically plural" don't seem to have noticed that >>>>>> "grammatically >>>>>> plural" 'you' has been in use as a singular for hundreds of years. >>>>>> Unless >>>>>> we're to go back to 'thou,' these people need to get over >>>>>> themselves. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. >>>>>> Professor, Linguistics >>>>>> Linguistics Minor Advisor >>>>>> English Dept. >>>>>> Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo >>>>>> San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 >>>>>> Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 >>>>>> Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 >>>>>> Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 >>>>>> E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu >>>>>> URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> Paul J. Hopper >> Paul Mellon Distinguished Professor of Humanities >> Department of English >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Pittsburgh, PA 15213 >> and >> Senior External Fellow >> School of Linguistics and Literature >> Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) >> Albertstr. 19 >> D-79105 Freiburg i.Br. >> Germany >> >> >> > > -- Pamela Munro, Professor, Linguistics, UCLA UCLA Box 951543 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm From wilcox at unm.edu Sun Mar 20 21:45:13 2011 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:45:13 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D8670EA.5060502@ucla.edu> Message-ID: On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ > was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is > /roo/? I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? -- Sherman Wilcox, Professor Department of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 871131 From dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au Sun Mar 20 22:53:25 2011 From: dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au (dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:53:25 +1100 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <638CB699-2AD5-4E4F-A23F-607BA3273B38@unm.edu> Message-ID: I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > >>The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what >>is /roo/? > >I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might >mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? > >-- >Sherman Wilcox, Professor >Department of Linguistics >University of New Mexico >Albuquerque, NM 871131 -- David Harvey 60 Gipps Street Drummoyne NSW 2047 Australia Tel: 61-2-9719-9170 From tgivon at uoregon.edu Sun Mar 20 23:31:05 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:31:05 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG ==================== On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: > I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't > realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. > > At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >> >>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>> was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what >>> is /roo/? >> >> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >> with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >> out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might >> mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >> >> -- >> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >> Department of Linguistics >> University of New Mexico >> Albuquerque, NM 871131 > > From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Mar 20 23:38:21 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:38:21 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D868E39.6020801@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint > exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the > semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. > Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the > meaning of the compound drifts away from the original composite > meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic incentive to > cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the predictability > of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & lower over time. > In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused as a > single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two > original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic > conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as > usual, history. TG > > ==================== > > > > On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people >> don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >> >> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of / >>>> rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ >>>> ster/, but what is /roo/? >>> >>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up >>> with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure >>> out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- >>> might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >>> >>> -- >>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>> Department of Linguistics >>> University of New Mexico >>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 23:48:17 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:48:17 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D868E39.6020801@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom, But this generalization, however valid, ignores the situations where no phonological changes have taken place, no subcomponent is lost as an independent unit, yet the speaker is not able to see the parts for the whole -- psychological componential opacity. It likewise ignores the situations where there has been reduction and even assimilation, as in Hebrew, but the components are transparent: circumstantial opacity but psychological transparency. --Aya P.S. Did you read the LACUS article? http://www.lacus.org/volumes/27/207_katz_a.pdf On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint exemplars > lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic & > phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts > co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound > drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a > growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given > that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & > lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused > as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two > original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in > compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG > > ==================== > > > > On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >> >> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? >>> >>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has >>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops >>> the sun's rays? >>> >>> -- >>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>> Department of Linguistics >>> University of New Mexico >>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> > > From amnfn at well.com Sun Mar 20 23:49:48 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 16:49:48 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2CE82A0B-741F-41AF-B4E5-71595DCF8127@colorado.edu> Message-ID: Lise, Could you share some references to specific article that are point? Best, --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work on > what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't > ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > Lise > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >> semantic & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the >> two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the >> compound drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, >> there is a growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a >> composite, given that the predictability of the compound meaning from its >> parts gets lower & lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological >> sequences becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the >> similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical >> "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as >> usual, history. TG >> >> ==================== >> >> >> >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>> >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>> >>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >>>>> /roo/? >>>> >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun >>>> has to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >>>> chops the sun's rays? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>> Department of Linguistics >>>> University of New Mexico >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>> >>> >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Mon Mar 21 00:16:16 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:16:16 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I know a lot of Latinate and Greek-derived morphology, but I, too, didn't notice that "rooster" is analyzable until it was cited here. Also, I didn't notice until my mid-40's that "mistake" was "mis-" + "take." Latinate morphology is also not beautifully transparent, as we all know. We have those pesky sets: the '-ceive' set ? 'transceive,' 'receive,' 'conceive,' 'perceive,' which then do their crazy alternations to '-cept' and '-ception.' And the '-mit' series: 'transmit,' 'submit,' 'commit,' 'permit,' 'admit,' which alternate with '-ssion.' Since educated people stopped studying Latin, these roots, and most of the prefixes, are opaque. Assimilation in the negative prefix also masks compositionality: 'illegal,' 'irresponsible,' 'indecent.' For some reason this brings to mind something that might well be irrelevant, but that Pam Munro's note about "-ster" reminded me of. Ever since I've been teaching phonetics/phonology, I've noticed that a large number of students don't break up syllables according to the patterns linguists expect. It wouldn't surprise me if they divided 'rooster' into 'roo-ster', as they tend to keep clusters together regardless of where they appear in the word. It's armchair guessing, but I think one thing that led me to be blind to 'mis-take' was that I thought of the word as 'mi-stake,' even though, as a linguist, I "know better." While I'm on the subject of students not conforming to linguist's expectations, there is another behavior my students, as native speakers, are "not supposed" to do. Very many of them do not perceive the "hierarchical" structure of a complex word as we would expect them to. For instance, given a word like 'repayment,' they're just as likely to analyze it as 're+payment' as 'repay+ment.' In other words, they show very little sensitivity to the relation between category of root and category the affix applies to. Since our linguistic descriptions are supposed to be based on what native speakers do, I've always wondered how linguists would explain these behaviors. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.ed URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Mar 21 00:41:38 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:41:38 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Mon Mar 21 00:43:41 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:43:41 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, there are too many good articles in The Mental Lexicon to list here - which ones to look at depend on the reader's specific interests. Here's the publisher's link so people can check out the contents: http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_seriesview.cgi?series=ml NB: Issue 3:2 is currently available online as a free sample. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:49 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Lise, > > Could you share some references to specific article that are point? > > Best, > > --Aya > > > On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Lise Menn wrote: > >> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of >> psycholinguistic work on what people consciously and unconsciously >> know about compounds; it's not necessary to rely on anecdote and >> introspection. Check out the journal The Mental Lexicon. Obviously >> no one has all the answers, but linguists shouldn't ignore the very >> good science that has been done in this area. >> Lise >> >> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >> >>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of >>> quaint exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with >>> both the semantic & phonological changes that affect compound >>> expressions. Once the two parts co-vary in all (or most) contexts, >>> and once the meaning of the compound drifts away from the original >>> composite meaning of the two parts, there is a growing semantic >>> incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given that the >>> predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & >>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences >>> becomes fused as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the >>> similarity to the two original parts less & less obvious. This is >>> a typical "iconic conspiracy" in compounding & co-lexicalization. >>> Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>> ==================== >>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people >>>> don't realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of / >>>>>> rooster/ was made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ >>>>>> ster/, but what is /roo/? >>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>>>> Everyone thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come >>>>> up with /heli-/ having to do with the sun, but then they can't >>>>> figure out what the sun has to do with helicopters, or what -/ >>>>> copt/- might mean. Something that chops the sun's rays? >>>>> -- >>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of >> Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> >> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >> >> Campus Mail Address: >> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >> >> Campus Physical Address: >> CINC 234 >> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >> >> >> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Mon Mar 21 00:45:25 2011 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:45:25 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: Yes - and again, psycholinguists have been working with this kind of base/derivative relative frequency effect for a long time. Lise On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think > one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more > frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have > become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less > frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus > roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of > roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be > able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, > like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] Fellow, Linguistic Society of America Campus Mail Address: UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science Campus Physical Address: CINC 234 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder From jbybee at unm.edu Mon Mar 21 01:34:53 2011 From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:34:53 -0600 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2CE82A0B-741F-41AF-B4E5-71595DCF8127@colorado.edu> Message-ID: I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research on the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these points. No need to rely on anecdotes. Joan On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work > on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's not > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal The > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists > shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > Lise > > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the semantic >> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two parts >> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there is a >> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, given >> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets lower & >> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes fused >> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the two >> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic conspiracy" in >> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >> >> ==================== >> >> >> >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >> >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>> >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>> >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>> >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ was >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is /roo/? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. Everyone >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun has >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that chops >>>> the sun's rays? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>> Department of Linguistics >>>> University of New Mexico >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > Campus Mail Address: > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > Campus Physical Address: > CINC 234 > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > -- Joan Bybee HC 66 Box 118 Mountainair, NM 87036 505-847-0137 From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 03:10:41 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:10:41 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: Angus, This is a plausible explanation for this particular example, but I'm not entirely convinced. When I tested rural Missourians, they seemed to have as much trouble as urban dwellers-- even when they had real life experiences with roosters. --Aya On Sun, 20 Mar 2011, Angus B. Grieve-Smith wrote: > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one > important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent > than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and > less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities > to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant > as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English > speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a > "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like > "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Mar 21 03:41:00 2011 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:41:00 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/20/2011 11:10 PM, A. Katz wrote: > Angus, > > This is a plausible explanation for this particular example, but I'm > not entirely convinced. When I tested rural Missourians, they seemed > to have as much trouble as urban dwellers-- even when they had real > life experiences with roosters. It would not be enough for them to have real life experiences with roosters, they would need to have experience with roost/ing/ at a frequency in at least the same general range. Once the derived term is in common use, the conditions of derivation never need to apply again. It makes me wonder if the derivation is transparent to birdwatchers and ornithologists. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From batia.seroussi at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 09:34:48 2011 From: batia.seroussi at gmail.com (Batia Seroussi) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:34:48 +0200 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hello all, One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native speakers of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, dealt with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent = less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. Batia Seroussi 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee > I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research > on > the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my > 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these > points. No need to rely on anecdotes. > > Joan > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: > > > Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work > > on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's > not > > necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal > The > > Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists > > shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. > > Lise > > > > > > On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: > > > > > >> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint > >> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the > semantic > >> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two > parts > >> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound > >> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there > is a > >> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, > given > >> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets > lower & > >> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes > fused > >> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the > two > >> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic > conspiracy" in > >> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG > >> > >> ==================== > >> > >> > >> > >> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: > >> > >>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't > >>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. > >>> > >>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ > was > >>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is > /roo/? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. > Everyone > >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ > >>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun > has > >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that > chops > >>>> the sun's rays? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor > >>>> Department of Linguistics > >>>> University of New Mexico > >>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 > > 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 > > Boulder CO 80302 > > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > > University of Colorado > > > > Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] > > Fellow, Linguistic Society of America > > > > Campus Mail Address: > > UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science > > > > Campus Physical Address: > > CINC 234 > > 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Joan Bybee > HC 66 Box 118 > Mountainair, NM 87036 > 505-847-0137 > From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 12:55:25 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:55:25 -0700 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Batia, Is your thesis available online? It sounds very pertinent to this discussion, and we could all profit by reading it. Best, --Aya On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Batia Seroussi wrote: > Hello all, > One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native speakers > of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, dealt > with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns > with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and > others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of > compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent = > less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the > root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for > example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with > unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly > semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. > Batia Seroussi > 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee > >> I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research >> on >> the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check my >> 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on these >> points. No need to rely on anecdotes. >> >> Joan >> >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn wrote: >> >>> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work >>> on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's >> not >>> necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal >> The >>> Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists >>> shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. >>> Lise >>> >>> >>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >>>> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >> semantic >>>> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two >> parts >>>> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >>>> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there >> is a >>>> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, >> given >>>> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets >> lower & >>>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes >> fused >>>> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the >> two >>>> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic >> conspiracy" in >>>> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>>> >>>> ==================== >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>> >>>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>>>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>>> >>>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >> was >>>>>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >> /roo/? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >> Everyone >>>>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the sun >> has >>>>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >> chops >>>>>> the sun's rays? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> >>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>> >>> Campus Mail Address: >>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>> >>> Campus Physical Address: >>> CINC 234 >>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Joan Bybee >> HC 66 Box 118 >> Mountainair, NM 87036 >> 505-847-0137 >> > > From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Mon Mar 21 14:40:15 2011 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:40:15 -0400 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <4D869EC2.5080704@panix.com> Message-ID: While I've been reluctant to get into this flurry, I have to share two small points. First, it never occurred to me that 'rooster' was related to 'roost', because it never occurred to me that 'roosters' 'roost'. I don't know where or how male chickens sleep, but I'd always thought it was the females that 'roosted'. 'Rooster' is therefore, to me, quite different from 'baker', 'singer', 'liar', because the semantics is completely opaque. In response to Jo, I think the syllabification your students come up with is correct--both the Maximum Onset Principle and the fact that primary stress attracts consonants would lead to roo.ster, which I think is how English syllabifies. Else we would have an aspirated [t], which we don't--at least in my dialect it's typical voiceless unaspirated (as in 'stir') (i.e. VOT between 0 and 40 ms. for the three I just said). Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 8:41:38 PM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:01:57 2011 From: lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com (Lachlan Mackenzie) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:01:57 +0000 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: <2137378160.1457670.1300718415577.JavaMail.root@starship.merit.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Just a little remark from a native speaker of British English. Rooster is not a word we use, so I feel very aware of the morphological complexity of roost-er; we simply call the little fella' a cock. Mencken explains in his The American Language (Ch. 4, Section 5) that the word was invented in the 19th-century US as a euphemism because of the other sense of cock. Similarly for drumstick rather than the potentially titillating word leg. I imagine that Americans also have found a way of avoiding breast as a cut of chicken. Would roost-er not just be an example of a locative -er formation, i.e. denizen of the roost? Like cottager, etc.? Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:40:15 -0400 > From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu > To: grvsmth at panix.com > CC: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > While I've been reluctant to get into this flurry, I have to share two small points. > First, it never occurred to me that 'rooster' was related to 'roost', because it never occurred to me that 'roosters' 'roost'. I don't know where or how male chickens sleep, but I'd always thought it was the females that 'roosted'. 'Rooster' is therefore, to me, quite different from 'baker', 'singer', 'liar', because the semantics is completely opaque. > > > In response to Jo, I think the syllabification your students come up with is correct--both the Maximum Onset Principle and the fact that primary stress attracts consonants would lead to roo.ster, which I think is how English syllabifies. Else we would have an aspirated [t], which we don't--at least in my dialect it's typical voiceless unaspirated (as in 'stir') (i.e. VOT between 0 and 40 ms. for the three I just said). > > Geoffrey S. Nathan > Faculty Liaison, C&IT > and Professor, Linguistics Program > http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ > +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) > +1 (313) 577-8621 (English/Linguistics) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Angus B. Grieve-Smith" > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 8:41:38 PM > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Versatility? > > Aya, I've been thinking about your "rooster" example. I think one > important factor is that the noun "rooster" has become much more > frequent than the verb "roost." As English-speaking societies have > become less and less agricultural, we see roosters a lot less > frequently, our opportunities to see them roosting dwindle, and thus > roosting has become less significant as a characteristic of roosters. > In contrast, I think that most English speakers would be able to tell > you why a particular kind of bird is called a "roaster." > > Other derived words that have similarly outpaced their roots, like > "computer," and we'd expect them to be treated similarly. > > -- > -Angus B. Grieve-Smith > grvsmth at panix.com > > From batia.seroussi at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:18:32 2011 From: batia.seroussi at gmail.com (Batia Seroussi) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:18:32 +0200 Subject: Versatility? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Aya, I am not sure whether sending attachments is allowed on this list since I am fresh here as an active contributor. My doctoral thesis, submitted a few months ago, is still waiting for its final approval. Anyway, if you are interested, I will gladly send selected presentations of talks that I gave and the whole study, as soon as it is approved, to your private mail. best, Batia 2011/3/21 A. Katz > Batia, > > Is your thesis available online? It sounds very pertinent to this > discussion, and we could all profit by reading it. > > Best, > > --Aya > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Batia Seroussi wrote: > > Hello all, >> One of the research questions of my doctorate, performed on native >> speakers >> of Hebrew in Tel-Aviv University under the supervision of Ruth Berman, >> dealt >> with the degree of compositionality or parsability of Hebrew derived nouns >> with respect to familarity/frequency. In line with Hay & Baayen, Bybee and >> others for English, familiarity/frequency interacted with the degree of >> compositionality, yielding the following equation: more familiar/frequent >> = >> less reference to the root, less familiar/frequent = more refrence to the >> root; Hebrew speakers who were asked to provide free associations, for >> example, tended to rely on the root extensively when confronted with >> unfamiliar/infrequent words whereas other types of associations (mainly >> semantic-pragmatic) were given to familiar/frequent Hebrew derived nouns. >> Batia Seroussi >> 2011/3/21 Joan Bybee >> >> I agree with Lise. Jennifer Hay has also done a lot of very good research >>> on >>> the loss of transparency of derivational morphology. Plus you can check >>> my >>> 2010 book, Language, Usage and Cognition, for both theory and data on >>> these >>> points. No need to rely on anecdotes. >>> >>> Joan >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Lise Menn >>> wrote: >>> >>> Gary Libben and his group have done a great deal of psycholinguistic work >>>> on what people consciously and unconsciously know about compounds; it's >>>> >>> not >>> >>>> necessary to rely on anecdote and introspection. Check out the journal >>>> >>> The >>> >>>> Mental Lexicon. Obviously no one has all the answers, but linguists >>>> shouldn't ignore the very good science that has been done in this area. >>>> Lise >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Tom Givon wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe it would be useful to add that among all the pieces of quaint >>>>> exemplars lie some general principles that have to do with both the >>>>> >>>> semantic >>> >>>> & phonological changes that affect compound expressions. Once the two >>>>> >>>> parts >>> >>>> co-vary in all (or most) contexts, and once the meaning of the compound >>>>> drifts away from the original composite meaning of the two parts, there >>>>> >>>> is a >>> >>>> growing semantic incentive to cease interpreting it as a composite, >>>>> >>>> given >>> >>>> that the predictability of the compound meaning from its parts gets >>>>> >>>> lower & >>> >>>> lower over time. In parallel, once two phonological sequences becomes >>>>> >>>> fused >>> >>>> as a single word, assimilation & reduction make the similarity to the >>>>> >>>> two >>> >>>> original parts less & less obvious. This is a typical "iconic >>>>> >>>> conspiracy" in >>> >>>> compounding & co-lexicalization. Ther rest is, as usual, history. TG >>>>> >>>>> ==================== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/20/2011 4:53 PM, dharv at mail.optusnet.com.au wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can attest that even in the aircraft industry plenty of people don't >>>>>> realize that helicopter means helical or twisting wing. >>>>>> >>>>>> At 3:45 PM -0600 20/3/11, Sherman Wilcox wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 Mar 2011, at 15:26, Pamela Munro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The first time the observation about the analyzability of /rooster/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> was >>> >>>> made here, I thought, sure, I know the ending -/ster/, but what is >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> /roo/? >>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I routinely ask my students to analyze helicopter. No one can. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Everyone >>> >>>> thinks the word has an -/er/ suffix. Some of them come up with /heli-/ >>>>>>> having to do with the sun, but then they can't figure out what the >>>>>>> sun >>>>>>> >>>>>> has >>> >>>> to do with helicopters, or what -/copt/- might mean. Something that >>>>>>> >>>>>> chops >>> >>>> the sun's rays? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sherman Wilcox, Professor >>>>>>> Department of Linguistics >>>>>>> University of New Mexico >>>>>>> Albuquerque, NM 871131 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>>> 1625 Mariposa Ave Fax: 303-413-0017 >>>> Boulder CO 80302 >>>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>>> >>>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>>> University of Colorado >>>> >>>> Secretary, AAAS Section Z [Linguistics] >>>> Fellow, Linguistic Society of America >>>> >>>> Campus Mail Address: >>>> UCB 594, Institute for Cognitive Science >>>> >>>> Campus Physical Address: >>>> CINC 234 >>>> 1777 Exposition Ave, Boulder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joan Bybee >>> HC 66 Box 118 >>> Mountainair, NM 87036 >>> 505-847-0137 >>> >>> >> >> From kemmer at rice.edu Mon Mar 21 16:38:34 2011 From: kemmer at rice.edu (Suzanne Kemmer) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:38:34 -0500 Subject: analyzability [was versatility] Message-ID: I have to weigh in too, because I was amazed that 'rooster' would be given as an example of how English speakers are less sensitive to component morphology than speakers of other languages -- because of all the loanwords 'obviously'. As I understand it, rooster is not an invented word, exactly, because it was a British dialect word for cockerel/cock. Another dialect word was 'roost-cock'. (cf. expression 'cock o' the roost'.) But rooster was taken up in the U.S. as a euphemism, as Mencken says. 'Roost' meant to me, as an (urban) child, sit on eggs in a chicken house, i.e. something that hens do. I wondered why the 'boy chicken' was called the 'rooster' and not the girl. In college I learned that 'roost' technically means 'perching higher than the ground when sleeping.' Migrating birds congregate in certain places on their journey to roost for a few days or weeks before heading on. (My university was such a roosting place.) There's also the old saying about the chickens 'coming home to roost'. But I wouldn't be surprised if other native speakers understand 'roost' as sit on eggs like a chicken, and wouldn't connect that infrequent word with rooster. Probably farmers don't even typically analyze the word, given the lexical considerations mentioned in other posts. Both male and female fowl roost in the sense of perching above the ground to sleep, but the male also sits up on a perch during the day to guard his pullets. Maybe 'roost' in farmyards was generalized to apply to '(barnyard fowl) sitting up on a perch', so the cockerel, doing this more visibly, was called the rooster. Or maybe it just meant the one that was king of the roost like Lachlan suggested. In any case, morphological analyzability in English and Hebrew should be investigated with regard to frequency and other such lexical considerations (whether or not one component is a bound morpheme comes to mind), as has been discussed already in the thread, but also in the context of their very different types of morphological structure. Comparing languages of more similar morphological structure would be a better start than directly comparing English with Hebrew. There are so many other variables, like education, background etc. that would factor in but probably some generalizations could be drawn. Putting 'relative numbers of loanwords' into the mix would be pretty complex for many reasons, but it could be looked at. Right now, no linguist is going to take up the simple story of the loanwords given what we know about other factors that demonstrably affect analyzability. SK From amnfn at well.com Mon Mar 21 17:54:22 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:54:22 -0700 Subject: analyzability [was versatility] In-Reply-To: <0963293E-F624-4996-8190-EE498E0DC9E9@rice.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Suzanne Kemmer wrote: > > In any case, morphological analyzability in English and Hebrew > should be investigated with regard to frequency and other such lexical considerations > (whether or not one component is a bound morpheme comes to mind), > as has been discussed already in the thread, but also in the context of their very different types of > morphological structure. Comparing languages of more similar > morphological structure would be a better start than directly comparing English with Hebrew. > There are so many other variables, like education, background etc. that would factor > in but probably some generalizations could be drawn. Putting 'relative numbers of loanwords' > into the mix would be pretty complex for many reasons, but it could be looked at. > Right now, no linguist is going to > take up the simple story of the loanwords given what we know about other > factors that demonstrably affect analyzability. > > SK > Suzanne, I am in complete agreement with you that the subject of psychological opacity or tranparency should be investigated with regard to frequency. I am hoping that some of Batia Seroussi's research, which I am looking into, will shed more light on the subject. But I also think that regularity in the lexical system is a factor, and that this factor can best be studied in the context of languages with dramatically different typologies as far as lexical cohesion is concerned. I would disagree with the idea that whether or not one component is bound is of much importance to this issue. This is why I look at data from languages that have different typologies as to boundedness in lexeme formation. Mandarin has components that remain phonologically independent, even when they are part of a multimorphemic lexeme. Hebrew has discontinuous roots, and almost every lexical derivation requires resyllabification and reducation of syllables that are too far removed from the stress. Nevertheless, both Hebrew and Mandarin enjoy componential transparency to a much greater degree than English. Does education play a role in being able to parse a word? Of course, it does. To read more about how literacy affect lexicality, you might want to look at this paper: http://www.lacus.org/volumes/29/katzAya.pdf Best, --Aya From feist at louisiana.edu Mon Mar 21 20:16:04 2011 From: feist at louisiana.edu (Michele I Feist) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:16:04 -0500 Subject: EMCL Final Call: Applications due 22 March 2011 In-Reply-To: <1828602874.484001.1300738099354.JavaMail.root@zimbra-mbox02> Message-ID: ***Final Call: Application deadline 22 March 2011*** The Center for the Study of Languages at the University of Chicago together with The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) and The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) present Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics 5.2 (EMCL-5.2) ? Chicago The Integration of Corpus and Experimental Methods 13 ? 18 June 2011 http://languages.uchicago.edu/emcl5-2 Call for Participation We invite applications to the next workshop on Empirical Methods in Cognitive Linguistics ? EMCL 5.2 ? to be held at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL), 13 ? 