From benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se Thu Jul 5 12:34:05 2012 From: benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se (Benjamin Lyngfelt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:34:05 +0000 Subject: Postdoc in L2 acquisition, University of Gothenburg Message-ID: The Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg – Call for applications to a postdoctoral position in second language acquisition research The successful applicant will conduct his/her own research in the field of second language acquisition. The scope of employment is 100% including a possibility of 20% teaching. The successful applicant is expected to take active part in the research activities of the department and to organize a research seminar series on second language acquisition or Swedish as a second language. The applicant is expected to spend at least four days a week in the department. Applicants should have a research interest related to one or more of the other profile research areas of the department: Language Technology, Grammar, Text Linguistics and Lexicography/Lexicology. Applicants should have a PhD no more than 3 years old by the closing date of this call. If you were awarded a doctoral degree at an earlier date, you may invoke special circumstances (e.g., parental leave), which in this case should be clearly stated in the application. The position is for one year starting in the second half of 2012. It may be extended for an additional year after evaluation, to a maximum of two years. Applications should be written in English or Swedish and must include the following: • A CV including certified copies of graduate diplomas(s). • A plan of the research project which the applicant wishes to pursue. • A description of how the project will contribute to the field of research of the department. • References from previous postdoctoral positions or related research (if relevant). • Contact information for references. • List of publications, with a maximum of four enclosed, including the dissertation. Closing date of the call for applications: August 31, 2012. Apply online at: http://www.gu.se/english/about_the_university/announcements-in-the-job-application-portal/?languageId=100001&contentId=-1&disableRedirect=true&returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gu.se%2Fomuniversitetet%2Faktuellt%2Fledigaanstallningar%2F%3FlanguageId%3D100000%26contentId%3D-1%26id%3D19144%26Dnr%3D511241%26Type%3DS&id=19144&Dnr=511241&Type=S From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Jul 16 05:40:26 2012 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John From wllu at ntu.edu.tw Mon Jul 16 06:31:41 2012 From: wllu at ntu.edu.tw (Louis Wei-lun Lu) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:31:41 +0800 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, Interesting phenomenon. What's interesting here is -kindya adds an argument to a verb that would not be allowed to take one, according to the grammar of Bari. So it is in this sense that the combination of -kindya and the verb constitutes something not strictly predictable from its component parts and thus fits well the definition of a "construction", according to Adele Goldberg (2006:5). The second question of whether to call it a benefactive really has to depend on the entire repetoire of its use. We would need to know all the possible types of usages and their frequencies so that we can judge, among these categories, which one seems to be the prototype. So we really cannot say, from the limited description you've given here. It'd be more interesting if you could tell us more about -kindya datawise. Hope this helps. Best, Louis 引述 john : > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > > -- Louis Wei-lun Lu (呂維倫) Leiden University Center for Linguistics From lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com Mon Jul 16 06:54:10 2012 From: lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com (Lachlan Mackenzie) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi, John, To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 11:41:51 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:41:51 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, There is not really a good term for these kinds of general-purpose markers of transitivity differences. Sally Thomason and I wrote a couple of papers (with different combinations of folks) on something similar in Montana Salish about 20 years ago. We noticed that the language had markers for changes in valency (lexical) and other markers for changes in transitivity (syntactic). The original paper is here: http://wals.info/refdb/record/3812 All the best, Dan On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:40 AM, john wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > > From michel.launey at ird.fr Mon Jul 16 19:44:48 2012 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:44:48 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716065425.F3071A9A023@fx404.security-mail.net> Message-ID: Hi, "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: > > Hi, John, > To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >describe for Bari -kindya. > Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. > Best wishes, > Lachlan Mackenzie > > >> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >> >> >> >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >> >> generally add an >> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>of >> types--it can be >> >> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >> >> root meaning >> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>live >> to an old age while >> >> living continuously at that place', or a >> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >> >> >> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >> >> term I might use to refer to >> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >> 'Benefactive' because >> >> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >> >> usages of >> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>minority of >> its uses. >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 19:51:09 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716194449.5924E57568C@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. -- Dan On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > Hi, > "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. > To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, > who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in > Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of > Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. > In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you > will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because > precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). > I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische > Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. > Best > Michel Launey > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 > Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> Hi, John, >> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >> for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >> describe for Bari -kindya. >> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >> Best wishes, >> Lachlan Mackenzie >> >> >>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >>> >>> generally add an >>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>> of >>> types--it can be >>> >>> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >>> >>> root meaning >>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>> live >>> to an old age while >>> >>> living continuously at that place', or a >>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>> >>> >>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >>> >>> term I might use to refer to >>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>> 'Benefactive' because >>> >>> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >>> >>> usages of >>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>> minority of >>> its uses. >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >> > From michel.launey at ird.fr Mon Jul 16 21:56:48 2012 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:56:48 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716195115.D5614A9A2D9@fx405.security-mail.net> Message-ID: All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 Daniel Everett wrote: > It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending >on local linguistic traditions. > > But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of >papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of >various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond >currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like >'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific >language families, but I don't like them when they are used as >cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that >useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when >looked at more carefully. > > -- Dan > > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > >> Hi, >> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, >> who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in >> Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars >>of >> Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often >>you >> will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, >>because >> precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die >>georgische >> Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also >>unsatisfactory. >> Best >> Michel Launey >> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>> >>> Hi, John, >>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >>> for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >>> describe for Bari -kindya. >>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>> Best wishes, >>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>> >>> >>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >>>> >>>> generally add an >>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>>> of >>>> types--it can be >>>> >>>> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >>>> >>>> root meaning >>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>>> live >>>> to an old age while >>>> >>>> living continuously at that place', or a >>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>> >>>> >>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >>>> >>>> term I might use to refer to >>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>> 'Benefactive' because >>>> >>>> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >>>> >>>> usages of >>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>>> minority of >>>> its uses. >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 22:02:17 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Dan Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:02:17 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716215648.CEFDE5755CD@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: > All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. > For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. > I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. > Best > Michel Launey > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 > Daniel Everett wrote: >> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >> -- Dan >> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>> Hi, >>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>> Best >>> Michel Launey >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Hi, John, >>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>> > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Jul 17 04:27:06 2012 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:27:06 +0300 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <90A6EEFE-0A18-4517-8DF3-63A72A5C4965@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Thanks, guys. For the time being I'll use the term 'Applicative'. I'm going to be teaching a class on Bari language development to 50 or so native speakers of Bari with little or no linguistics background, so for the moment I'm not concerned with the term being misused by 'reference grammar linguists'. I just want some kind of usable term. What was the motivation for the choice of this particular term, that the form means that another argument can be 'applied' to the verb? John On 16.07.2012 22:51, Daniel Everett wrote: > It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. > > But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. > > -- Dan > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > >> Hi, "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> Hi, John, To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie >>> >>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu [1]> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il [2] Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John Links: ------ [1] mailto:funknet at mailman.rice.edu [2] mailto:john at research.haifa.ac.il [3] mailto:lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Jul 17 06:23:28 2012 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:23:28 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The "awkwardness" disappears if we conceptualize our grammatical terms as mnemonic labels, rather than as analytical decisions. Thus, we should not say things like "I analyze this form as an article", or "I analyze this form as an applicative". Analysis does not consist in attaching a pre-established label to a form, but in "copious description" (as Dan noted). But if we just number the forms that we find, or call them by their shape, e.g. "the -ia form", then it's very difficult to talk about language structure (as Michel noted). So the best solution, to my mind, is to use grammatical terms adopted from another language (from Latin, or from Nahuatl, or from English) as mnemonic labels, and to capitalize them to show that they are language-specific items ("the Arabic Article", "the Turkish Genitive case", etc.). This was proposed by Bernard Comrie in 1976 and has proved to work well in typology (see the discussion in my 2010 paper on comparative concepts and descriptive categories, in Language). Greetings, Martin Dan Everett wrote: > I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: > > >> All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. >> For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. >> I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. >> Best >> Michel Launey >> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 >> Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >>> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >>> -- Dan >>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>>> Best >>>> Michel Launey >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, John, >>>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>> >>>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > > > From dan at daneverett.org Tue Jul 17 10:35:12 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:35:12 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <500504E0.10403@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Martin, As I said in my initial response, I agree that the mnemonic use of these labels can be useful. The same holds for all linguistic terms (outside of particular theories). And even for the IPA - to write a word using the IPA is to simply limit the range of its phonetics, not to describe or analyze it. a [p] in English is not the same as a [p] in Pirahã, for example, since the lips are drawn flatter across their entire length in the latter than in the former. But too often we see terms used in lieu of analysis, in grammars and in journal articles. This is a much more severe problem in some theories than in others. It is perhaps worse in syntax. Someone might say that "this is not a passive because there is no by-phrase" or "this is a passive because there is a reduction in transitivity from the active." I think both of these statements are the wrong way to go about the job. Describe the construction by giving the full range of observed possibilities (participating verbs, kinds of arguments, use of other phrases, etc). Then you can say something like "it shares core features with the passive" or some such. We need to use mnemonic devices, I agree. And Bernard's 1976 proposal is a reasonable one. There are bound to be similarities between languages because of the functions that are performed, so we need a way to cross-reference similar solutions to similar problems. But we need a great deal of caution as we do. These labels are just ways of beginning discussion between linguists. As you say, they should not be considered analyses. Like any words. What is a "dog?" The range of referents for this word will vary by region of the world. There will be overlap with English but no precise alignment. Different kinds of terms, less observable or concrete than "dog"s will overlap less. So we should not be afraid to refer to things as "dogs." So long as we add a list of referents of the term or an explanation of the system behind its use in different languages. Dan On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > The "awkwardness" disappears if we conceptualize our grammatical terms > as mnemonic labels, rather than as analytical decisions. > > Thus, we should not say things like "I analyze this form as an article", > or "I analyze this form as an applicative". Analysis does not consist in > attaching a pre-established label to a form, but in "copious > description" (as Dan noted). > > But if we just number the forms that we find, or call them by their > shape, e.g. "the -ia form", then it's very difficult to talk about > language structure (as Michel noted). > > So the best solution, to my mind, is to use grammatical terms adopted > from another language (from Latin, or from Nahuatl, or from English) as > mnemonic labels, and to capitalize them to show that they are > language-specific items ("the Arabic Article", "the Turkish Genitive > case", etc.). This was proposed by Bernard Comrie in 1976 and has proved > to work well in typology (see the discussion in my 2010 paper on > comparative concepts and descriptive categories, in Language). > > Greetings, > Martin > > Dan Everett wrote: >> I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. >> >> Dan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: >> >> >>> All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. >>> For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. >>> I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. >>> Best >>> Michel Launey >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 >>> Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >>>> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >>>> -- Dan >>>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>>>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>>>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>>>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einführung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>>>> Best >>>>> Michel Launey >>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, John, >>>>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>>> >>>>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > From alifarghaly at yahoo.com Wed Jul 18 14:42:41 2012 From: alifarghaly at yahoo.com (Ali Farghaly) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:42:41 -0700 Subject: Deadline Extension - Fourth Workshop on Computational Approches to Arabic Script-based Languages Message-ID: Second Call for Papers and Deadline Extension Fourth Workshop  On Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages (CAASL4) 　 In conjunction with The tenth biennial　conference　of San Diego CA, USAThursday, November 1st, 2012 　 　 The Organizing Committee of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages (CAASL4) invites proposals for presentations at CAASL4. 　Workshop Description Three years after CAASL3, this workshop provides an opportunity for developers and researchers in Academia, the industry, and government to present their work, exchange ideas, and demonstrate systems that focus on the challenging task of dealing with all aspects in natural language processing for languages that use the Arabic script. It also provides an opportunity to assess the progress that has been made since the third workshop in 2009. Authors are invited to submit papers on completed original research and research in progress on any aspect of NLP for the Arabic Script-based languages. Papers should relate directly or indirectly to the following themes:     Statistical and rule-based machine translation Translation Aids Evaluation Methods and Techniques of machine translation systems Localization and multilingual information retrieval systems Shallow and deep parsing Data driven approaches Entity extraction Tokenization and segmentation Name matching Speech synthesis and recognition Text to speech systems Semantic analysis Knowledge Bases Information retrieval Semantic web and inferences Topic Detection and text summarization     Invites Speaker Dr. Hassan Sawaf, Chief Scientist, Saic   Title of Presentation  "More than 20 years of Machine Translation of Arabic-Script Languages: Overview of the History of Diverse Challenges in Research and Deployment"    Workshop Dates and submission deadlines     The workshop will be held on Thursday November 1st, 2012 from 9 – 5. Papers submission deadline: August 8st, 2012 Author notification: August 22, 2012 Camera Ready submissions due: September 3rdth, 2012 Submission Guidelines To allow for blind reviewing, please do not include author names and affiliations within the paper and avoid obvious self-references. Anonymous version to be uploaded at https://www.softconf.com/amta2012/CAASL4/ Another copy with author information to be mailed to alifarghaly at yahoo.com 　 　 Formatting Guidelines  Format for original papers is the same as for regular AMTA submissions: papers should not be longer than 8 pages, including references and tables. AMTA Style files (Latex and MS Word) are available here: http://amta2012.amtaweb.org/Documents/amta2012-style-files.zip.Papers should present original, previously unpublished or Papers will be anonymously reviewed by   Organizing Committee   Ali Farghaly and Farhard OroumchianContact information for inquiries 　Program Committee Tim Buckwalter             University of Maryland, USASherri Condon             MITRE, USA Mona Diab                 Columbia University, USASarmad Hussain            Center for Language Engineering, Pakistan Farhad Oroumchian         University of Wollongong in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Khaled Shaalan            The British University in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Ahmed Rafea               The American University in Cairo, Egypt Imed Zitouni              IBM, USA Azadeh Shakery            University of Tehran, IranThe British University in Dubai, UAEAshraf Elnagar            University of Sharja, UAE Ali Mohammad Zareh Bidoki Yazd University. IranBehrouz Minaei Iran University of Science                                 and Technolog, IranGholamreza Ghassem-Sani            Ashraf Elnagar           Zaher Al Aghbari          Behrouz Minaei                     IranUniversityof Science and Technology　 　 　　 　 　University of Sharja, UAEUniversity of Sharja, UAESharif University of Technology, IranAbdelhadi Saudi           École Nationale de    l'Industrie, Morocco Emad Mohamed              Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar Saad Khaan                Rosetta Stone, USA Mohamed Attia             alifarghaly at yahoo.comunder consideration work.three members of the program committee. the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-2012) From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Fri Jul 20 13:01:18 2012 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:01:18 +0200 Subject: CfP "Multi-modality & language variation; cognitive linguistics", AFLiCo 5, Lille, France Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - AFLICO 5 “Empirical Approaches to Multi-modality and to Language Variation” Fifth International Conference of the Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo 5) University of Lille 3, Lille, France May 15-17, 2013 http://evenements.univ­-lille3.fr/aflico5 PLENARY SPEAKERS (titles and abstracts on conference web site) Dagmar Divjak (University of Sheffield) Colette Grinevald (University of Lyon 2) Irene Mittelberg (RWTH Aachen University) Gary Morgan (City University London) François Rastier (CNRS and INALCO Paris) Luc Steels (ICREA (IBE-UPF-CSIC) BARCELONA & SONY CSL PARIS) OBJECTIVES This conference chiefly aims at consolidating and strengthening the network of cognitive linguists working in France and abroad by providing a forum for discussion and collaboration in the tradition of the preceding AFLiCo conferences in Bordeaux (2005), Lille (2007), Nanterre (2009) and Lyon (2011) and the ‘JET’ workshops in Bordeaux (2010) and Paris (2012). THEMATIC SESSIONS This conference will be the fifth international conference of the Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo; www.aflico.fr). The conference’s major foci are in line with the direction the previous AFLiCo conferences were headed in: multi-modality (in particular, co-verbal gestures and signed languages viewed as multi-channel communication systems) and linguistic variation (typology as well as intra-language variation). However, the conference seeks to add an important dimension to this direction, viz. empirical methods in (cognitive) linguistics, which have recently been attracting growing interest. With this emphasis on empirical approaches, the conference meets a real need of the linguistic community (cognitive or otherwise), given that the field of linguistics is shifting ever more rapidly towards interdisciplinary approaches, using various advanced empirical methods, ranging from psycholinguistic experiments to sophisticated analyses based on (large) corpora. The study of multi-modality recognizes the frequent simultaneous presence of multiple communication channels. In the visual domain, co-verbal gestures underscore the embodied nature of language proposed by cognitive linguistics. In the aural domain, para-verbal aspects of utterances (pitch, intonation, voice quality, etc.) beg the question of how to isolate stable correspondences between these ‘forms’ and semantic (particularly attitudinal) values. As was the case for the 2007 AFLiCo conference held in Lille, we explicitly welcome proposals for papers on signed languages, which by their very nature are multi-modal communication systems, as the signed utterance is brought about not just by means of hand gestures but also through posture and movements of, inter alia, the upper body, the head, the mouth and the eyebrows. Signed languages provide a window to the human mind and its capacity to represent abstract concepts in concrete, material forms; cognitive linguistics offers a well-suited model to account for iconicity, metaphor and metonymy, which are central to the study of the world’s signed languages. The topic of signed languages ties in with the LSF (langue des signes française) Interpreter training at the University of Lille 3. Cross-linguistic variation has been the object of typological and comparative cognitive studies which address the issue of universal grammar and linguistic relativity. With regard to intra-language variation, recent years have witnessed the emergence of a cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation is also a key ingredient in explaining language change and grammaticalization. GENERAL SESSIONS The conference will not be limited to thematic sessions devoted to the main foci described above. The organisers also encourage researchers to submit proposals within other areas of cognitive linguistics, to be presented in the general parallel sessions. Possible topics include (but are not restricted to): - (cognitive) construction grammar - conceptual metaphors - image schemata - frame semantics - coercion and the tension between productivity and convention in language - computer modelling based on empirical data - problems and solutions in empirical methods: corpus studies, acceptability ratings, response time measurements, event-related potential experiments, eye tracking studies, etc. The organisers further encourage young researchers to submit an abstract. NOTE: for organisational reasons, the thematic sessions on signed languages will be grouped on the first day of the conference (15 May). SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Abstracts will be submitted to a double, blind review. They should be fully anonymous and not exceed 500 words (references excluded). Details for submission procedure will shortly be available on the website. IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline: November 15, 2012 Notification of acceptance: January 15, 2013 Workshop “Empirical methods in Usage-Based Linguistics”: May 13-14, 2013 Conference dates: May 15-17, 2013 (TBC: registration & welcome reception: May 14, from 17:00) REGISTRATION Details about the registration procedure and registration deadlines will be posted on the conference website as soon as they become available. There will be reduced registration fee for AFLiCo members and students as well as early bird reduction. CONFERENCE LANGUAGES English (preferred), French, LSF (please notify the organisers in advance) CONFERENCE WEBSITE http://evenements.univ­lille3.fr/aflico5 SPRING SCHOOL To enhance the success of the empirical dimension, we will organise, pending funding, a Spring School on “Empirical methods in Usage-Based Linguistics” on the two days preceding the conference (i.e. on May 13 and 14) with 5 parallel workshops on different empirical approaches, each presenting a specific methodology or tool: (1) corpus linguistics: principles and general methods (Dagmar Divjak, University of Sheffield, UK); (2) statistics in corpus linguistics with R (Dylan Glynn, Lund University, Sweden); (3) annotating and analysing multi-modal data in ELAN (Mark Tutton, University of Nantes, France); (4) transcribing and analysing oral data in CLAN (Christophe Parisse, University of Paris 10, France); (5) methods in psycholinguistic experiments ([to be confirmed]). Further details will be posted on the conference website. ORGANISING COMMITTEE: Maarten Lemmens, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Dany Amiot, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Annie Risler, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Bert Cappelle, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Florence Chenu, University of Lyon 2, France Marion Blondel, University of Paris 8, France Jana Bressem, University of Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany Georgette Dal, University of Lille 3, France Nicole Delbecque, University of Leuven, Belgium Walter Demulder, University of Antwerp, Belgium Guillaume Desagulier, University of Paris 8 Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Sonja Erlenkamp, University of Trondheim, Norway Jean-Michel Fortis, University of Paris 7, France Craig Hamilton, University of Mulhouse, France Dylan Glynn, University of Lund, Sweden Maya Hickmann, University of Paris 5, France Harriet Jisa, University of Lyon 2, France Annetta Kopecka, University of Lyon 2, France Silva Ladewig, University of Frankfort an der Oder, Germany Jean-Rémi Lapaire, University of Bordeaux 3, France Aliyah Morgenstern, University of Paris 3, France Caroline Rossi, University of Lyon 2, France Stéphane Robert, Fédération TUL - FR 2559, France Paul Sambre, Lessius Hogeschool, Antwerp, Belgium Mark Tutton, University de Nantes, France Kristel van Goethem, University of Louvain, Belgium Myriam Vermeerbergen, University of Leuven, Belgium Bencie Woll, University College London, U.K. Sherman Wilcox, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA From federicodanielnavarro at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 15:33:38 2012 From: federicodanielnavarro at gmail.com (Federico Navarro) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:33:38 -0300 Subject: new book: "En carrera" Message-ID: *Natale, L. (Ed.). (2012). "En carrera: escritura y lectura de textos académicos y profesionales". Los Polvorines, Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.