18 June 2011. The EMCL workshop series aims to encourage dialogue between language researchers who routinely employ different methodologies. This dialogue is initiated within an environment where novices and specialists combine their skills to develop a research project together. For EMCL 5.2, we will focus on the integration of corpus and experimental methods in language research. Intended audience: Early career language researchers (i.e., graduate students, postdocs, junior faculty, etc.) grounded in theoretical issues surrounding cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, embodiment, and/or situated cognition. No prior training with corpus or experimental methods is necessary. Format: Selected students (maximum 8 per group, for a total of 24) will be invited to join one of the 3 hands-on mini-labs at the workshop. Each group will be led by two researchers who will work cooperatively ? one specializing in corpus methods, and one in experimental methods. As a group, each mini-lab will walk through the process of deciding on a research question; developing empirically testable hypotheses and designing the means to test those hypotheses; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; and presenting their findings before an audience. The workshop will end with a mini-conference in which each group will have the opportunity to present their study and participate in a general discussion. Workshop faculty: Group 1: Michele Feist University of Louisiana at Lafayette Research interests: lexical semantics; spatial and motion language; acquisition of semantics; linguistic typology; language and thought www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mif8232 Steven Clancy University of Chicago Research interests: cognitive linguistics; case semantics and verbal semantics; grammaticalization; historical linguistics; quantitative methods and corpus methods home.uchicago.edu/~sclancy Group 2: Dagmar Divjak University of Sheffield Research interests: lexical semantics, usage-based cognitive linguistics, the role of frequency, corpus methods, grammar-lexis interface, near-synonyms, aspect and modality, language acquisition www.sheffield.ac.uk/russian/staff/profiles/divjakd.html Ben Bergen University of California San Diego Research interests: lexical and constructional meaning processing; figurative language comprehension; embodiment in models of language use www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen Group 3: Laura Carlson University of Notre Dame Research interests: spatial language; spatial reference frames; how we remember and use landmarks; why we get lost www.nd.edu/~lcarlson Mark Davies Brigham Young University Research interests: corpus design, creation, and use; historical change (especially syntax); genre-based variation (especially syntax), frequency and collocational data; English, Spanish, and Portuguese http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/ Accommodations Accommodations are available within easy walking distance of the university; prices range from $60+ per night for a single, or $80+ per night for a double. Further information will be given to accepted participants after notification of acceptance to the workshop. Participation fee: $300.00 Fees will cover the costs of organization and faculty travel and accommodations and will also cover most meals for participants during the workshop. Application To apply, please send the following: 1. A letter of application, maximum of two pages, describing a. Your background and research interests b. Your reasons for wanting to participate in EMCL 5.2 c. The research group you would like to work in and why 2. A copy of your curriculum vitae. Please submit all materials electronically to emcl5.2.chicago at gmail.com. Application deadline extended by request to 22 March 2011. Accepted applicants will be notified on or before 1 May 2011. **Please note: Participation is strictly limited to accepted applicants so as to preserve the pedagogical integrity of the workshop atmosphere. * * * We thank the following organizations for their generous support of EMCL 5.2 The Center for the Study of Languages The Center for East European and Russian/Eurasian Studies (CEERES) The Center for Latin American Studies (CLAS) -- EMCL 5.2 Organizing Committee: Michele I. Feist, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Steven Clancy, University of Chicago From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 20:55:26 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:55:26 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Grenoble/Furbee - Language Documentation Message-ID: Language Documentation Practice and values Edited by Lenore A. Grenoble and N. Louanna Furbee University of Chicago / University of Missouri, Columbia 2010. xviii, 340 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 1175 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8783 0 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 Language documentation, also often called documentary linguistics, is a relatively new subfield in linguistics which has emerged in part as a response to the pressing need for collecting, describing, and archiving material on the increasing number of endangered languages. The present book details the most recent developments in this rapidly developing field with papers written by linguists primarily based in academic institutions in North America, although many conduct their fieldwork elsewhere. The articles in this volume ? position papers and case studies ? focus on some of the most critical issues in the field. These include (1) the nature of contributions to linguistic theory and method provided by documentary linguistics, including the content appropriate for documentation; (2) the impact and demands of technology in documentation; (3) matters of practice in collaborations among linguists and communities, and in the necessary training of students and community members to conduct documentation activities; and (4) the ethical issues involved in documentary linguistics. Table of contents Contributors ix?xii Preface N. Louanna Furbee and Lenore A. Grenoble xiii?xviii Part 1. Praxis and values Language documentation: Theory and practice N. Louanna Furbee 3?24 The linguist?s responsibilities to the community of speakers: Community-based research Keren Rice 25?36 Language documentation: Whose ethics? Martha J. Macri 37?48 Part 2. Adequacy in documentation Adequacy in documentation Anna Berge 51?66 Necessary and sufficient data collection: Lessons from Potawatomi legacy documentation Laura Buszard-Welcher 67?74 Documenting different genres of oral narrative in Cora (Uto-Aztecan) Ver?nica V?zquez Soto 75?88 Constructing adequate language documentation for multifaceted cross-linguistic data: A case study from the Virtual Center for Study of Language Acquisition Barbara Lust, Suzanne Flynn, Mar?a Blume, Elaine Westbrooks and Theresa Tobin 89?108 Part 3. Documentation technology Valuing technology: Finding the linguist?s place in a new technological universe Jeff Good 111?132 Using the E-MELD School of Best Practices to create lasting digital documentation Jessica Boynton, Steven Moran, Helen Aristar-Dry and Anthony Rodrigues Aristar 133?146 Sharing data in small and endangered languages: Cataloging and metadata, formats, and encodings Nicholas Thieberger and Michel Jacobson 147?158 Representing minority languages and cultures on the World Wide Web David Golumbia 159?170 Part 4. Models of successful collaborations Beyond expertise: The role of the linguist in language revitalization programs Donna B. Gerdts 173?192 Models of successful collaboration Arienne Dwyer 193?212 Working with language communities in unarchiving: Making the J. P. Harrington notes accessible Martha J. Macri 213?220 Saving languages, saving lives: Tojolabal (Mayan) language revival within a health research NGO Hermelindo Aguilar M?ndez, Teresa L?pez M?ndez, Juan M?ndez V?zquez, Maria Bertha S?ntiz P?rez, Ramon Jim?nez Jim?nez, N. Louanna Furbee, Louanna del Socorro Guill?n Rovelo and Robert A. Benfer 221?230 Language documentation in the Tohono O?odham community Colleen M. Fitzgerald 231?240 Documentation of pragmatics and metapragmatics: Language shift and pragmatic change in the Hmong language in Wisconsin Susan M. Burt 241?252 Part 5. Training and careers in field linguistics Training graduate students and community members for native language documentation Judith M. Maxwell 255?274 Native speakers as documenters: A student initiative at the University of Hawai?i at Manoa Frances Ajo, Val?rie Gu?rin, Ryoko Hattori and Laura C. Robinson 275?286 Part 6. Conclusion 287?288 Language documentation and field linguistics: The state of the field Lenore A. Grenoble 289?310 Selected online resources 311?314 Name index 315?336 General index 337?340 ?The traditional language documentation apparatus of grammar, dictionary and text collection is no longer adequate for modern documentary linguistics. Today we want to preserve performance data as well, which entails additional community participation and heavy use of modern technology. Consequently, we encounter a multitude of new questions about intellectual property rights, adequate documentation, maximizing and standardizing the potential of technology, cooperation with revitalization efforts, and more. This book collects experts' and beginners' position papers and case studies covering the wide range of issues to be considered in the practice of today's documentary linguistics. It is an important textbook and reference guide for both seasoned and new practitioners from inside and outside of academia.? David S. Rood, University of Colorado ?Tant de bo aquest llibre, fet amb erudici? i gran professionalitat, rebi l'atenci? que es mereix fora de les fronteres dels Pa?sos Catalans i que la seva difusi? arribi als fil?legs, romanistes, historiadors i altres estudiosos d'arreu del m?n interessats pels processos de codificaci? en general i per la llengua catalana en particular.? Esther Gimeno Ugaldo, Universitat de Viena, in Llengua i ?s, N?mero 47 (2010) ?The contributors to this volume all share a sense of commitment and enthusiasm for the hard work of language documentation. Although they present may perspectives, their works all exhibit a preoccupation with the ethical practice of language documentation. As those persons labor to save languages that are endangered, or at least save a persistent and useable record of them, they are more concerned with the impact of the manner of their work than many of their predecessors have been.? SirReadaLot.org, February 2011 ?This