* This book offers a critical description of higher education genres that are relevant for academically and professionally-oriented degrees: academic review, essay, state of the art, case study, product evaluation, procedures manual, and social intervention project. The book also guides readers on how to understand and quote complex texts. This book can be useful for professionals, university students, and professors who are interested in including discipline-specific writing skills in their courses. The book's chapters are pedagogically-oriented: they explore the context of circulation, the goals, and the structure of each genre; they suggest strategies for text planning, elaboration and revision; and they include real, commented examples and exercises based on experts' and students' samples. However, the most fascinating feature of this book is its elaboration: each chapter was written collaboratively by a writing professor and a lecturer of the specific subject matter the genre belongs to. Therefore, readers can gain access to a comprehensive account that articulates the insights of the experienced scholar and the analysis of the language expert. This rhetorical, functional, and disciplinary-situated perspective is the basis behind the Program to Develop Academic Literacy across the Curriculum (PRODEAC), installed in the Degree Cycle of all the degrees at the Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (Buenos Aires Argentina) since 2005. The book's authors take advantage of their extended participation in this program to anticipate typical difficulties and systematize this essential resource for advanced literacy teaching. Download the book's Contents and Preface (in Spanish) or find out how to obtain the book at the PRODEAC web page (www.ungs.edu.ar/prodeac). A recent article (in English) that describes the PRODEAC can be downloaded from the WAC Clearinghouse (wac.colostate.edu/books/wpww/chapter2.pdf). Federico Navarro CONICET/UBA/UNGS From liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be Tue Jul 24 07:38:13 2012 From: liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be (Liesbeth Degand) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:38:13 +0200 Subject: Call for Panel Abstracts: Elements at Right Periphery", IPRA 13, New Delhi Message-ID: Abstracts are invited for a panel on**"The Pragmatic Role of Elements at Right Periphery" to be organized during IPra 13 in New Delhi, India, September 8-13, 2013. *Conveners*: Liesbeth Degand (University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve) Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Stanford University) In recent years attention has begun to be paid to "right periphery" (RP) phenomena, as two threads of inquiry have developed: study of discourse structure, especially its pragmatics (starting with Schiffrin 1987), and syntactic cartography (starting with Cinque 1999). Compared to left periphery (LP) phenomena, right periphery phenomena have received little attention (but see Van der Wouden and Foolen 2011). The aim of the panel is to build on and test proposals that LP and RP have different functions (Beeching and Detges In preparation), especially the proposal that the role of RP is to mark turn-yielding and that it is likely to be intersubjective and dialogic in the sense that the speaker positions their utterance against anticipated contributions of other speakers. This raises the question of what type of linguistic expressions and/or constructions may occur in right peripheral position. The focus of the panel will be the following set of questions: a) How can RP be defined? How should distinctions be made between elements within argument structure (e.g. question-markers at RP, right dislocations) and those "outside" it and often disjunct (e.g. pragmatic markers, comment clauses, tags)? b) What sorts of functions are expressed at RP? Van der Wouden and Foolen (2011) find modal, focus, some connective particles, and repairs at RP in Dutch. Is this set language-specific or cross-linguistically robust for elements at RP? c) Are any functions not expressable at LP (tags in English, Dutch /hoor/ 'hear' (warning or reassuring), French punctuating quoi 'what')? Are any LP functions not expressable at RP? What does this suggest about functions at LP and RP? d) What generalizations can be made about how elements at RP arise historically? Does use of an expression at RP always entail subjectification (as defined in Traugott 2010)? We welcome abstracts that address the questions posed for the panel from a range of theoretical perspectives, based on spoken and written data. We are particularly interested in receiving abstracts that provide evidence from languages of the Middle Eats and from the Indian and African contents, in addition to the east Asian and European languages that have been the focus of much recent research in pragmatics. Abstracts should be about 500 words long plus data examples and references. They should specify which of the questions a) -- d) will be addressed, what type of theoretical perspective will be adopted (e.g. discourse analytic, cartographical), and what kinds of data will be used (e.g., conversational (spoken), represented conversation (written), synchronic, diachronic). Consistent with IPra requirements, abstracts should be sent to both panel organizers (Liesbeth.Degand at uclouvain.be, traugott at stanford.edu) *by October 15^th 2012.* If accepted by the conveners, they will need to be submitted on-line individually by *November 1^st 2012*: "Though it is the panel organizer(s) who take(s) active responsibility for the quality of the contributions to their panel (i.e. they decide what is accepted), abstracts should, for all *_panel contributions_*, be submitted /by the individual contributors separately/ by the _1 November 2012_deadline that will be handled for individual submissions (see below)" (http://ipra.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.CONFERENCE13&n=1443).Presenters of papers at IPra 13 must be members of IPra. References Beeching, Kate and Ulrich Detges, eds. In preparation. Papers from IPra 12, Cinque, Giulielmo. 1999. /Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective./ Oxford: OUP. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. /Discourse Markers/. Cambridge: CUP Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, eds., /Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, /29-70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Van der Wouden, Ton and Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right periphery. http://www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/fipa-2011-05b.pdf - From brian.nolan at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 14:36:35 2012 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:36:35 +0100 Subject: New RRG book available: The Structure of Modern Irish - A Functional Account In-Reply-To: <4D73BE6A.7080105@benjamins.com> Message-ID: The Structure of Modern Irish - A Functional Account Brian Nolan Equinox Series: Discussions in functional approaches to language Modern Irish is a VSO language, in common with the other Celtic languages, and the order of elements in the structure of transitive sentences is verb-subject-object. This book provides a characterisation of the nominal, verb, clause and information structure of the Irish language from a functional perspective based on Role and Reference Grammar. Included in this analysis are the layered structure of the noun phrase of Irish and the various NP operators, the layered structure of the clause and the verbal system at the syntax-semantic interface along with a number of verb valence behaviours as mediated by event and argument structure. The book also surveys previous treatments of Irish within a functionalist approach. The verbal noun has a special place within the Irish language and its deployment is particularly productive. The book examines the derivation of the verbal noun and the contexts in which it is used. It also provides an account of light verbs and complex predicates as they occur within Irish and link this to a characterisation of the information structure of Irish. Additionally it provides an analysis of certain linguistically interesting phenomena that are particular to Irish (and the other Celtic languages) including the two verbs of ‘to be’. Within the verbal system the author’s concern is with the relationship between the semantic representation of a verbal predicate in the context of a clause and its syntactic expression through the argument structure of the verb. He suggests that lexical specification is via a logical representation that reflects the aspectual decomposition of the verbal predicate and that this determines, with an actor-undergoer hierarchy, the operation of the mapping into syntax via the linking system. Contents 1 Introduction 2 Causation 3 The Reflexive Constructions in Modern Irish 4. The Personal Passive Construction and its Variants 5 The Impersonal Passive 6 The Recipient and Passive GET Construction with ‘faigh’ 7 The Expression of Modality in Irish 8 Complex Predicates and Irish Light Verb Constructions 9 Information Structure – Focus and Copula Clefts 10 The Layered Structure of the Noun Phrase 11 The Layered Structure of the Irish Word 12 Concluding discussion Links: http://www.equinoxpub.com/equinox/books/showbook.asp?bkid=341 http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Modern-Irish-Discussions/dp/1845534212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343399271&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Structure+of+Modern+Irish From sidi at ufpa.br Mon Jul 30 09:51:23 2012 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidney Facundes) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:51:23 +0700 Subject: Software for Corpus Linguistics Message-ID: Dear all, Please, would anyone have suggestions as to what the best software tools there are out there now for corpus linguistics? WordSmith is the first one that comes to mind, but I'm not informed of alternatives. I've been told that R can also be used, but requires programming. I'm interested in tools that can manage languages other than English, including languages with non-Roman letters. I've found some freeware but that do not seem to handle non-Roman scripts. Thanks for any suggestion you may have. Best, Sidi Facundes From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Mon Jul 30 11:49:08 2012 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:49:08 +0100 Subject: Software for Corpus Linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sidi I'd like to recommend the UAM CorpusTool http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/. It's excellent and is able to do many different things and I know it can handle other languages but I'm not sure which ones. with best wishes Lise From: Sidney Facundes To: FUNKNET at rice.edu Date: 30/07/2012 10:51 Subject: [FUNKNET] Software for Corpus Linguistics Sent by: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Dear all, Please, would anyone have suggestions as to what the best software tools there are out there now for corpus linguistics? WordSmith is the first one that comes to mind, but I'm not informed of alternatives. I've been told that R can also be used, but requires programming. I'm interested in tools that can manage languages other than English, including languages with non-Roman letters. I've found some freeware but that do not seem to handle non-Roman scripts. Thanks for any suggestion you may have. Best, Sidi Facundes From sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it Mon Jul 30 12:02:28 2012 From: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it (Sonia Cristofaro) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:28 +0100 Subject: MA Program in Linguistics, University of Pavia Message-ID: *****************Apologies for Cross-Posting*************************** The Linguistics section at the Department for Humanities, University of Pavia, Italy, invites applications for a two year MA program in `Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and Linguistics of Modern Languages'. The program aims to provide students with extensive training in the theoretical foundations and practical applications of linguistic analysis. Areas covered by the program include (but are not limited to) historical linguistics, linguistic typology, language teaching, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, English linguistics, and translation studies. Applications should be submitted by September 7th, 2012. For more information, please contact the Program Director, Prof. Sonia Cristofaro, at sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it or visit the program website at http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/pagina.php?id=287 -- -- Sonia Cristofaro Dipartimento di Linguistica Universita' di Pavia Strada Nuova, 65 I-27100 Italy Tel. +390382984484 Fax +390382984487 E-mail: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it -- ------------------------------ Questa informativa è inserita in automatico dal sistema al fine esclusivo della realizzazione dei fini istituzionali dell'ente. Diventa anche tu sponsor dei nostri ricercatori. Scegli di destinare il 5 per mille all’Università di Pavia : offrirai nuove opportunità alla ricerca, ai giovani e al territorio. Un gesto che non costa nulla e costruisce tanto. C.F. dell’Università di Pavia 80007270186. Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. From els603 at bangor.ac.uk Mon Jul 30 12:24:51 2012 From: els603 at bangor.ac.uk (June Luchjenbroers) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:24:51 +0100 Subject: new MSc in Forensic Linguistics at Bangor University (UK) Message-ID: *NEW -- MSc degree in /Forensic Linguistics/ from Sept. 2012 and as a distance degree from Sept 2013.* We are pleased to announce that the School of Linguistics & English Language at Bangor University, in collaboration with Dr John Olsson of the Forensic Linguistics Institute (UK) are offering a new MSc in Forensic Linguistics from September 2012. Students will be able to take this course either Full time or Part time (up to three years), and all modules will also be available in distance learning mode from September 2013. The range of specialist modules on offer include: -/Issues in Forensic Linguistics/ -/Authorship Attribution/ -/CyberCrime/ -/Text analysis/ -/Forensic Phonetics/ -/Language & the Law/ (* at least four of these six will offered each year) These specialist modules complement obligatory and core modules that enable students to complete a Master's level degree course in Linguistics : /Foundations in Linguistics/, and /Linguistics Research Methods/. All content modules carry 20 credits toward the final degree (a max. of 120 credits is needed for the coursework component), which is then followed by a 20,000 word, 60 credit dissertation in Forensic Linguistics. Students will select their own original research project in an area of their choice within the field of Forensic Linguistics or Language and the Law, which they will carry out under the guidance of a team of linguists, in either English or Welsh. This state-of-the-art course will engage students in the major concepts and concerns of Forensic Linguistics practice. At the same time students will be coached in a range of techniques for analysing authentic forensic language data, and will be given hands-on experience in developing publishable results while working directly with experts in the field. The programme aims to develop students' competence and critical understanding of the range of phenomena dealt with in the field of forensic linguistics (language analysis for Authorship attribution; violent crime prevention/detection; and understanding language use in professional settings). Students from all countries are encouraged to register and registrations for 2012-13 are now open. The distance provision is with a view to enable students globally as well as those in the UK/EEC, and those in full-time employment or who for other reasons cannot attend classes, scope to obtain a high-quality, internationally recognised postgraduate qualification. Full details in all our M-level offerings, Module descriptions, Application procedures & forms are now available on the School website, including the all degree schemes: http://www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics/postgraduate.php.en?menu=3&catid=3126&subid=0 *Contact* Dr June Luchjenbroers Phone:01248 388205_ junel at bangor.ac.uk_ ** -- Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig / Registered Charity No. 1141565 Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilëwch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio â defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 30 14:27:11 2012 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:27:11 +0000 Subject: Now available on Project MUSE - Now available on Project MUSE - The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57:2 (July 2012) Message-ID: Now available on Project MUSE The Canadian Journal of Linguistics Volume 57, Issue 2, July 2012 SPECIAL ISSUE: Properties of predication / Propriétés de la prédication This issue contains: Introduction Ileana Paul This issue addresses questions surrounding predication. Read more... pp. 173-176 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0031 Articles Forms of predication in Sakha (Turkic): Will the true lexical predicates please stand up? Mark C. Baker, Nadezda Vinokurova Abstract: The Turkic language Sakha (Yakut) uses a copular verb with predicate nominals but not with predicate adjectives or verbs in certain environments, including relative clauses, nominalized clauses, and complements to nouns. Previous work takes this as evidence that adjectives but not nouns are true one-place predicates. However, unaccusativity diagnostics show that adjectives pattern with nouns in Sakha, as in other languages: neither is inherently predicative without a predicative functional head. The need for a copula with predicate nominals in certain environments can be explained using Richards's distinctiveness condition. Relative clauses, noun complements, and nominalization structures all bring a nominal head in close contact with the predicate. If the predicate itself is nominal, a verbal copula must intervene to separate the predicate from the embedding head of the same category. Résumé: La langue turcique Sakha (Yakut) emploie une copule avec les noms prédicatifs mais pas avec les adjectifs prédicatifs ou les verbes dans les contextes tels que les subordonnées relatives ou substantivées et les compléments de noms. Des études précédentes concluent par conséquent que contrairement aux substantifs, les adjectifs sont de vrais prédicats monovalents. Cependant, certains tests d'inaccusativité démontrent qu'en Sakha, les adjectifs se comportent comme les noms, comme dans les autres langues : ni l'adjectif ni le nom n'est prédicatif sans une tête fonctionnelle prédicative. La nécessité d'une copule dans certains contextes peut s'expliquer par la condition de caractère distinct de Richards. Les subordonnées relatives, les compléments de nom et les nominalisations ont en commun le rapprochement d'une tête nominale et d'un prédicat. Si le prédicat est nominal, une copule intervient pour séparer le prédicat de la tête enchâssée de la même catégorie. pp. 177-207 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0032 Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences Caroline Heycock Abstract: This article presents new data from a number of Germanic languages concerning the agreement patterns found in copular clauses that contain two nominals; in both clauses with specificational readings (such as The problem is your parents) and those with what are here termed readings of assumed identity (such as If I were you or In my dream I was you). It is argued that the specificational sentences involve asymmetric equative structures where one nominal is interpreted as in a concealed question, and that the cross-linguistic differences in agreement patterns found in the languages considered follow from the copula lexicalizing either Tense or a lower head. Résumé: Cet article présente de nouvelles données tirées de certaines langues germaniques et qui illustrent les schémas d'accord dans les propositions copulatives avec deux substantifs ; les propositions à lecture spécificationnelle (telles que The problem is your parents) ainsi que celles à «lecture d'identité empruntée» (telle que If I were you ou In my dream I was you). L'article propose que les phrases spécificationnelles comprennent des structures équatives asymétriques où un substantif est interprété exactement comme dans le contexte d'une question furtive, et que les différences interlinguistiques dans les schémas d'accord relevés dans les langues sous considération découlent de la lexicalisation par la copule de la tête tensée T0 ou d'une tête plus basse dans la structure. pp. 209-240 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0033 On the status of inversion in an inverse language Diane Massam Abstract: This article addresses inversion in an inverse (VSO) language, Niuean, focusing on two issues. First, it has been proposed that in certain types of copular sentences, such as pseudo-cleft constructions (PCCs), the predicate rather than the subject may move into the specifier position of TP. This raises the question of PCCs in a language in which the predicate normally moves there. Such sentences might exhibit their normal inverse order or the inverse of this. The second issue is what constitutes the predicate in a PCC. The headless relative (and not the DP) is usually analyzed as the predicate because, in standard theories of predication, a referential nominal cannot be a predicate. However, in Niuean PCCs, the DP is usually analyzed as the predicate. I propose that it is in fact a reduced headless relative with a null predicate. It becomes clear that there is no special copular inversion: the inversion requirement is taken care of by the general predicate-fronting process. The analysis thus sheds new light on the general nature of copular inversion and allows Niuean PCCs to fall into the standard view of predication theory. Résumé: Cet article étudie l'inversion dans une langue inverse (VSO), le niuéen, et se concentre sur deux questions. D'abord, il a été proposé que dans certains types de phrases à copule, telles que les pseudo-clivées (CPC), il est possible qu'un prédicat se déplace dans le spécifieur du Syntagme Temps plutôt que le sujet. Cela soulève la question des CPC dans une langue où le prédicat se déplace par défaut dans la position sujet. De telles phrases pourraient manifester leur ordre inverse habituel ou l'inverse de celui-ci. La deuxième question porte sur le statut du prédicat dans une CPC. La relative substantive (et non le SD) est habituellement identifiée comme le prédicat parce que, selon les théories conventionnelles de la prédication, un nom référentiel ne peut être un prédicat. Cependant, dans les CPC en niuéen, le SD est habituellement analysé comme le prédicat. Dans cet article, je propose qu'il est en fait une relative substantive réduite avec un prédicat nul. Il n'y a par conséquent aucune inversion copulative spéciale : l'exigence d'inversion est satisfaite par la nature générale du processus d'antéposition du prédicat. Cette analyse nous permet donc de mieux comprendre la nature générale de l'inversion copulative et situe les CPC en niuéen dans la perspective standard de la théorie de la prédication. pp. 241-260 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0027 Generic predicates and interest-relativity Sally McConnell-Ginet Abstract: "Simple generics" with bare plural subjects (e.g., dogs bark) predicate of a kind a property that the kind "inherits" from its individual members. But what does that inheritance amount to if it is not, like most dogs bark, based on how many individuals have the property. My conclusion: there is no determinate account of which (fundamentally individual-level) properties can be truly predicated of a kind: generics are not quantificational, and language users' interests guide judgments on their truthconditions. At the same time, even "canonical" predications of ordinary predicates of ordinary individuals are not so straightforward as they might appear. Generic claims about social groups show the indeterminacy of truth conditions for simple generics and the relation to stereotypes and sometimes conflicting interests. Résumé: Les génériques simples, tels que les noms nus sujets au pluriel (e.g., dogs bark), mettent en relation de prédication une espèce et une propriété que l'espèce «hérite» de ses membres individuels. Mais à quoi équivaut cet «héritage» s'il n'est pas (comme dans most dogs bark) fondé sur le nombre d'individus qui possèdent cette propriété? Ma conclusion : il n'y a pas d'analyse définitive des diverses propriétés (essentiellement de niveau individuel (I-level)) qui peuvent entrer en relation de prédication avec une espèce : les phrases génériques ne sont pas quantificationnelles et les intérêts des locuteurs guident les jugements des conditions de vérité. En outre, même la prédication «canonique» des prédicats ordinaires et des individus ordinaires n'est pas si simple. Les affirmations génériques à propos des groupes sociaux montrent la nature indéterminée des conditions de vérité pour les génériques simples, ainsi que le rapport avec les stéréotypes et parfois avec des intérêts conflictuels. pp. 261-287 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0028 Saying and doing: The role of semantics in the use of generic sentences Bernhard Nickel Abstract: This article discusses semantic theories of generic sentences that seek to tie their meaning closely to their use, rather than giving more traditional truth-conditional semantic treatments. It focuses on McConnell-Ginet's recent work and defends truth-conditional approaches combined with a traditional semantics-pragmatics distinction. Résumé: Cet article porte sur les phrases génériques et sur les analyses sémantiques qui tentent de lier l'interprétation de ces phrases à leur usage plutôt qu'en terme de conditions de vérité comme il est de mise dans les analyses traditionnelles. L'article vise en particulier le travail récent de McConnell-Ginet et défend les approches traditionnelles en termes de conditions de vérité tout en défendant la distinction ordinaire entre la sémantique et la pragmatique. pp. 289-302 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0029 Where does predication come from? David Gil Abstract: Predication is widely considered to be a fundamental feature of human language and conceptual structure. This article offers a reassessment of the central role that predication plays within current theories of grammar, by calling into question the universality of predication and its nature as a primitive, irreducible notion. It proposes a new definition of predicate, as a complex emergent entity derived from the alignment of two independent elements of conceptual structure: thematic role assignment and headedness. Résumé: Selon une longue tradition, la prédication est un trait fondamental des langues naturelles et de la structure conceptuelle. Cet article réexamine le rôle central que la prédication occupe dans les théories linguistiques actuelles, et remet en question le caractère universel de la prédication et son statut de primitif irréductible. Il propose une nouvelle définition de «prédicat», soit une entité complexe émergente qui découle de l'alignement de deux éléments de la structure conceptuelle indépendants l'un de l'autre : l'attribution des rôles thématiques et le statut de tête. pp. 303-333 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0030 The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. About Project MUSE Project MUSE is a unique collaboration between libraries and publishers, providing 100% full-text, affordable and user-friendly online access to a comprehensive selection of prestigious humanities and social sciencesjournals. MUSE's online journal collections support a diverse array of research needs at academic, public, special and school libraries worldwide. For more information about the Canadian Journal of Linguistics or for submissions information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca www.utpjournals.com/cjl Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus. From benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se Thu Jul 5 12:34:05 2012 From: benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se (Benjamin Lyngfelt) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:34:05 +0000 Subject: Postdoc in L2 acquisition, University of Gothenburg Message-ID: The Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg ? Call for applications to a postdoctoral position in second language acquisition research The successful applicant will conduct his/her own research in the field of second language acquisition. The scope of employment is 100% including a possibility of 20% teaching. The successful applicant is expected to take active part in the research activities of the department and to organize a research seminar series on second language acquisition or Swedish as a second language. The applicant is expected to spend at least four days a week in the department. Applicants should have a research interest related to one or more of the other profile research areas of the department: Language Technology, Grammar, Text Linguistics and Lexicography/Lexicology. Applicants should have a PhD no more than 3 years old by the closing date of this call. If you were awarded a doctoral degree at an earlier date, you may invoke special circumstances (e.g., parental leave), which in this case should be clearly stated in the application. The position is for one year starting in the second half of 2012. It may be extended for an additional year after evaluation, to a maximum of two years. Applications should be written in English or Swedish and must include the following: ? A CV including certified copies of graduate diplomas(s). ? A plan of the research project which the applicant wishes to pursue. ? A description of how the project will contribute to the field of research of the department. ? References from previous postdoctoral positions or related research (if relevant). ? Contact information for references. ? List of publications, with a maximum of four enclosed, including the dissertation. Closing date of the call for applications: August 31, 2012. Apply online at: http://www.gu.se/english/about_the_university/announcements-in-the-job-application-portal/?languageId=100001&contentId=-1&disableRedirect=true&returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gu.se%2Fomuniversitetet%2Faktuellt%2Fledigaanstallningar%2F%3FlanguageId%3D100000%26contentId%3D-1%26id%3D19144%26Dnr%3D511241%26Type%3DS&id=19144&Dnr=511241&Type=S From john at research.haifa.ac.il Mon Jul 16 05:40:26 2012 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John From wllu at ntu.edu.tw Mon Jul 16 06:31:41 2012 From: wllu at ntu.edu.tw (Louis Wei-lun Lu) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:31:41 +0800 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, Interesting phenomenon. What's interesting here is -kindya adds an argument to a verb that would not be allowed to take one, according to the grammar of Bari. So it is in this sense that the combination of -kindya and the verb constitutes something not strictly predictable from its component parts