rich collection addresses the many sides of language documentation and the issues they raise: the practical, methodological, intellectual, technological, cultural, interpersonal, and ethical. The contributions are varied but impressively coherent. As a group, the contributors bring a wealth of experience working with different languages and communities to the discussion, and expertise in all aspects of the documentation process. At the same time, certain threads run through the set, not the least of which is the value of collaboration between community members and linguists. Useful reading for anyone contemplating, embarking on or engaged in a language documentation project.? Marianne Mithun, University of California, Santa Barbara ?This is an indispensable volume, that should become a classroom staple. A terrific collection of rich, readable, thought-provoking, and very practical chapters.? Jane Hill, University of Arizona ?Here is abundance, coming at just the right time. The drive to document languages is a new pressing imperative for linguists, but a dense thicket of issues ? intellectual, practical, social, ethical ? threaten to frustrate their attempts to fulfill it. This book points out the hazards, and charts a path through them, combining focused position papers with the revealing experiences of dozens of practitioners.? Nicholas Ostler, Foundation for Endangered Languages ?This is an exciting, wide-ranging exploration of the still-developing field of language documentation. It highlights the roles of technological advances and of ethical considerations in moving fieldwork from a solo enterprise to a multipurpose enterprise undertaken by and for diverse stakeholders, including both researchers and speaker communities. The collection is anchored by solid position papers, interspersed with illuminating case studies. Readers will come away from the volume fired by the possibilities of this field while also sobered by its intellectual and ethical challenges.? Nancy Dorian, Bryn Mawr College -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 20:58:04 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:58:04 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Rothstein/Thieroff - Mood in the Languages of Europe Message-ID: Mood in the Languages of Europe Edited by Bj?rn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff University of Bochum / University of Osnabr?ck Studies in Language Companion Series 120 2010. xvi, 647 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0587 2 / EUR 110.00 / USD 165.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8763 2 / EUR 110.00 / USD 165.00 This book is the first comprehensive survey of mood in the languages of Europe. It gives readers access to a collection of data on mood. Each article presents the mood system of a specific European language in a way that readers not familiar with this language are able to understand and to interpret the data. The articles contain information on the morphology and semantics of the mood system, the possible combinations of tense and mood morphology, and the possible uses of the non-indica?tive mood(s). The papers address the explanation of mood from an empirical and descriptive perspective. This book is of interest to scholars of mood and modality, language contact, and areal linguistics and typology. Table of contents Preface Bj?rn Rothstein and Rolf Thieroff ix?x List of contributors xi?xii List of abbreviations xv?xvi Moods, moods, moods Rolf Thieroff 1?30 Part I. Germanic Mood in Icelandic Halld?r ?rmann Sigurdsson 33?55 Mood in Norwegian Kristin Melum Eide 56?70 Mood in Swedish Bj?rn Rothstein 71?84 Mood in Danish Tanya Karoli Christensen and Lars Heltoft 85?102 Mood in English Alexander Bergs and Lena Heine 103?116 Mood in Dutch Ronny Boogaart and Theo Janssen 117?132 Mood in German Rolf Thieroff 133?154 Part II. Romance Mood in French Walter De Mulder 157?178 Mood in Portuguese Martin Becker 179?197 Mood in Spanish Brenda Laca 198?220 Mood in Catalan Josep Quer 221?236 Mood in Italian Mario Squartini 237?250 Mood in Rumanian Martin Becker 251?270 Part III. Celtic Mood in Irish D?nall P. ? Baoill 273?291 Mood in Breton Stephen Hewitt 292?308 Mood in Welsh Johannes Heinecke 309?322 Part IV. Slavic Mood in Russian Bjorn Hansen 325?341 Mood in Polish Bjorn Hansen 342?357 Mood in Czech and Slovak Roland Meyer 358?375 Mood in Sorbian Lenka Scholze 376?393 Mood in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian Luka Szucsich 394?408 Mood in Bulgarian and Macedonian Jouko Lindstedt 409?422 Part V. Baltic Mood in Latvian and Lithuanian Axel Holvoet 425?444 Part VI. Other Indo-European languages Mood in Albanian Walter Breu 447?472 Mood in Greek Hartmut Haberland 473?491 Mood in Modern Eastern Armenian Jasmine Dum-Tragut 492?508 Part VII. Finno-Ugric Mood in Finnish Hannu Tommola 511?527 Mood in Estonian Helle Metslang and Maria-Maren Sepper 528?550 Mood in Hungarian Casper de Groot 551?568 Part VIII. Other European languages Mood in Maltese Martine Vanhove 571?583 Mood in Turkish Astrid Menz 584?602 Mood in Modern Georgian Winfried Boeder 603?632 Mood in Basque Martin Haase 633?643 Index 644?647 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From paul at benjamins.com Wed Mar 23 21:03:47 2011 From: paul at benjamins.com (Paul Peranteau) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:03:47 -0400 Subject: New Benjamins title: Clancy - The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic Message-ID: The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic Steven J. Clancy University of Chicago Studies in Language Companion Series 122 2010. xvii, 297 pp. Hardbound 978 90 272 0589 6 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 e-Book ? Available from e-book platforms 978 90 272 8742 7 / EUR 99.00 / USD 149.00 The complex diachronic and synchronic status of the concepts be and have can be understood only with consideration of their full range of constructions and functions. Data from modern Slavic languages (Russian, Czech, Polish, Bulgarian) provides a window into zero copulas, non-verbal have expressions, and verbal constructions. From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, be and have are analyzed in terms of a blended prototype model, wherein existence/copula for be and possession/relationship for have are inseparably combined. These concepts are related to each other in their functions and meanings and serve as organizing principles in a conceptual network of semantic neighbors, including give, take, get, become, make, and verbs of position and motion. Renewal and replacement of be and have occur through processes of polysemization and suppletization involving lexical items in this network. Topics include polysemy, suppletion, tense/mood auxiliaries, modality, causatives, evidentiality, function words, contact phenomena, syntactic calques, and idiomatic constructions. Table of contents List of tables ix?x List of figures and capsules xi?xii Abbreviations and symbols used xii?xiv A note on the content and format of this book xv?xvii Chapter 1. Why be and have? 1?8 Chapter 2. The relationship between be and have 9?66 Chapter 3. Be in the modern Slavic languages 67?120 Chapter 4. Have in the modern Slavic languages 121?158 Chapter 5. Grammaticalization of be and have 159?230 Chapter 6. Language contact and borrowing 231?250 Chapter 7. Conclusions 251?264 Appendix Data sources 265?284 Bibliography 285?290 Author index 291?292 Language index 293?294 Subject index 295?298 -- Paul M. Peranteau John Benjamins Publishing 763 N 24th Street Philadelphia PA USA Ph: 215 769-3444 Fax: 215 769-3446 From jrubba at calpoly.edu Wed Mar 23 23:01:59 2011 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:01:59 -0700 Subject: New Benjamins title: Clancy - The Chain of Being and Having in Slavic In-Reply-To: <4D8A6033.8040503@benjamins.com> Message-ID: Sorry to ask this, but is it OK for publishers to advertise books on Funknet? I get so much mail, I would really rather not get book advertising. Today there were three Benjamins ads in my mailbox. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D. Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Dept. Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184 Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596 Dept. fax: 805-756-6374 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba From reng at rice.edu Wed Mar 23 23:22:32 2011 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:22:32 -0500 Subject: Book announcements on Funknet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Johanna (and all), Yes, announcement of functionally-relevant books is certainly welcome on Funknet. This is especially true for authors who may be subscribed to the list and want to let the rest of us know about their forthcoming books; and we have generally kept an open policy to publishers as well, as long as the books do have a functional orientation. Same goes for conference calls. BTW, this parallels what other lists, such as Cogling, also do. If you feel someone is abusing this, or if you have other concerns about admin policies, please contact me privately at funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu . Best, --Robert Englebretson, Funknet list admin From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 13:15:40 2011 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:40 -0400 Subject: Grammars and Texts Message-ID: Hi all, I have been working with a number of legacy materials related to the Coeur d'Alene language (Salish/USA) which is no longer learned by children and spoken by perhaps 3 elderly speakers. I have created a website where the majority of the materials can be accessed online. However, I would like to create one or two print volumes that contain all the information in one place. I would like to update the grammar that was published in 1938 (e.g. update orthography of examples from Boazian to IPA, update what is now known of person marking), as well as provide the texts in updated orthography and with English glosses and facsimiles of originals. I'm wondering if any one can direct me to examples of (a) descriptive grammars, and (b) text analysis that are widely considered excellent in terms of organization and presentation. Thanks, Shannon From busylinguist at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 06:21:24 2011 From: busylinguist at gmail.com (carey benom) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:21:24 +0900 Subject: Deadline extended: MA program in Japanese Humanities at Kyushu University in English Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, As part of the G-30 program for internationalization, my colleagues and I have created an English-language Master?s Program in Japanese Humanities at Kyushu University, and our program has begun accepting applications from qualified undergraduates. I think of our program as an excellent chance for top-tier students interested in Japan to experience life in Japan, learn about a broad spectrum of Japanese humanities, particularly linguistics, history, literature, and philosophy, and attain a graduate degree from a top-ranked Japanese university, all without needing to speak or read Japanese (at the commencement of the program). The program is particularly suitable for students who have some Japanese skills, but do not feel ready to directly enter a graduate program using only Japanese. By continuing to improve their language skills during the course of the program, we expect that they will be ready to enter a PhD program entirely in Japanese after completion of our program, if they so desire. All core courses are taught in English, but there are many optional courses offered in Japanese. Students will choose to focus their studies on Japanese linguistics, history, or literature/philosophy. Alternatively, students may choose not to focus, but to approach the program from a "regional studies" perspective. In that case, they will take several courses in each area. There will be roughly a 2:1 or 3:1 student-teacher ratio in the program, with respect to advisees:advisors (some courses may have additional students due to the presence of students from other programs or majors, but it is very unlikely that the vast majority of courses will have more than 4-5 students). All core linguistics courses will approach Japanese linguistics from a cognitive/functional perspective. These courses include "Japanese from a Typological and Contrastive Perspective", "Current Issues in Japanese Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics", "Japanese: Language and Gender", and "A History of the Japanese Language". The program will begin in October, 2011. *The deadline for receipt of applications has been extended to April 21, 2011* due to congestion in the Japanese postal system. (The application is relatively short and simple, so there is still time for students to begin the process.) Fukuoka, where Kyushu University is located, is more than 1200 km (800 miles) away from where the recent disasters occurred, essentially on the "opposite end" of Japan. As such, we have not been directly affected by the disasters (e.g. no contamination of the air, water or food supply by radiation, supermarket shelves remain fully stocked with food, all public transportation is running smoothly, etc.). More information about the program, including applications, can be found at: http://www2.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/impjh/, where you will also find a Q&A on seismic and nuclear safety and the current situation at Kyushu University. Carey Benom Associate Professor, Japanese Linguistics Kyushu University From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Mar 31 09:48:58 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:48:58 +0300 Subject: simplicity Message-ID: Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 10:02:20 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:02:20 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Esa, In fact, there is at least one very active group that works with evaluating claims of simplicity and complexity, Josh Tenenbaum's lab at MIT's BCS Department. Their approach is quite different than you might expect, though, testing the relative complexity of the grammars needed to describe a language. Ted Gibson and Amy Perfors have worked with Josh and others to produce some interesting studies in this vein. One paper that has emerged from this research is here: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Perfors%20et%20al%20InPress%20LingReview.pdf -- Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 05:48, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > From eitkonen at utu.fi Thu Mar 31 10:06:30 2011 From: eitkonen at utu.fi (Esa Itkonen) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:06:30 +0300 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Dan: It is NOT "quite different" from what I expect, as you will see if you care actually to have a look at what I wrote. Esa Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Everett Date: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:02 pm Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] simplicity To: Esa Itkonen , Funknet > Dear Esa, > > In fact, there is at least one very active group that works with > evaluating claims of simplicity and complexity, Josh Tenenbaum's lab > at MIT's BCS Department. Their approach is quite different than you > might expect, though, testing the relative complexity of the grammars > needed to describe a language. Ted Gibson and Amy Perfors have worked > with Josh and others to produce some interesting studies in this > vein. One paper that has emerged from this research is here: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Perfors%20et%20al%20InPress%20LingReview.pdf > > -- Dan > > > On 31 Mar 2011, at 05:48, Esa Itkonen wrote: > > > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and > only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 > and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of > simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around > the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the > same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, > for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity > are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. > It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no > way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this > so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from > my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' > and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical > and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' > (= 2011, to a > > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You > are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this > topic back in 2009. > > > > Esa > > > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From tgivon at uoregon.edu Thu Mar 31 10:08:39 2011 From: tgivon at uoregon.edu (Tom Givon) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:08:39 -0600 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... Keep on truckin', Esa. TG =================== On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: > Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a > ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. > > Esa > > Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 10:15:23 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:15:23 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: <4D9452A7.3060602@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Tom is absolutely right on here. And that was the point of the link I just sent as well. Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 06:08, Tom Givon wrote: > > Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... > > Keep on truckin', Esa. TG > > =================== > > On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >> >> Esa >> >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi Thu Mar 31 11:57:51 2011 From: ksinnema at ling.helsinki.fi (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kaius_Sinnem=E4ki?=) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:57:51 +0300 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Esa's claim about the interconnectedness of simplicity and complexity is well-founded. But how could these notions not be interconnected? I think Nicholas Rescher (1998) has described complexity in a helpful way. To Rescher, complexity is on the one hand a matter of real world entities, like biological systems or languages. On the other hand, our best practical index/measure of complexity depends, to some extent, on definitions & perspectives. Complexity is thus at the same time a matter of real world entities and a matter of the observer. Like Tom said, it would be a bit deflating for science if complexity was just a matter of definitions, being merely a property of our models and not of the reality they attempt to model. Yet, many have viewed complexity ultimately in this way (e.g. Karl Popper, Herbert Simon and Murray Gell-Mann). But if complexity was merely a matter of our models, I think the whole notion would not have been as helpful in science as it has been thus far. For those interested in the history of complexity research, Michel Alhadeff-Jones' (2008) brief article is an infomative introduction to the issue. In my dissertation I also write about complexity from a typological point of view. If it's accepted in the review this spring, I could send a copy or the URL to those interested. Kaius Sinnem?ki References: Rescher, Nicholas 1998. Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction. Alhadeff-Jones, Michel 2008. Three generations of complexity theories: Nuances and ambiguities. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(1): 66-82. 31.3.2011 13:15, Daniel Everett kirjoitti: > Tom is absolutely right on here. And that was the point of the link I just sent as well. > > Dan > > > On 31 Mar 2011, at 06:08, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions& perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition& perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon& others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being d one in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... >> >> Keep on truckin', Esa. TG >> >> =================== >> >> On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >>> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >>> >>> Esa >>> >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> >> > From amnfn at well.com Thu Mar 31 12:00:00 2011 From: amnfn at well.com (A. Katz) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 05:00:00 -0700 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: <4D9452A7.3060602@uoregon.edu> Message-ID: Not all of us, even among the functionalists, think that language is a biologically based system. My take on it is that it is an abstract code, subject to the mathematics of information theory. Could language become more complex? Yes, but then who would be able to process it in real time? The biological bottleneck is the problem. It's not in the language. It's in us. --Aya On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > > Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to > be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to > evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself > (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify > the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all > others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on > definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we > should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In > the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, > but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system > complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. > Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others > have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something > analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the > Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe > dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that > language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to > investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... > > Keep on truckin', Esa. TG > > =================== > > On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, >> you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it >> was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity >> (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, >> as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed >> about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just >> indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to >> apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if >> the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the >> simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some >> hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on >> 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected >> writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual >> background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also >> free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in >> 2009. >> >> Esa >> >> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen > > > From dan at daneverett.org Thu Mar 31 12:02:41 2011 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:02:41 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I talk about complexity and simplicity as issues of the mind rather than language both in my 2012 book, Cognitive Fire, and in my LingBuzz paper, You drink. You drive. You go to jail. Where's Recursion? Dan On 31 Mar 2011, at 08:00, A. Katz wrote: > Not all of us, even among the functionalists, think that language is a biologically based system. > > My take on it is that it is an abstract code, subject to the mathematics of information theory. > > Could language become more complex? Yes, but then who would be able to process it in real time? The biological bottleneck is the problem. It's not in the language. It's in us. > > --Aya > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Tom Givon wrote: > >> >> Sounds like you're blasting again, ol' boy. Tho of course, there are going to be other interpretations. Chomsky's "simplicity metric" was NOT supposed to evaluate the simplicity/complexity of the phenomenon itself (language/grammar), but of the DESCRIPTION--in order for ol' Noam to justify the superiority of one "more economical" description (guess which?) over all others. Of course, we all know that "complexity " may in part depends on definitions & perspectives, but it would be a bit deflating for science if we should conclude that it is all JUST a matter of definition & perspectives. In the rise of biological structure, at the very least--both organisms and DNA, but also neurology--it is perfectly possible to talk about increased system complexity intelligibly without crashing into your logical conundrum. Certainly John Tyler Bonner has done it for biology, Herbert Simon & others have done something similar for cognition. And I dimly recall something analogous being done in the "evolution" of the physical universe after the Big Bang, maybe Murray Gel-Mann? (Well, he has a whole Institute in Santa Fe dedicated to elaborating this...). So at least in principle, assuming that language IS a biologically-based phenomenon, it is not nonsensical to investigate its complexity. For what's good for the goose... >> >> Keep on truckin', Esa. TG >> >> =================== >> >> On 3/31/2011 3:48 AM, Esa Itkonen wrote: >>> Simplicity and complexity are conceptually interdependent: if, and only if, you can define one, you can define the other. Between 1957 and c. 1997 it was confidently predicted that a valid definition of simplicity (conceptualized as a "simplicity measure") was just around the corner. But, as we all know, nothing came of it. Nowadays much the same is being claimed about complexity. This seems illogical, however, for reasons just indicated. (Never mind that simplicity and complexity are mainly thought to apply to grammars and languages, respectively. It would surely be odd if the simplicity/complexity of grammars in no way reflected the simplicity/complexity of languages.) Why is all this so difficult? Some hints at an answer may or may not be gathered from my 2011 piece on 'Simplicity vs. complexity' (= click first 'Homepage' and then 'Selected writings available as full texts'). Some historical and conceptual background is provided by 'Philosophy of linguistics' (= 2011, to a >>> ppear in the 'Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics'). You are also free to have a (second?) look at what I wrote about this topic back in 2009. >>> Esa >>> Homepage: http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen >> >> >> > From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Thu Mar 31 19:45:01 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:45:01 -0400 Subject: simplicity Message-ID: Hi, I just started following FUNKNET and saw the discussion about simplicity. If I understand the discussion correctly, I think there is an alternative way to think about complexity, one that is empirically driven and informed by psycholinguistics. I understand that this argument can easily become circular, but that depends on the specific claims. Hal Tily and I discuss this approach and summarize psycholinguistic findings over the last four decades that speak to both 'complexity' (of processing) and 'communicative suitability' (Jaeger and Tily, 2011, WIRE: Cognitive Science, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.126/pdf). It's a very short article, perhaps of interest to this discussion? There are actually several labs that seek to address what's complex, using both behavioral and computational methods and investigation acquisition, comprehension, and production (what's complex to acquisition isn't necessarily complex to production, etc.). A lot of this work relies on information theoretic and Bayesian derivations of "ideal speakers", "ideal comprehenders", etc. and the proposals capture and extend ideas that have been around for a long time in functional linguistics. In case you are interested in knowing more about these lines of work, some people that I would consider working on these topics are: Masha Fedzechkina, Ramon Ferrer i Cancho, John Hale, Roger Levy, Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin, Ting Qian, Amy Perfors, and Steven Piantadosi, Hal Tily, and myself (this is still a very biased and much too short list). This field provides both theoretical solutions to what is "complex", "simple", or "suited for communication" and psycholinguistics, as well as cross-linguistics, empirical evaluations of these theories (for a summary see the linked article above). Apologies if I misunderstood and this is irrelevant to your discussion. Florian From tiflo at csli.stanford.edu Thu Mar 31 23:20:37 2011 From: tiflo at csli.stanford.edu (T. Florian Jaeger) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:20:37 -0400 Subject: simplicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi, thanks to Fritz Newmeyer for pointing out that the article I mentioned in my previous email is hard to download from WIREs. I've now uploaded a pre-final draft (proofs) on my academia.edu page: http://rochester.academia.edu/tiflo/Papers/497247/Jaeger_T._F._and_Tily_H._2011._Language_Processing_Complexity_and_Communicative_Efficiency._WIRE_Cognitive_Science_pages_TBA . Hopefully, that will work =). Florian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Florian, > > Is there some other way to access this paper? Wiley does not make it easy > (even though I published something on WIRES myself). > > 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] > > > On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, T. Florian Jaeger wrote: > > Hi, >> >> I just started following FUNKNET and saw the discussion about simplicity. >> If >> I understand the discussion correctly, I think there is an alternative way >> to think about complexity, one that is empirically driven and informed by >> psycholinguistics. I understand that this argument can easily become >> circular, but that depends on the specific claims. >> >> Hal Tily and I discuss this approach and summarize psycholinguistic >> findings >> over the last four decades that speak to both 'complexity' (of processing) >> and 'communicative suitability' (Jaeger and Tily, 2011, WIRE: Cognitive >> Science, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcs.126/pdf). It's a >> very short article, perhaps of interest to this discussion? >> >> There are actually several labs that seek to address what's complex, using >> both behavioral and computational methods and investigation acquisition, >> comprehension, and production (what's complex to acquisition isn't >> necessarily complex to production, etc.). A lot of this work relies on >> information theoretic and Bayesian derivations of "ideal speakers", "ideal >> comprehenders", etc. and the proposals capture and extend ideas that have >> been around for a long time in functional linguistics. In case you are >> interested in knowing more about these lines of work, some people that I >> would consider working on these topics are: Masha Fedzechkina, Ramon >> Ferrer >> i Cancho, John Hale, Roger Levy, Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin, Ting >> Qian, >> Amy Perfors, and Steven Piantadosi, Hal Tily, and myself (this is still a >> very biased and much too short list). This field provides both theoretical >> solutions to what is "complex", "simple", or "suited for communication" >> and >> psycholinguistics, as well as cross-linguistics, empirical evaluations of >> these theories (for a summary see the linked article above). >> >> Apologies if I misunderstood and this is irrelevant to your discussion. >> >> Florian >> >> >