and thus fits well the definition of a "construction", according to Adele Goldberg (2006:5). The second question of whether to call it a benefactive really has to depend on the entire repetoire of its use. We would need to know all the possible types of usages and their frequencies so that we can judge, among these categories, which one seems to be the prototype. So we really cannot say, from the limited description you've given here. It'd be more interesting if you could tell us more about -kindya datawise. Hope this helps. Best, Louis ?? john : > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > > -- Louis Wei-lun Lu (???) Leiden University Center for Linguistics From lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com Mon Jul 16 06:54:10 2012 From: lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com (Lachlan Mackenzie) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Hi, John, To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie > To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 > From: john at research.haifa.ac.il > Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation > > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 11:41:51 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:41:51 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <301503694c5e0f918bf694aa35356b7c@research.haifa.ac.il> Message-ID: Dear John, There is not really a good term for these kinds of general-purpose markers of transitivity differences. Sally Thomason and I wrote a couple of papers (with different combinations of folks) on something similar in Montana Salish about 20 years ago. We noticed that the language had markers for changes in valency (lexical) and other markers for changes in transitivity (syntactic). The original paper is here: http://wals.info/refdb/record/3812 All the best, Dan On Jul 16, 2012, at 1:40 AM, john wrote: > > > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form > for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to > > generally add an > argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of > types--it can be > > an indirect object, a directional particle, just > about anything it seems (for example, when added to the > > root meaning > 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live > to an old age while > > living continuously at that place', or a > nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the > > > meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that > occupation'). Do you have any ideas what > > term I might use to refer to > this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the > 'Benefactive' because > > it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. > 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the > > usages of > this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of > its uses. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks, > > John > > From michel.launey at ird.fr Mon Jul 16 19:44:48 2012 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:44:48 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716065425.F3071A9A023@fx404.security-mail.net> Message-ID: Hi, "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: > > Hi, John, > To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >describe for Bari -kindya. > Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. > Best wishes, > Lachlan Mackenzie > > >> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >> >> >> >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >> >> generally add an >> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>of >> types--it can be >> >> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >> >> root meaning >> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>live >> to an old age while >> >> living continuously at that place', or a >> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >> >> >> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >> >> term I might use to refer to >> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >> 'Benefactive' because >> >> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >> >> usages of >> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>minority of >> its uses. >> >> Any ideas? >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 19:51:09 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716194449.5924E57568C@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. -- Dan On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > Hi, > "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. > To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, > who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in > Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of > Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. > In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you > will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because > precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). > I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische > Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. > Best > Michel Launey > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 > Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >> >> Hi, John, >> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >> for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >> describe for Bari -kindya. >> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >> Best wishes, >> Lachlan Mackenzie >> >> >>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Funknetters, >>> >>> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >>> >>> generally add an >>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>> of >>> types--it can be >>> >>> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >>> >>> root meaning >>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>> live >>> to an old age while >>> >>> living continuously at that place', or a >>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>> >>> >>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >>> >>> term I might use to refer to >>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>> 'Benefactive' because >>> >>> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >>> >>> usages of >>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>> minority of >>> its uses. >>> >>> Any ideas? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> John >>> >> > From michel.launey at ird.fr Mon Jul 16 21:56:48 2012 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:56:48 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716195115.D5614A9A2D9@fx405.security-mail.net> Message-ID: All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 Daniel Everett wrote: > It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending >on local linguistic traditions. > > But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of >papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of >various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond >currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like >'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific >language families, but I don't like them when they are used as >cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that >useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when >looked at more carefully. > > -- Dan > > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > >> Hi, >> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, >> who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in >> Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars >>of >> Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often >>you >> will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, >>because >> precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die >>georgische >> Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also >>unsatisfactory. >> Best >> Michel Launey >> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>> >>> Hi, John, >>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking >>> for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you >>> describe for Bari -kindya. >>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>> Best wishes, >>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>> >>> >>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to >>>> >>>> generally add an >>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety >>>> of >>>> types--it can be >>>> >>>> an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the >>>> >>>> root meaning >>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to >>>> live >>>> to an old age while >>>> >>>> living continuously at that place', or a >>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>> >>>> >>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what >>>> >>>> term I might use to refer to >>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>> 'Benefactive' because >>>> >>>> it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the >>>> >>>> usages of >>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small >>>> minority of >>>> its uses. >>>> >>>> Any ideas? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> >> > From dan at daneverett.org Mon Jul 16 22:02:17 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Dan Everett) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:02:17 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <20120716215648.CEFDE5755CD@fx806.security-mail.net> Message-ID: I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. Dan Sent from my iPhone On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: > All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. > For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. > I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. > Best > Michel Launey > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 > Daniel Everett wrote: >> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >> -- Dan >> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>> Hi, >>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>> Best >>> Michel Launey >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Hi, John, >>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>> > > From john at research.haifa.ac.il Tue Jul 17 04:27:06 2012 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:27:06 +0300 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <90A6EEFE-0A18-4517-8DF3-63A72A5C4965@daneverett.org> Message-ID: Thanks, guys. For the time being I'll use the term 'Applicative'. I'm going to be teaching a class on Bari language development to 50 or so native speakers of Bari with little or no linguistics background, so for the moment I'm not concerned with the term being misused by 'reference grammar linguists'. I just want some kind of usable term. What was the motivation for the choice of this particular term, that the form means that another argument can be 'applied' to the verb? John On 16.07.2012 22:51, Daniel Everett wrote: > It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. > > But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. > > -- Dan > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: > >> Hi, "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. Best Michel Launey On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>> Hi, John, To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. Best wishes, Lachlan Mackenzie >>> >>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu [1]> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il [2] Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John Links: ------ [1] mailto:funknet at mailman.rice.edu [2] mailto:john at research.haifa.ac.il [3] mailto:lachlan_mackenzie at hotmail.com From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Jul 17 06:23:28 2012 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:23:28 +0200 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The "awkwardness" disappears if we conceptualize our grammatical terms as mnemonic labels, rather than as analytical decisions. Thus, we should not say things like "I analyze this form as an article", or "I analyze this form as an applicative". Analysis does not consist in attaching a pre-established label to a form, but in "copious description" (as Dan noted). But if we just number the forms that we find, or call them by their shape, e.g. "the -ia form", then it's very difficult to talk about language structure (as Michel noted). So the best solution, to my mind, is to use grammatical terms adopted from another language (from Latin, or from Nahuatl, or from English) as mnemonic labels, and to capitalize them to show that they are language-specific items ("the Arabic Article", "the Turkish Genitive case", etc.). This was proposed by Bernard Comrie in 1976 and has proved to work well in typology (see the discussion in my 2010 paper on comparative concepts and descriptive categories, in Language). Greetings, Martin Dan Everett wrote: > I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: > > >> All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. >> For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. >> I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. >> Best >> Michel Launey >> >> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 >> Daniel Everett wrote: >> >>> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >>> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >>> -- Dan >>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>>> Best >>>> Michel Launey >>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, John, >>>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>> >>>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > > > > From dan at daneverett.org Tue Jul 17 10:35:12 2012 From: dan at daneverett.org (Daniel Everett) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:35:12 -0400 Subject: Terminology for verbal derivation In-Reply-To: <500504E0.10403@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Martin, As I said in my initial response, I agree that the mnemonic use of these labels can be useful. The same holds for all linguistic terms (outside of particular theories). And even for the IPA - to write a word using the IPA is to simply limit the range of its phonetics, not to describe or analyze it. a [p] in English is not the same as a [p] in Pirah?, for example, since the lips are drawn flatter across their entire length in the latter than in the former. But too often we see terms used in lieu of analysis, in grammars and in journal articles. This is a much more severe problem in some theories than in others. It is perhaps worse in syntax. Someone might say that "this is not a passive because there is no by-phrase" or "this is a passive because there is a reduction in transitivity from the active." I think both of these statements are the wrong way to go about the job. Describe the construction by giving the full range of observed possibilities (participating verbs, kinds of arguments, use of other phrases, etc). Then you can say something like "it shares core features with the passive" or some such. We need to use mnemonic devices, I agree. And Bernard's 1976 proposal is a reasonable one. There are bound to be similarities between languages because of the functions that are performed, so we need a way to cross-reference similar solutions to similar problems. But we need a great deal of caution as we do. These labels are just ways of beginning discussion between linguists. As you say, they should not be considered analyses. Like any words. What is a "dog?" The range of referents for this word will vary by region of the world. There will be overlap with English but no precise alignment. Different kinds of terms, less observable or concrete than "dog"s will overlap less. So we should not be afraid to refer to things as "dogs." So long as we add a list of referents of the term or an explanation of the system behind its use in different languages. Dan On Jul 17, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > The "awkwardness" disappears if we conceptualize our grammatical terms > as mnemonic labels, rather than as analytical decisions. > > Thus, we should not say things like "I analyze this form as an article", > or "I analyze this form as an applicative". Analysis does not consist in > attaching a pre-established label to a form, but in "copious > description" (as Dan noted). > > But if we just number the forms that we find, or call them by their > shape, e.g. "the -ia form", then it's very difficult to talk about > language structure (as Michel noted). > > So the best solution, to my mind, is to use grammatical terms adopted > from another language (from Latin, or from Nahuatl, or from English) as > mnemonic labels, and to capitalize them to show that they are > language-specific items ("the Arabic Article", "the Turkish Genitive > case", etc.). This was proposed by Bernard Comrie in 1976 and has proved > to work well in typology (see the discussion in my 2010 paper on > comparative concepts and descriptive categories, in Language). > > Greetings, > Martin > > Dan Everett wrote: >> I agree that it is an awkward business. But I am aware of the implications. It is OK to talk about "genitive," "article," "applicative," "voiceless bilabial," and so on as long as we are aware that none are precise and all must be accompanied by copious description - to the point that they are ways of cutting down the solution space at best, harmful at worst. >> >> Dan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 16, 2012, at 17:56, "Michel LAUNEY" wrote: >> >> >>> All linguists will agree that cross-linguistic variation is great, and that our terminology is therefore unavoidably awkward, but Dan Everett's reluctance may lead to still more awkward consequences: either coining a different terminology for each individual language, or giving up any terminology. >>> For instance, this would forbid us to say that English, French and Arabic all have definite articles, that, say, Latin, Russian, Modern Greek and Turkish all have a genitive case, that English, French and Spanish all have reflexive forms etc. etc., because what we call so have different uses in each language. >>> I wonder if being wary about "applicative" (and, I suppose, much less about "article", "genitive", "reflexive" and so on) does not come from the fact that what "applicative" (or "benefactive", "prepositional form", "objective version" etc.) refers to is a relatively "novel" discovery in the history of linguistics, so that linguists are a bit touchier about the specificities of the language or language family in which they find the phenomenon, while much more tolerant about the awkwardness (call it polysemy or even ambiguity if you like) of more formidably traditional terms for parts of speech or grammatical categories. >>> Best >>> Michel Launey >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:51:09 -0400 >>> Daniel Everett wrote: >>> >>>> It is possible that 'applicative' is the best term here, depending on local linguistic traditions. >>>> But as Sally and I (and different co-authors) showed in a series of papers on Salish the range of ways to modify/signal modification of various manifestations of transitivity and valence go beyond currently available terminology. I don't mind terms like 'applicative' as mnemonic devices in limited contexts, e.g. specific language families, but I don't like them when they are used as cross-linguistic standards. I don't find rigid use of terms all that useful. The variation is too great in most cases, especially when looked at more carefully. >>>> -- Dan >>>> On Jul 16, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Michel LAUNEY wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> "Applicative" seems to me, definitely, the best term. >>>>> To my knowledge, it was first coined in 1595 by Antonio del Rincon, who in his "Arte Mexicana" had "discovered" this phenomenon in Nahuatl. There is a long tradition of use of this term in grammars of Nahuatl and other Middle American languages. >>>>> In the Bantu linguistic tradition, it is also used, but more often you will find "prepositional form of the verb" (which is strange, because precisely the added argument NP occurs with no preposition). >>>>> I find in a Georgian grammar (Tschenkeli "Einf?hrung in die georgische Sprache") "Objektive Version", which seems to me also unsatisfactory. >>>>> Best >>>>> Michel Launey >>>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:10 +0100 >>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, John, >>>>>> To me it seems like 'applicative' might be the word you're looking for. One applicative form can cover various meanings, in the way you describe for Bari -kindya. >>>>>> Cf. David A. Peterson (2007). Applicative Constructions. OUP. >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> Lachlan Mackenzie >>>>>> >>>>>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:40:26 +0300 >>>>>>> From: john at research.haifa.ac.il >>>>>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Terminology for verbal derivation >>>>>>> Dear Funknetters, I'm looking for a term to use to refer to a form >>>>>>> for deriving verbs in Bari (-kindya) which seems to generally add an >>>>>>> argument to the verb, but the argument can be any one of a variety of >>>>>>> types--it can be an indirect object, a directional particle, just >>>>>>> about anything it seems (for example, when added to the root meaning >>>>>>> 'old age', it can take as an argument a place, with the meaning 'to live >>>>>>> to an old age while living continuously at that place', or a >>>>>>> nominalized form of a verb referring to an occupation, with the >>>>>>> meaning 'to live to an old age while continuing to work at that >>>>>>> occupation'). Do you have any ideas what term I might use to refer to >>>>>>> this form of the verb? I was initially going to call it the >>>>>>> 'Benefactive' because it's often used to add an indirect object (e.g. >>>>>>> 'close a door for someone') but when I looked at all of the usages of >>>>>>> this form it became clear that this is really a pretty small minority of >>>>>>> its uses. Any ideas? Thanks, John >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > From alifarghaly at yahoo.com Wed Jul 18 14:42:41 2012 From: alifarghaly at yahoo.com (Ali Farghaly) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:42:41 -0700 Subject: Deadline Extension - Fourth Workshop on Computational Approches to Arabic Script-based Languages Message-ID: Second Call for Papers and Deadline Extension Fourth Workshop? On Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages (CAASL4) ? In conjunction with The tenth biennial?conference?of San Diego CA, USAThursday, November 1st, 2012 ? ? The Organizing Committee of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Approaches to Arabic Script-based Languages (CAASL4) invites proposals for presentations at CAASL4. ?Workshop Description Three years after CAASL3, this workshop provides an opportunity for developers and researchers in Academia, the industry, and government to present their work, exchange ideas, and demonstrate systems that focus on the challenging task of dealing with all aspects in natural language processing for languages that use the Arabic script. It also provides an opportunity to assess the progress that has been made since the third workshop in 2009. Authors are invited to submit papers on completed original research and research in progress on any aspect of NLP for the Arabic Script-based languages. Papers should relate directly or indirectly to the following themes: ? ? Statistical and rule-based machine translation Translation Aids Evaluation Methods and Techniques of machine translation systems Localization and multilingual information retrieval systems Shallow and deep parsing Data driven approaches Entity extraction Tokenization and segmentation Name matching Speech synthesis and recognition Text to speech systems Semantic analysis Knowledge Bases Information retrieval Semantic web and inferences Topic Detection and text summarization ? ? Invites Speaker Dr. Hassan Sawaf, Chief Scientist, Saic ? Title of Presentation? "More than 20 years of Machine Translation of Arabic-Script Languages: Overview of the History of Diverse Challenges in Research and Deployment"? ? Workshop Dates and submission deadlines ? ? The workshop will be held on Thursday November 1st, 2012 from 9 ? 5. Papers submission deadline: August 8st, 2012 Author notification: August 22, 2012 Camera Ready submissions due: September 3rdth, 2012 Submission Guidelines To allow for blind reviewing, please do not include author names and affiliations within the paper and avoid obvious self-references. Anonymous version to be uploaded at https://www.softconf.com/amta2012/CAASL4/ Another copy with author information to be mailed to alifarghaly at yahoo.com ? ? Formatting Guidelines? Format for original papers is the same as for regular AMTA submissions: papers should not be longer than 8 pages, including references and tables. AMTA Style files (Latex and MS Word) are available here: http://amta2012.amtaweb.org/Documents/amta2012-style-files.zip.Papers should present original, previously unpublished or Papers will be anonymously reviewed by ? Organizing Committee ? Ali Farghaly and Farhard OroumchianContact information for inquiries ?Program Committee Tim Buckwalter?????????????University of Maryland, USASherri Condon?????????????MITRE, USA Mona Diab?????????????????Columbia University, USASarmad Hussain????????????Center for Language Engineering, Pakistan Farhad Oroumchian?????????University of Wollongong in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Khaled Shaalan????????????The British University in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Ahmed Rafea???????????????The American University in Cairo, Egypt Imed Zitouni????????????? IBM, USA Azadeh Shakery????????????University of Tehran, IranThe British University in Dubai, UAEAshraf Elnagar??????????? University of Sharja, UAE Ali Mohammad Zareh Bidoki Yazd University. IranBehrouz Minaei Iran University of Science?????? ????????????????????????? and?Technolog, IranGholamreza Ghassem-Sani??????????? Ashraf Elnagar???????????Zaher Al Aghbari????????? Behrouz Minaei?????????????????????IranUniversityof Science and Technology? ? ?? ? ?University of Sharja, UAEUniversity of Sharja, UAESharif University of Technology, IranAbdelhadi Saudi????????????cole Nationale de????l'Industrie, Morocco Emad Mohamed??????????????Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar Saad Khaan??????????????? Rosetta Stone, USA Mohamed Attia???????????? alifarghaly at yahoo.comunder consideration work.three members of the program committee. the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA-2012) From maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr Fri Jul 20 13:01:18 2012 From: maarten.lemmens at univ-lille3.fr (Maarten Lemmens) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:01:18 +0200 Subject: CfP "Multi-modality & language variation; cognitive linguistics", AFLiCo 5, Lille, France Message-ID: FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS - AFLICO 5 ?Empirical Approaches to Multi-modality and to Language Variation? Fifth International Conference of the Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo 5) University of Lille 3, Lille, France May 15-17, 2013 http://evenements.univ?-lille3.fr/aflico5 PLENARY SPEAKERS (titles and abstracts on conference web site) Dagmar Divjak (University of Sheffield) Colette Grinevald (University of Lyon 2) Irene Mittelberg (RWTH Aachen University) Gary Morgan (City University London) Fran?ois Rastier (CNRS and INALCO Paris) Luc Steels (ICREA (IBE-UPF-CSIC) BARCELONA & SONY CSL PARIS) OBJECTIVES This conference chiefly aims at consolidating and strengthening the network of cognitive linguists working in France and abroad by providing a forum for discussion and collaboration in the tradition of the preceding AFLiCo conferences in Bordeaux (2005), Lille (2007), Nanterre (2009) and Lyon (2011) and the ?JET? workshops in Bordeaux (2010) and Paris (2012). THEMATIC SESSIONS This conference will be the fifth international conference of the Association Fran?aise de Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo; www.aflico.fr). The conference?s major foci are in line with the direction the previous AFLiCo conferences were headed in: multi-modality (in particular, co-verbal gestures and signed languages viewed as multi-channel communication systems) and linguistic variation (typology as well as intra-language variation). However, the conference seeks to add an important dimension to this direction, viz. empirical methods in (cognitive) linguistics, which have recently been attracting growing interest. With this emphasis on empirical approaches, the conference meets a real need of the linguistic community (cognitive or otherwise), given that the field of linguistics is shifting ever more rapidly towards interdisciplinary approaches, using various advanced empirical methods, ranging from psycholinguistic experiments to sophisticated analyses based on (large) corpora. The study of multi-modality recognizes the frequent simultaneous presence of multiple communication channels. In the visual domain, co-verbal gestures underscore the embodied nature of language proposed by cognitive linguistics. In the aural domain, para-verbal aspects of utterances (pitch, intonation, voice quality, etc.) beg the question of how to isolate stable correspondences between these ?forms? and semantic (particularly attitudinal) values. As was the case for the 2007 AFLiCo conference held in Lille, we explicitly welcome proposals for papers on signed languages, which by their very nature are multi-modal communication systems, as the signed utterance is brought about not just by means of hand gestures but also through posture and movements of, inter alia, the upper body, the head, the mouth and the eyebrows. Signed languages provide a window to the human mind and its capacity to represent abstract concepts in concrete, material forms; cognitive linguistics offers a well-suited model to account for iconicity, metaphor and metonymy, which are central to the study of the world?s signed languages. The topic of signed languages ties in with the LSF (langue des signes fran?aise) Interpreter training at the University of Lille 3. Cross-linguistic variation has been the object of typological and comparative cognitive studies which address the issue of universal grammar and linguistic relativity. With regard to intra-language variation, recent years have witnessed the emergence of a cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation is also a key ingredient in explaining language change and grammaticalization. GENERAL SESSIONS The conference will not be limited to thematic sessions devoted to the main foci described above. The organisers also encourage researchers to submit proposals within other areas of cognitive linguistics, to be presented in the general parallel sessions. Possible topics include (but are not restricted to): - (cognitive) construction grammar - conceptual metaphors - image schemata - frame semantics - coercion and the tension between productivity and convention in language - computer modelling based on empirical data - problems and solutions in empirical methods: corpus studies, acceptability ratings, response time measurements, event-related potential experiments, eye tracking studies, etc. The organisers further encourage young researchers to submit an abstract. NOTE: for organisational reasons, the thematic sessions on signed languages will be grouped on the first day of the conference (15 May). SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Abstracts will be submitted to a double, blind review. They should be fully anonymous and not exceed 500 words (references excluded). Details for submission procedure will shortly be available on the website. IMPORTANT DATES Submission deadline: November 15, 2012 Notification of acceptance: January 15, 2013 Workshop ?Empirical methods in Usage-Based Linguistics?: May 13-14, 2013 Conference dates: May 15-17, 2013 (TBC: registration & welcome reception: May 14, from 17:00) REGISTRATION Details about the registration procedure and registration deadlines will be posted on the conference website as soon as they become available. There will be reduced registration fee for AFLiCo members and students as well as early bird reduction. CONFERENCE LANGUAGES English (preferred), French, LSF (please notify the organisers in advance) CONFERENCE WEBSITE http://evenements.univ?lille3.fr/aflico5 SPRING SCHOOL To enhance the success of the empirical dimension, we will organise, pending funding, a Spring School on ?Empirical methods in Usage-Based Linguistics? on the two days preceding the conference (i.e. on May 13 and 14) with 5 parallel workshops on different empirical approaches, each presenting a specific methodology or tool: (1) corpus linguistics: principles and general methods (Dagmar Divjak, University of Sheffield, UK); (2) statistics in corpus linguistics with R (Dylan Glynn, Lund University, Sweden); (3) annotating and analysing multi-modal data in ELAN (Mark Tutton, University of Nantes, France); (4) transcribing and analysing oral data in CLAN (Christophe Parisse, University of Paris 10, France); (5) methods in psycholinguistic experiments ([to be confirmed]). Further details will be posted on the conference website. ORGANISING COMMITTEE: Maarten Lemmens, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Dany Amiot, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Annie Risler, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) Bert Cappelle, UMR 8163 STL (CNRS and Universities of Lille 3 & Lille 1) SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Florence Chenu, University of Lyon 2, France Marion Blondel, University of Paris 8, France Jana Bressem, University of Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany Georgette Dal, University of Lille 3, France Nicole Delbecque, University of Leuven, Belgium Walter Demulder, University of Antwerp, Belgium Guillaume Desagulier, University of Paris 8 Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Sonja Erlenkamp, University of Trondheim, Norway Jean-Michel Fortis, University of Paris 7, France Craig Hamilton, University of Mulhouse, France Dylan Glynn, University of Lund, Sweden Maya Hickmann, University of Paris 5, France Harriet Jisa, University of Lyon 2, France Annetta Kopecka, University of Lyon 2, France Silva Ladewig, University of Frankfort an der Oder, Germany Jean-R?mi Lapaire, University of Bordeaux 3, France Aliyah Morgenstern, University of Paris 3, France Caroline Rossi, University of Lyon 2, France St?phane Robert, F?d?ration TUL - FR 2559, France Paul Sambre, Lessius Hogeschool, Antwerp, Belgium Mark Tutton, University de Nantes, France Kristel van Goethem, University of Louvain, Belgium Myriam Vermeerbergen, University of Leuven, Belgium Bencie Woll, University College London, U.K. Sherman Wilcox, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA From federicodanielnavarro at gmail.com Fri Jul 20 15:33:38 2012 From: federicodanielnavarro at gmail.com (Federico Navarro) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:33:38 -0300 Subject: new book: "En carrera" Message-ID: *Natale, L. (Ed.). (2012). "En carrera: escritura y lectura de textos acad?micos y profesionales". Los Polvorines, Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.* This book offers a critical description of higher education genres that are relevant for academically and professionally-oriented degrees: academic review, essay, state of the art, case study, product evaluation, procedures manual, and social intervention project. The book also guides readers on how to understand and quote complex texts. This book can be useful for professionals, university students, and professors who are interested in including discipline-specific writing skills in their courses. The book's chapters are pedagogically-oriented: they explore the context of circulation, the goals, and the structure of each genre; they suggest strategies for text planning, elaboration and revision; and they include real, commented examples and exercises based on experts' and students' samples. However, the most fascinating feature of this book is its elaboration: each chapter was written collaboratively by a writing professor and a lecturer of the specific subject matter the genre belongs to. Therefore, readers can gain access to a comprehensive account that articulates the insights of the experienced scholar and the analysis of the language expert. This rhetorical, functional, and disciplinary-situated perspective is the basis behind the Program to Develop Academic Literacy across the Curriculum (PRODEAC), installed in the Degree Cycle of all the degrees at the Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (Buenos Aires Argentina) since 2005. The book's authors take advantage of their extended participation in this program to anticipate typical difficulties and systematize this essential resource for advanced literacy teaching. Download the book's Contents and Preface (in Spanish) or find out how to obtain the book at the PRODEAC web page (www.ungs.edu.ar/prodeac). A recent article (in English) that describes the PRODEAC can be downloaded from the WAC Clearinghouse (wac.colostate.edu/books/wpww/chapter2.pdf). Federico Navarro CONICET/UBA/UNGS From liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be Tue Jul 24 07:38:13 2012 From: liesbeth.degand at uclouvain.be (Liesbeth Degand) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:38:13 +0200 Subject: Call for Panel Abstracts: Elements at Right Periphery", IPRA 13, New Delhi Message-ID: Abstracts are invited for a panel on**"The Pragmatic Role of Elements at Right Periphery" to be organized during IPra 13 in New Delhi, India, September 8-13, 2013. *Conveners*: Liesbeth Degand (University of Louvain at Louvain-la-Neuve) Elizabeth Closs Traugott (Stanford University) In recent years attention has begun to be paid to "right periphery" (RP) phenomena, as two threads of inquiry have developed: study of discourse structure, especially its pragmatics (starting with Schiffrin 1987), and syntactic cartography (starting with Cinque 1999). Compared to left periphery (LP) phenomena, right periphery phenomena have received little attention (but see Van der Wouden and Foolen 2011). The aim of the panel is to build on and test proposals that LP and RP have different functions (Beeching and Detges In preparation), especially the proposal that the role of RP is to mark turn-yielding and that it is likely to be intersubjective and dialogic in the sense that the speaker positions their utterance against anticipated contributions of other speakers. This raises the question of what type of linguistic expressions and/or constructions may occur in right peripheral position. The focus of the panel will be the following set of questions: a) How can RP be defined? How should distinctions be made between elements within argument structure (e.g. question-markers at RP, right dislocations) and those "outside" it and often disjunct (e.g. pragmatic markers, comment clauses, tags)? b) What sorts of functions are expressed at RP? Van der Wouden and Foolen (2011) find modal, focus, some connective particles, and repairs at RP in Dutch. Is this set language-specific or cross-linguistically robust for elements at RP? c) Are any functions not expressable at LP (tags in English, Dutch /hoor/ 'hear' (warning or reassuring), French punctuating quoi 'what')? Are any LP functions not expressable at RP? What does this suggest about functions at LP and RP? d) What generalizations can be made about how elements at RP arise historically? Does use of an expression at RP always entail subjectification (as defined in Traugott 2010)? We welcome abstracts that address the questions posed for the panel from a range of theoretical perspectives, based on spoken and written data. We are particularly interested in receiving abstracts that provide evidence from languages of the Middle Eats and from the Indian and African contents, in addition to the east Asian and European languages that have been the focus of much recent research in pragmatics. Abstracts should be about 500 words long plus data examples and references. They should specify which of the questions a) -- d) will be addressed, what type of theoretical perspective will be adopted (e.g. discourse analytic, cartographical), and what kinds of data will be used (e.g., conversational (spoken), represented conversation (written), synchronic, diachronic). Consistent with IPra requirements, abstracts should be sent to both panel organizers (Liesbeth.Degand at uclouvain.be, traugott at stanford.edu) *by October 15^th 2012.* If accepted by the conveners, they will need to be submitted on-line individually by *November 1^st 2012*: "Though it is the panel organizer(s) who take(s) active responsibility for the quality of the contributions to their panel (i.e. they decide what is accepted), abstracts should, for all *_panel contributions_*, be submitted /by the individual contributors separately/ by the _1 November 2012_deadline that will be handled for individual submissions (see below)" (http://ipra.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.CONFERENCE13&n=1443).Presenters of papers at IPra 13 must be members of IPra. References Beeching, Kate and Ulrich Detges, eds. In preparation. Papers from IPra 12, Cinque, Giulielmo. 1999. /Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective./ Oxford: OUP. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. /Discourse Markers/. Cambridge: CUP Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, eds., /Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, /29-70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Van der Wouden, Ton and Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right periphery. http://www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/fipa-2011-05b.pdf - From brian.nolan at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 14:36:35 2012 From: brian.nolan at gmail.com (Brian Nolan) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:36:35 +0100 Subject: New RRG book available: The Structure of Modern Irish - A Functional Account In-Reply-To: <4D73BE6A.7080105@benjamins.com> Message-ID: The Structure of Modern Irish - A Functional Account Brian Nolan Equinox Series: Discussions in functional approaches to language Modern Irish is a VSO language, in common with the other Celtic languages, and the order of elements in the structure of transitive sentences is verb-subject-object. This book provides a characterisation of the nominal, verb, clause and information structure of the Irish language from a functional perspective based on Role and Reference Grammar. Included in this analysis are the layered structure of the noun phrase of Irish and the various NP operators, the layered structure of the clause and the verbal system at the syntax-semantic interface along with a number of verb valence behaviours as mediated by event and argument structure. The book also surveys previous treatments of Irish within a functionalist approach. The verbal noun has a special place within the Irish language and its deployment is particularly productive. The book examines the derivation of the verbal noun and the contexts in which it is used. It also provides an account of light verbs and complex predicates as they occur within Irish and link this to a characterisation of the information structure of Irish. Additionally it provides an analysis of certain linguistically interesting phenomena that are particular to Irish (and the other Celtic languages) including the two verbs of ?to be?. Within the verbal system the author?s concern is with the relationship between the semantic representation of a verbal predicate in the context of a clause and its syntactic expression through the argument structure of the verb. He suggests that lexical specification is via a logical representation that reflects the aspectual decomposition of the verbal predicate and that this determines, with an actor-undergoer hierarchy, the operation of the mapping into syntax via the linking system. Contents 1 Introduction 2 Causation 3 The Reflexive Constructions in Modern Irish 4. The Personal Passive Construction and its Variants 5 The Impersonal Passive 6 The Recipient and Passive GET Construction with ?faigh? 7 The Expression of Modality in Irish 8 Complex Predicates and Irish Light Verb Constructions 9 Information Structure ? Focus and Copula Clefts 10 The Layered Structure of the Noun Phrase 11 The Layered Structure of the Irish Word 12 Concluding discussion Links: http://www.equinoxpub.com/equinox/books/showbook.asp?bkid=341 http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Modern-Irish-Discussions/dp/1845534212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343399271&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Structure+of+Modern+Irish From sidi at ufpa.br Mon Jul 30 09:51:23 2012 From: sidi at ufpa.br (Sidney Facundes) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:51:23 +0700 Subject: Software for Corpus Linguistics Message-ID: Dear all, Please, would anyone have suggestions as to what the best software tools there are out there now for corpus linguistics? WordSmith is the first one that comes to mind, but I'm not informed of alternatives. I've been told that R can also be used, but requires programming. I'm interested in tools that can manage languages other than English, including languages with non-Roman letters. I've found some freeware but that do not seem to handle non-Roman scripts. Thanks for any suggestion you may have. Best, Sidi Facundes From FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk Mon Jul 30 11:49:08 2012 From: FontaineL at cardiff.ac.uk (Lise Fontaine) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:49:08 +0100 Subject: Software for Corpus Linguistics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sidi I'd like to recommend the UAM CorpusTool http://www.wagsoft.com/CorpusTool/. It's excellent and is able to do many different things and I know it can handle other languages but I'm not sure which ones. with best wishes Lise From: Sidney Facundes To: FUNKNET at rice.edu Date: 30/07/2012 10:51 Subject: [FUNKNET] Software for Corpus Linguistics Sent by: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu Dear all, Please, would anyone have suggestions as to what the best software tools there are out there now for corpus linguistics? WordSmith is the first one that comes to mind, but I'm not informed of alternatives. I've been told that R can also be used, but requires programming. I'm interested in tools that can manage languages other than English, including languages with non-Roman letters. I've found some freeware but that do not seem to handle non-Roman scripts. Thanks for any suggestion you may have. Best, Sidi Facundes From sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it Mon Jul 30 12:02:28 2012 From: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it (Sonia Cristofaro) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:02:28 +0100 Subject: MA Program in Linguistics, University of Pavia Message-ID: *****************Apologies for Cross-Posting*************************** The Linguistics section at the Department for Humanities, University of Pavia, Italy, invites applications for a two year MA program in `Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and Linguistics of Modern Languages'. The program aims to provide students with extensive training in the theoretical foundations and practical applications of linguistic analysis. Areas covered by the program include (but are not limited to) historical linguistics, linguistic typology, language teaching, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, corpus linguistics, computational linguistics, English linguistics, and translation studies. Applications should be submitted by September 7th, 2012. For more information, please contact the Program Director, Prof. Sonia Cristofaro, at sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it or visit the program website at http://lettere.unipv.it/diplinguistica/pagina.php?id=287 -- -- Sonia Cristofaro Dipartimento di Linguistica Universita' di Pavia Strada Nuova, 65 I-27100 Italy Tel. +390382984484 Fax +390382984487 E-mail: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it -- ------------------------------ Questa informativa ? inserita in automatico dal sistema al fine esclusivo della realizzazione dei fini istituzionali dell'ente. Diventa anche tu sponsor dei nostri ricercatori. Scegli di destinare il 5 per mille all?Universit? di Pavia : offrirai nuove opportunit? alla ricerca, ai giovani e al territorio. Un gesto che non costa nulla e costruisce tanto. C.F. dell?Universit? di Pavia 80007270186. Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing Italian income tax returns. From els603 at bangor.ac.uk Mon Jul 30 12:24:51 2012 From: els603 at bangor.ac.uk (June Luchjenbroers) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:24:51 +0100 Subject: new MSc in Forensic Linguistics at Bangor University (UK) Message-ID: *NEW -- MSc degree in /Forensic Linguistics/ from Sept. 2012 and as a distance degree from Sept 2013.* We are pleased to announce that the School of Linguistics & English Language at Bangor University, in collaboration with Dr John Olsson of the Forensic Linguistics Institute (UK) are offering a new MSc in Forensic Linguistics from September 2012. Students will be able to take this course either Full time or Part time (up to three years), and all modules will also be available in distance learning mode from September 2013. The range of specialist modules on offer include: -/Issues in Forensic Linguistics/ -/Authorship Attribution/ -/CyberCrime/ -/Text analysis/ -/Forensic Phonetics/ -/Language & the Law/ (* at least four of these six will offered each year) These specialist modules complement obligatory and core modules that enable students to complete a Master's level degree course in Linguistics : /Foundations in Linguistics/, and /Linguistics Research Methods/. All content modules carry 20 credits toward the final degree (a max. of 120 credits is needed for the coursework component), which is then followed by a 20,000 word, 60 credit dissertation in Forensic Linguistics. Students will select their own original research project in an area of their choice within the field of Forensic Linguistics or Language and the Law, which they will carry out under the guidance of a team of linguists, in either English or Welsh. This state-of-the-art course will engage students in the major concepts and concerns of Forensic Linguistics practice. At the same time students will be coached in a range of techniques for analysing authentic forensic language data, and will be given hands-on experience in developing publishable results while working directly with experts in the field. The programme aims to develop students' competence and critical understanding of the range of phenomena dealt with in the field of forensic linguistics (language analysis for Authorship attribution; violent crime prevention/detection; and understanding language use in professional settings). Students from all countries are encouraged to register and registrations for 2012-13 are now open. The distance provision is with a view to enable students globally as well as those in the UK/EEC, and those in full-time employment or who for other reasons cannot attend classes, scope to obtain a high-quality, internationally recognised postgraduate qualification. Full details in all our M-level offerings, Module descriptions, Application procedures & forms are now available on the School website, including the all degree schemes: http://www.bangor.ac.uk/linguistics/postgraduate.php.en?menu=3&catid=3126&subid=0 *Contact* Dr June Luchjenbroers Phone:01248 388205_ junel at bangor.ac.uk_ ** -- Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig / Registered Charity No. 1141565 Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dil?wch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio ? defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. www.bangor.ac.uk This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. www.bangor.ac.uk From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Jul 30 14:27:11 2012 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:27:11 +0000 Subject: Now available on Project MUSE - Now available on Project MUSE - The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 57:2 (July 2012) Message-ID: Now available on Project MUSE The Canadian Journal of Linguistics Volume 57, Issue 2, July 2012 SPECIAL ISSUE: Properties of predication / Propri?t?s de la pr?dication This issue contains: Introduction Ileana Paul This issue addresses questions surrounding predication. Read more... pp. 173-176 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0031 Articles Forms of predication in Sakha (Turkic): Will the true lexical predicates please stand up? Mark C. Baker, Nadezda Vinokurova Abstract: The Turkic language Sakha (Yakut) uses a copular verb with predicate nominals but not with predicate adjectives or verbs in certain environments, including relative clauses, nominalized clauses, and complements to nouns. Previous work takes this as evidence that adjectives but not nouns are true one-place predicates. However, unaccusativity diagnostics show that adjectives pattern with nouns in Sakha, as in other languages: neither is inherently predicative without a predicative functional head. The need for a copula with predicate nominals in certain environments can be explained using Richards's distinctiveness condition. Relative clauses, noun complements, and nominalization structures all bring a nominal head in close contact with the predicate. If the predicate itself is nominal, a verbal copula must intervene to separate the predicate from the embedding head of the same category. R?sum?: La langue turcique Sakha (Yakut) emploie une copule avec les noms pr?dicatifs mais pas avec les adjectifs pr?dicatifs ou les verbes dans les contextes tels que les subordonn?es relatives ou substantiv?es et les compl?ments de noms. Des ?tudes pr?c?dentes concluent par cons?quent que contrairement aux substantifs, les adjectifs sont de vrais pr?dicats monovalents. Cependant, certains tests d'inaccusativit? d?montrent qu'en Sakha, les adjectifs se comportent comme les noms, comme dans les autres langues : ni l'adjectif ni le nom n'est pr?dicatif sans une t?te fonctionnelle pr?dicative. La n?cessit? d'une copule dans certains contextes peut s'expliquer par la condition de caract?re distinct de Richards. Les subordonn?es relatives, les compl?ments de nom et les nominalisations ont en commun le rapprochement d'une t?te nominale et d'un pr?dicat. Si le pr?dicat est nominal, une copule intervient pour s?parer le pr?dicat de la t?te ench?ss?e de la m?me cat?gorie. pp. 177-207 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0032 Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences Caroline Heycock Abstract: This article presents new data from a number of Germanic languages concerning the agreement patterns found in copular clauses that contain two nominals; in both clauses with specificational readings (such as The problem is your parents) and those with what are here termed readings of assumed identity (such as If I were you or In my dream I was you). It is argued that the specificational sentences involve asymmetric equative structures where one nominal is interpreted as in a concealed question, and that the cross-linguistic differences in agreement patterns found in the languages considered follow from the copula lexicalizing either Tense or a lower head. R?sum?: Cet article pr?sente de nouvelles donn?es tir?es de certaines langues germaniques et qui illustrent les sch?mas d'accord dans les propositions copulatives avec deux substantifs ; les propositions ? lecture sp?cificationnelle (telles que The problem is your parents) ainsi que celles ? ?lecture d'identit? emprunt?e? (telle que If I were you ou In my dream I was you). L'article propose que les phrases sp?cificationnelles comprennent des structures ?quatives asym?triques o? un substantif est interpr?t? exactement comme dans le contexte d'une question furtive, et que les diff?rences interlinguistiques dans les sch?mas d'accord relev?s dans les langues sous consid?ration d?coulent de la lexicalisation par la copule de la t?te tens?e T0 ou d'une t?te plus basse dans la structure. pp. 209-240 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0033 On the status of inversion in an inverse language Diane Massam Abstract: This article addresses inversion in an inverse (VSO) language, Niuean, focusing on two issues. First, it has been proposed that in certain types of copular sentences, such as pseudo-cleft constructions (PCCs), the predicate rather than the subject may move into the specifier position of TP. This raises the question of PCCs in a language in which the predicate normally moves there. Such sentences might exhibit their normal inverse order or the inverse of this. The second issue is what constitutes the predicate in a PCC. The headless relative (and not the DP) is usually analyzed as the predicate because, in standard theories of predication, a referential nominal cannot be a predicate. However, in Niuean PCCs, the DP is usually analyzed as the predicate. I propose that it is in fact a reduced headless relative with a null predicate. It becomes clear that there is no special copular inversion: the inversion requirement is taken care of by the general predicate-fronting process. The analysis thus sheds new light on the general nature of copular inversion and allows Niuean PCCs to fall into the standard view of predication theory. R?sum?: Cet article ?tudie l'inversion dans une langue inverse (VSO), le niu?en, et se concentre sur deux questions. D'abord, il a ?t? propos? que dans certains types de phrases ? copule, telles que les pseudo-cliv?es (CPC), il est possible qu'un pr?dicat se d?place dans le sp?cifieur du Syntagme Temps plut?t que le sujet. Cela soul?ve la question des CPC dans une langue o? le pr?dicat se d?place par d?faut dans la position sujet. De telles phrases pourraient manifester leur ordre inverse habituel ou l'inverse de celui-ci. La deuxi?me question porte sur le statut du pr?dicat dans une CPC. La relative substantive (et non le SD) est habituellement identifi?e comme le pr?dicat parce que, selon les th?ories conventionnelles de la pr?dication, un nom r?f?rentiel ne peut ?tre un pr?dicat. Cependant, dans les CPC en niu?en, le SD est habituellement analys? comme le pr?dicat. Dans cet article, je propose qu'il est en fait une relative substantive r?duite avec un pr?dicat nul. Il n'y a par cons?quent aucune inversion copulative sp?ciale : l'exigence d'inversion est satisfaite par la nature g?n?rale du processus d'ant?position du pr?dicat. Cette analyse nous permet donc de mieux comprendre la nature g?n?rale de l'inversion copulative et situe les CPC en niu?en dans la perspective standard de la th?orie de la pr?dication. pp. 241-260 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0027 Generic predicates and interest-relativity Sally McConnell-Ginet Abstract: "Simple generics" with bare plural subjects (e.g., dogs bark) predicate of a kind a property that the kind "inherits" from its individual members. But what does that inheritance amount to if it is not, like most dogs bark, based on how many individuals have the property. My conclusion: there is no determinate account of which (fundamentally individual-level) properties can be truly predicated of a kind: generics are not quantificational, and language users' interests guide judgments on their truthconditions. At the same time, even "canonical" predications of ordinary predicates of ordinary individuals are not so straightforward as they might appear. Generic claims about social groups show the indeterminacy of truth conditions for simple generics and the relation to stereotypes and sometimes conflicting interests. R?sum?: Les g?n?riques simples, tels que les noms nus sujets au pluriel (e.g., dogs bark), mettent en relation de pr?dication une esp?ce et une propri?t? que l'esp?ce ?h?rite? de ses membres individuels. Mais ? quoi ?quivaut cet ?h?ritage? s'il n'est pas (comme dans most dogs bark) fond? sur le nombre d'individus qui poss?dent cette propri?t?? Ma conclusion : il n'y a pas d'analyse d?finitive des diverses propri?t?s (essentiellement de niveau individuel (I-level)) qui peuvent entrer en relation de pr?dication avec une esp?ce : les phrases g?n?riques ne sont pas quantificationnelles et les int?r?ts des locuteurs guident les jugements des conditions de v?rit?. En outre, m?me la pr?dication ?canonique? des pr?dicats ordinaires et des individus ordinaires n'est pas si simple. Les affirmations g?n?riques ? propos des groupes sociaux montrent la nature ind?termin?e des conditions de v?rit? pour les g?n?riques simples, ainsi que le rapport avec les st?r?otypes et parfois avec des int?r?ts conflictuels. pp. 261-287 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0028 Saying and doing: The role of semantics in the use of generic sentences Bernhard Nickel Abstract: This article discusses semantic theories of generic sentences that seek to tie their meaning closely to their use, rather than giving more traditional truth-conditional semantic treatments. It focuses on McConnell-Ginet's recent work and defends truth-conditional approaches combined with a traditional semantics-pragmatics distinction. R?sum?: Cet article porte sur les phrases g?n?riques et sur les analyses s?mantiques qui tentent de lier l'interpr?tation de ces phrases ? leur usage plut?t qu'en terme de conditions de v?rit? comme il est de mise dans les analyses traditionnelles. L'article vise en particulier le travail r?cent de McConnell-Ginet et d?fend les approches traditionnelles en termes de conditions de v?rit? tout en d?fendant la distinction ordinaire entre la s?mantique et la pragmatique. pp. 289-302 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0029 Where does predication come from? David Gil Abstract: Predication is widely considered to be a fundamental feature of human language and conceptual structure. This article offers a reassessment of the central role that predication plays within current theories of grammar, by calling into question the universality of predication and its nature as a primitive, irreducible notion. It proposes a new definition of predicate, as a complex emergent entity derived from the alignment of two independent elements of conceptual structure: thematic role assignment and headedness. R?sum?: Selon une longue tradition, la pr?dication est un trait fondamental des langues naturelles et de la structure conceptuelle. Cet article r?examine le r?le central que la pr?dication occupe dans les th?ories linguistiques actuelles, et remet en question le caract?re universel de la pr?dication et son statut de primitif irr?ductible. Il propose une nouvelle d?finition de ?pr?dicat?, soit une entit? complexe ?mergente qui d?coule de l'alignement de deux ?l?ments de la structure conceptuelle ind?pendants l'un de l'autre : l'attribution des r?les th?matiques et le statut de t?te. pp. 303-333 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2012.0030 The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. About Project MUSE Project MUSE is a unique collaboration between libraries and publishers, providing 100% full-text, affordable and user-friendly online access to a comprehensive selection of prestigious humanities and social sciencesjournals. MUSE's online journal collections support a diverse array of research needs at academic, public, special and school libraries worldwide. For more information about the Canadian Journal of Linguistics or for submissions information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca www.utpjournals.com/cjl Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus.