From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Wed Dec 4 11:16:32 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:16:32 +0000 Subject: Extended deadline: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities Conference 2014 Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 24-26 APRIL 2014, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK The deadline for abstracts has been extended to 13 December 2013. Abstracts should be sent to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk. Please see attached Call for Papers for full details of the conference, keynote speakers, and the submissions process. Enquiries should be directed to Dr Peter Garratt, peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk. Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson (Boston College) Patricia Waugh (Durham University) Mark Rowlands (University of Miami) David Herman (Durham University) Alan Palmer (Independent scholar) Vyvyan Evans (Bangor University) We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts ? Language, meaning and cognitive processing ? Embodied cognition ? Phenomenology of technologies ? Cognitive poetics and interpretation ? Social minds ? Theory of mind and mind-blindness ? The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity ? Empirical aesthetics ? Extended cognition ? Ideology and the cognitive sciences ? Cognitive approaches to visual culture ? Thinking and feeling in narrative ? Cognitive historicism ? Animal consciousness and perspective ? Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 13th December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver busaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Thu Dec 5 10:02:43 2013 From: kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be (Kristel Van Goethem) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:02:43 +0100 Subject: Second call for papers: "Category change from a constructional perspective" Deadline 09/12/2013 Message-ID: Second call for papers: “Category change from a constructional perspective” Call deadline: December 9, 2013 Workshop convenors: * Muriel Norde (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin) : muriel.norde at hu-berlin.de * Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.-FNRS, Université catholique de Louvain) : kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Workshop discussant: Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh) Call for papers This is a workshop proposal to be submitted to the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8), which will be held at the University of Osnabrueck, 3-6 September, 2014. If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please send both of us a title by December 9, 2013, so we can submit our proposal (including a provisional list of participants and titles) to the ICCG8 conference organizers. If our proposal is accepted, participants will be invited to submit a full abstract (400 words) by February 1, 2014. Conference website: http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ Workshop description Category change, i.e. the shift from one word class to another or from free categories to bound categories, is inherent to many different types of change, yet it is usually not given much consideration. The aim of this workshop, therefore, will be to bring category change itself to the fore, as a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right. Adopting a rather broad definition of “category”, which includes both single words and multi-word units, we will explore how categories change and why some shifts are more frequent than others. In particular, we want to examine whether a constructional perspective enhances our understanding of category change. In our workshop, focus will be on three topics: (i) types of category change, (ii) degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity, and (iii) directionality. Types of category change Category change may result from different processes. The first process is commonly termed “non-affixal derivation” or “conversion”, as in the following examples from French (Kerleroux 1996) and English (Denison 2010). (1) calmeA ‘calm’ > calmeN ‘calmness’ (2) dailyA newspaper > dailyN The second process is category change determined by a specific syntactic context, or “distorsion catégorielle” (Kerleroux 1996), as in (3), likewise from French: (3) Elle est d’un courageux! ‘(lit. She is of a brave) She is very brave’ However, there is no strict boundary between the processes exemplified in (1-2) and (3), as suggested by cases such as Elle est d’un calme! ‘lit. She is of a calm; She is very calm’. In this example, the nominal use of calme can be accounted for both as conversion and as context-internal category change. Third, category change can be linked to processes of univerbation with structural change (Denison 2010), e.g. the use of English far from as an adverbial downtoner in (4) (De Smet 2012), or the development of the German pronoun neizwer out of a Middle High German sentence (5) (Haspelmath 1997: 131). (4) The life of a “beauty queen” is far from beautiful. (web) (5) ne weiz wer ‘I don´t know who’ > neizwer ‘somebody’ A fourth type is one in which an item shifts category in the wake of the category shift of another item, e.g. the shift of Swedish adverbs in –vis to adjectives when the head of a VP is nominalized: (6) Samhället förandras gradvisADV. ‘Society changes gradually’ (7) Den gradvisaADJ förändringen av samhället. ‘The gradual change of society’ Finally, category change may be part of a grammaticalization change, i.e. “the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18), such as the grammaticalization of English to be going to from main verb to future auxiliary in (8-9). Such gradual grammaticalization processes may account for synchronic gradience (Traugott & Trousdale 2010). (8) I [am going to]MAIN V the train station. (9) I [am going to]AUX be a star. Degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity The different types of category shift mentioned above can be arranged on a continuum, from abrupt to gradual and from context-independent to context-sensitive. While the A > N conversions in (1-2) are abrupt and context-independent processes, shifts from N > A are often gradual and determined by the syntactic environment, as in the case of keyN > keyA in English (10a) and French (10b) (Amiot & Van Goethem 2012; Denison 2001, 2010; De Smet 2012; Van Goethem & De Smet (forthc.)). (10)a. This is a really key point. b. Ceci est un point vraiment clé. However, similar developments in related languages may be characterized differently, as suggested by a contrastive case study on the adjectival uses of Dutch top and German spitze ‘top’ (Van Goethem & Hüning 2013). The category change in Dutch (11) seems abrupt, but the German (12) spelling of S/spitze and inflection of the preceding adjective/adverb is suggestive of a gradual development. (11)het was (de) absolute topN / het was absoluut topA ‘lit. it was absolute(ly) top’ (12)das war absolute SpitzeN / das war absolute spitzeN/A / das war absolut SpitzeN/A / das war absolut spitzeA ‘lit. it was absolute(ly) top’ Directionality Whereas in earlier work (e.g. Lehmann 1995 [1982], Haspelmath 2004) the view prevailed that only changes from major to minor categories are possible, research on degrammaticalization (Norde 2009) has shown that changes from minor to major word classes, albeit less frequently attested, are possible as well. In addition, specific items have been shown to change categories more than once in the course of their histories, in alternating stages of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. One example is degrammaticalization of the Dutch numeral suffix -tig ‘-ty’ into an indefinite quantifier meaning “dozens”, followed by grammaticalization into an intensifier meaning “very” (Norde 2006). Another example is the autonomous (adjectival/adverbial) use of Dutch intensifying prefixoids (Booij 2010: 60-61), such as Dutch reuze ‘giant’, which underwent multiple category changes (Van Goethem & Hiligsmann, forthc.; Norde & Van Goethem, in prep.), first from noun to intensifying affixoid (13) (grammaticalization) and later on into an adjective/adverb (14-15) (degrammaticalization): (13)Verder kunnen we reuzegoed met elkaar opschieten ‘Besides we get along very well (lit. giant-well)’ (COW2012) (14)Ik zou het gewoon weg reuze vinden als je eens langs kwam. ‘I really think it would be great (lit. giant) if you came by once.’ (COW 2012) (15)Reuze bedankt! ‘Thanks a lot’ Finally, category shift may be “non-directional”, in the sense that the input and output categories are of the same level, e.g. in shifts from one major word class to the other (examples (1-2)), or the transference of nominal case markers to verbal tense – aspect markers, such as the shift, in Kala Lagau Ya, from dative marker –pa to (verbal) completive marker (Blake 2001; examples (16-17)). (16)Nuy ay-pa amal-pa he food-dat mother-dat ‘He [went] for food for mother’ (17)Ngoeba uzar-am-pa 1dual.inclusive go-dual.incompletive ‘We two will go (are endeavouring to go)’ The constructional perspective The central aim of the workshop will be to investigate whether category change can be explained more accurately by analyzing it as an instance of “constructionalization” (Bergs & Diewald 2008; Traugott & Trousdale 2013 (forthc.)), which involves “a sequence of changes in the form and meaning poles of a construction, whereby new formal configurations come to serve particular functions, and to encode new meanings” (Trousdale & Norde 2013: 36). In this workshop, we welcome both theoretically and empirically oriented papers that account for category change from a constructional perspective. Research questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1: What is the status of category change in a diachronic construction grammar framework (e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2013) and how can the different types outlined above be accounted for? Are categories grammatical primitives, or the epiphenomenal result of constructions in the sense of Croft 2001? 2: How can the notions of gradualness and context-sensitivity be modelled in a constructional framework? Does the gradualness of some category shifts imply that categories synchronically form a “continuous spectrum” (Langacker 1987: 18) or does it merely mean that a given item may belong to two or more categories whereas “the categories in question can nevertheless be clearly delimited” (Aarts 2007: 242)? 3: Is category change a change in form which together with a change in meaning constitutes a constructionalization change and if so, is it the shift itself or changes in morphosyntactic properties (e.g. decategorialization) that are associated with it? 4: How does the distinction between lexical and grammatical constructionalization link in to the different types of category change (abrupt vs gradual, morphological vs syntactic, context-independent vs context-sensitive, word-level vs construction-level)? 5: Which role can be assigned to the notion of “category” in constructional networks? References Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amiot, D. & K. Van Goethem 2012. A constructional account of French -clé 'key' and Dutch sleutel- 'key' as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord 'keyword'. Morphology 22. 347-364. Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blake, B. J. 2001. Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COW (Corpora from the web) http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/cow/colibri/ [ Schäfer, R. & F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new effcient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, ELRA, 486–493.] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Smet, H. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88.3. 601-633. Denison, D. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 119-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, D. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds) Up and down the cline ¾ the nature of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerleroux, F. 1996. La coupure invisible. Études de syntaxe et de morphologie. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I : Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA : Stanford University Press. Lehmann, Chr. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Norde, M. 2006. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig. Tabu 35. 33-60. Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, M. & K. Van Goethem. in prep. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Submitted. Traugott, E.C. & G. Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2013 (Forthc.). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trousdale G. & M. Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32-46. Van Goethem, K. & H. De Smet. Forthc. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast. Van Goethem, K. & Ph. Hiligsmann. Forthc. When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Van Goethem, K. & M. Hüning. 2013. Debonding of Dutch and German compounds. Paper presented at the Germanic Sandwich Conference, Leuven, Jan. 2013. Kristel Van Goethem Chercheuse qualifiée F.R.S.-FNRS Université catholique de Louvain Institut Langage et Communication/Pôle Linguistique Collège Erasme Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.33 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve bureau c.383 Tél. (0032) 10 47 48 42 kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be http://uclouvain.academia.edu/KVanGoethem From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Dec 6 21:54:46 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 21:54:46 +0000 Subject: Extended deadline: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities Conference 2014 In-Reply-To: <1c947350a5e44c36b9e67d20becf90eb@AMSPR03MB018.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 24-26 APRIL 2014, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK The deadline for abstracts has been extended to 13 December 2013. Abstracts should be sent to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk. Please see the Call for Papers , below, for full details of the conference, keynote speakers, and the submissions process. Enquiries should be directed to Dr Peter Garratt, peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk. Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson (Boston College) Patricia Waugh (Durham University) Mark Rowlands (University of Miami) David Herman (Durham University) Alan Palmer (Independent scholar) Vyvyan Evans (Bangor University) We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts ? Language, meaning and cognitive processing ? Embodied cognition ? Phenomenology of technologies ? Cognitive poetics and interpretation ? Social minds ? Theory of mind and mind-blindness ? The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity ? Empirical aesthetics ? Extended cognition ? Ideology and the cognitive sciences ? Cognitive approaches to visual culture ? Thinking and feeling in narrative ? Cognitive historicism ? Animal consciousness and perspective ? Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 13th December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver busaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Dec 10 03:22:02 2013 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:22:02 +0000 Subject: Workshop announcement (University of Hawaii) Message-ID: Call for papers Fiction and Practice in Japanese: “Virtual Language” and “Gender in Language” Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, the University of Hawai’i at Manoa will host a one-day workshop on “Virtual Language” and “Gender in Language” on Saturday, February 15, 2014. “Virtual language” is a type of speech associated with fictional characters found in comic books and translated speeches in novels and movies. “Japanese” spoken by Tom Sawyer in translation, or overly feminine “Japanese” spoken by Marilyn Monroe in her movies are examples of virtual language. We are surrounded by virtual language, but are rarely conscious about its existence. We solicit abstracts of papers discussing topics related to the conference theme such as ‘gender and language,’ ‘language in translation,’ ‘language in media,’ and ‘textbook language.’ Keynote Speakers: Dr. Satoshi Kinsui (Osaka University) Dr. Momoko Nakamura (Kanto Gakuin University)   Paper abstract submission An abstract should be no more than 300 words (excluding references). We only accept electronic submission. Prepare either MS Word or pdf files. • Send the abstract via email attachment. • Do not include any information that may reveal your identity in the abstract • No changes in the title or the author’s names will be possible after acceptance. • Please write the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), affiliation, email address and phone number in the body of your email message. Deadline All submission must be received by Monday, January 6, 2014 Send submissions to: iwasaki9 at hawaii.edu Acceptance announcement will be sent by January 11, 2014. Respond with your acceptance by January 15, 2014. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assign your spot to someone else. A modest registration fee may be requested. Organizers: Shoichi Iwasaki Haruko Cook From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 11:17:30 2013 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:17:30 +0800 Subject: postdoctoral opportunities Message-ID: Postdoctoral Fellowships 2014 The Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS), College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, invites applications for postdoctoral fellowships for the Academic Year 2014. CLASS Postdoctoral Fellowships The successful candidates will be appointed as CLASS Postdoctoral Fellows and affiliated with one or more than one of the constituent schools of the College—namely, School of Art, Design, and Media (ADM), School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), and the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI). Applications are welcome for the three research themes below. For each of the themes, we are particularly interested in candidates whose expertise spans more than one of the following fields: Art, Design and Media, Art History, Art Theory, Broadcast and Cinema Studies, Cultural Studies, Chinese, Communication Research, Economics, English, History, Information Studies, Journalism and Publishing, Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, Literary Studies, Philosophy, Psychology, Public Policy and Global Affairs, Public and Promotional Communication, and Sociology. 1. Global Cities 2. Health, Culture and Society 3. Interdisciplinary Humanities Please the following link for more detailed information: http://cohass.ntu.edu.sg/Research/Pages/PostdoctoralFellowships2014.aspx ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （罗仁地）| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ From grvsmth at panix.com Tue Dec 10 15:19:31 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:19:31 -0500 Subject: CFP: Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon, New York City In-Reply-To: <3EDCC4D1C1E84449AC6094C45CE4353704639F433148@SQNEW07MAIL.admin.ads.stjohns.edu> Message-ID: My colleague Ninah Beliavsky is organizing this conference here in New York on the application of formulaic lexicography to teaching English. I hope to see some of you there! -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jeffrey Fagen *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 4:01 PM *To:* Jeffrey Fagen *Subject:* FW: Conference on the Manhattan Campus: Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon ****PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED CALL FOR PAPERS**** *One of the main features of Academic Discourse is the use of "Preforms" or Preformulations, which are known as chunks, lexical phrases or formulaic sequences. It is a remarkably promising activity in intermediate and advanced ESL classes to teach students (1) some of the more popular Preforms, (2) the methods of recognizing them in texts, and (3) the manner in which they can be used with great effect. Students are very enthusiastic about learning to write beginning Academic English. * * This has been done by Dr. Ninah Beliavsky and Dr. Clyde Coreil, co-chairs of the conference on "Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon." Methods based on this principle will be the focus of fifteen, 25-minute presentations plus two plenary addresses. The place is St. John's University Manhattan Campus. The date is April 19, 2014. The fee is $65. Full versions of the 300-3,000 wordpresentations will be printed in proper book form by September 1, 2014.* * Some of the methods are discussed in great detail in Coreil's /Term Papers and Academic Writing: Setting New Parameters/ available on Amazon.com. * Dr. Ninah Beliavsky Associate Professor Dept. Languages and Literatures Coordinator of ESL Modern Hebrew St. John's University St. John Hall 434f 8000 Utopia Parkway Queens, NY 11439 718-990-5262 718-990-1929 beliavsn at stjohns.edu From danjiesu at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 17:53:24 2013 From: danjiesu at gmail.com (Danjie Su) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:53:24 -0800 Subject: Call-for-papers: AMPRA Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thank you for your attention. Please see below the call-for-papers of the 2nd Conference of the American Pragmatics Association. Best, Daisy _______________________ Danjie Su PhD Student Asian Languages and Cultures UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095 danjiesu at gmail.com www.danjiesu.com *2nd Conference of the American Pragmatics Association* October 17-19, 2014 at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 2nd Call for Papers Call Deadline: 15-Apr-2014 The goal of the joint conference is to promote both theoretical and applied research in pragmatics, and bring together scholars who are interested in different subfields of pragmatics (philosophical, linguistic, cognitive, social, intercultural, interlanguage, etc.). Three main topics of the conference are as follows: 1. Pragmatics theories: neo-Gricean approaches, relevance theory, theory of mind, meaning, role of context, grammaticalization, semantics-pragmatics interface, explicature, implicature, speech act theory, presuppositions, im/politeness, experimental pragmatics, etc. 2. Intercultural, cross-cultural and societal aspects of pragmatics: research involving more than one language and culture or varieties of one language, lingua franca, technologically mediated communication, bilinguals’ and heritage speakers’ language use, intercultural misunderstandings, effect of dual language and multilingual systems on the development and use of pragmatic skills, language of aggression and conflict, etc. 3. Applications: usage and corpus-based approaches, pragmatic competence, teachability and learnability of pragmatic skills, pragmatic variations within one language and across languages, developmental pragmatics, etc. Conference website: http://ampra.appling.ucla.edu/ AMPRA website: http://www.albany.edu/ampra/index.html *Email address for inquires*: ampra14ucla at gmail.com Abstracts (max. 300 words) are invited for papers on any topic relevant to the fields of pragmatics and intercultural communication. When submitting the abstract the presenter should indicate which of the three main topics (1. Pragmatics theory, 2. Intercultural, cross-cultural, societal aspects of pragmatics, 3. Applications) s/he thinks the abstract belongs to. *Online submission* is at http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/Ampra2014 *Abstract deadline*: 15 April 2014 *Notification of acceptance*: 1 June 2014 Please, include your name, affiliation and email address. Abstracts will be double-blind peer-reviewed, and should include sufficient details to allow reviewers to judge the scientific merits of the work. Paper presentations will be allowed 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes for questions. All presentations will be in English. Panels are welcome. Panel organizers should send an abstract of the panel (max. 300 words) and abstracts of the panel participants as an email attachment toampra14ucla at gmail.com. The deadline for panels is the same as for papers: 15 April 2014. *Publication:* Two volumes of selected papers (Mouton de Gruyter, John Benjamins) are planned. *Co-Chairs* Katrina Daly Thompson (UCLA) Olga Yokoyama (UCLA) Istvan Kecskes (AMPRA President) *Organizing Committee* Lindy Comstock Katrina Daly Thompson Nickolas De Carlo Natalia Konstantinovskaia Don Lee Jori Lindley Ingrid Norrmann-Vigil Danjie Su Hongyin Tao Wei Wang Patricia Wiley Olga Yokoyama From reng at rice.edu Fri Dec 13 20:06:01 2013 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:06:01 -0600 Subject: Latest on the plight of Rice Linguistics Message-ID: Colleagues, For those of you who have been following the ongoing threat to our graduate program, here's the latest. We submitted our response to the administration's termination proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/71092077/Linguistics%20Response%20to%20phasing%20out%20document%20redacted.pdf This is a slightly-redacted version (the only difference from the original is that potentially-confidential e-mails have been redacted from Appendices 7-8). Best, --Robert Englebretson From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Dec 13 21:08:22 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:08:22 +0000 Subject: UK-CLC5 conference: Jan 10th extended deadline for abstract submission Message-ID: 5th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference: Empirical Approaches to Language and Cognition 29-31 July 2014, Lancaster University, United Kingdom Final Call for Papers (*NEW* extended deadline): 10th January 2014 We invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. Plenary speakers: * Daniel Casasanto (University of Chicago) * Alan Cienki (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) * William Croft (University of New Mexico) * Adele Goldberg (Princeton University) * Stefan Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) * Elena Semino (Lancaster University) The conference aims to cover a broad range of research concerned with language and cognition. We will be especially interested in promoting strongly empirical work. To this end, we intend to organise (some of) the papers into thematic sessions, with our plenary speakers acting as discussants. The themes will be: * embodiment * gesture * typology and constructional analyses of the languages of the world * acquisition * corpora and statistical methods * metaphor and discourse In addition to these themes, submissions on other aspects of the field are also welcome, including: * domains and frame semantics * categorisation, prototypes and polysemy * mental spaces and conceptual blending * language evolution * linguistic variation and language change * cognitive linguistic approaches to language teaching Talks will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and discussion. There will also be a poster session. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of max. 300 words (excl. references) should be submitted using EasyChair: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ukclc5. Participants may submit abstracts for no more than one single-authored paper and one joint-authored paper. Abstracts must be anonymous, and should be submitted in plain text and/or PDF format. If you need phonetic characters, please ensure that they are displayed correctly. To submit an abstract you must use your existing EasyChair login details. If you have not registered with EasyChair before, please do so using the link above. Once you have created an account or signed in follow the following steps: 1. Click on the 'New Submission' link at the top of the page; 2. Agree to the terms and conditions (if prompted); 3. Fill in the relevant information about the author or authors; 4. Give the title of the paper in the 'Title' box and then (a) enter/paste your abstract into the 'Abstract' box (remember that this is plain text only) and/or: (b) upload your abstract as a PDF file by clicking 'Choose File' under 'Upload Paper'; 5. At the top of your abstract, indicate whether you prefer an oral presentation, a poster, or either. Please do this by entering "oral presentation", "poster", or "oral presentation/poster" at the top of your abstract, above the title. 6. Type three or more keywords into the 'Keywords' box (these will help us choose reviewers for your abstract, as well as a possible thematic session for your paper); 7. When you are done, press 'Submit' at the bottom of the page. Selected conference presentations are published by UK-CLA in 'Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings' (ISSN 2046-9144). Key dates and information *NEW* Extended abstract deadline: 10 January 2014 Decisions communicated by: 21 February 2014 Early bird registration opens: 21 February 2014 Early bird registration closes: 31 March 2014 Registration closes: 1 June 2014 Conference dates: 29-31 July 2014 Queries: uk-clc5 at languageandcognition.net Professor/Yr Athro Vyv Evans Professor of/Yr Athro Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth www.vyvevans.net Prifysgol Bangor University General Editor of Language & Cognition A Cambridge University Press Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LCO President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.uk-cla.org.uk Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From Maj-Britt.MosegaardHansen at manchester.ac.uk Sun Dec 15 08:48:40 2013 From: Maj-Britt.MosegaardHansen at manchester.ac.uk (Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:48:40 +0000 Subject: Funding for postgraduate research - University of Manchester In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ________________________________ The Department of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Manchester, UK, invites applications from outstanding students for 2014-15 entry (start September 2014) for the following degree programmes: - PhD in English Language (3 years) - PhD in Linguistics (3 years) - 1+3 (MA + PhD) programme in Linguistics / English Language (4 years) High-ranking applications will be eligible for a range of competitive scholarships. Summaries of the eligibility criteria for each award, submission dates and additional links are provided further below. Please visit http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/fees/postgraduate-research-funding/ for details of the application process and further information. The Department of Linguistics and English Language is an international centre for Linguistics and English Language, with 20 full-time members of staff and approximately 30 Postgraduate Research students. It is unique in the UK and beyond in the breadth of subject areas and theoretical approaches represented by its members, many of whom are internationally renowned scholars in their specialisms. Areas of expertise include phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax (lexical-functional grammar, role and reference grammar, construction grammar, and minimalism), (formal) semantics, pragmatics, historical linguistics, dialectology, language contact, variational sociolinguistics, first language acquisition, field linguistics and language documentation, typology, and quantitative corpus-based approaches. In their research, members of the department combine the advancement of theoretical approaches with a strong concern for their empirical and methodological foundations. For more information about the research interests of individual members of staff and current postgraduate students, please visit http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/. Note that we cannot normally supervise projects with a primary focus on second language teaching and learning. PhD students in Linguistics and English Language are part of the diverse and dynamic postgraduate community in the new Graduate School of the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, and an outstanding and collegial research environment in the department. Students enjoy access to excellent library and IT resources and training provision which also includes the possibility of accessing training and facilities at the partner institutions, Lancaster University and Liverpool University. PhD Funding is available from the following sources – follow the links for further information: The President's Doctoral Scholar (PDS) Competition Eligibility: students of all nationalities and research areas starting in September 2013. The Award covers tuition fees (home/EU or international, as appropriate) and the equivalent of the research council stipend (£13,726 in 2013-14). Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 31 January 2014. Apply for the PDS award by Friday 21 February 2014. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Competition Eligibility: UK and EU students intending to take a PhD degree (+3) or an MA followed by a PhD (1+3) in an area related to the Social Sciences (including some subfields of linguistics). The award covers tuition fees and an annual maintenance stipend of £13,863 for UK residents and EU nationals who have lived in the UK for three years, and tuition fees only for EU residents. Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 17 January 2014. Apply for the ESRC award by Monday 3 February 2014. The University of Manchester is a member of the ESRC's North West Doctoral Training College (DTC), which receives the largest number of ESRC PhD studentships in England. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Competition Eligibility: UK and EU students intending to take a PhD degree (3 years) or an MA followed by a PhD (1+3) in an area of Arts and Humanities (including linguistics). The award covers tuition fees and an annual maintenance stipend of £13,863 for UK residents and EU nationals who have lived in the UK for three years, and tuition fees only for EU residents. Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 31 January 2014. Apply for the AHRC award by 5pm on Friday 21 February 2014. Applicants will be notified of the outcome of their application by 14th April 2014. The University of Manchester is a member of the AHRC-funded North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership (NWCDTP). In addition to the above awards, the School offers a number of Graduate Scholarships. These School awards are open to both Home/EU and Overseas students, and often come with the opportunity to teach or assist in research-related activities. Additional information about the application process for these awards will be found und [Highlight] er http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/fees/postgraduate-research-funding/. Informal inquiries about potential research topics and the academic side of the application process can be directed to the department’s Postgraduate Research Programme director, Prof Eva Schultze-Berndt (Eva.Schultze-Berndt at manchester.ac.uk). For questions about the administrative side of the application process, please contact Phdsalc at manchester.ac.uk. From collfitz at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:37:19 2013 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:37:19 -0600 Subject: CoLang 2014 Office Hours at the LSA in January Message-ID: *CoLang 2014 team to hold office hours at the Linguistic Society of America Meeting in Minneapolis on January 3rd and 4th. * CoLang 2014: the Institute on Collaborative Language Research will take place at The University of Texas at Arlington in June and July 2014. CoLang (previously known as InField) allows students, faculty, and indigenous community members to acquire or refine cutting edge skills in language documentation, revitalization and field linguistics, to network with established international experts in these areas, and to gain hands-on experience in working with endangered and underdescribed language communities through field methods offerings. An exciting development this year is our partnership with the Linguistic Society of America. Part of this co-sponsorship includes LSA scholarships to CoLang 2014, creating expanded opportunities for academic training in language documentation and field linguistics for (and by) a diverse group of indigenous community members,academic linguists and those involved in a wide variety of language documentation and revitalization activities. The CoLang 2014 team from UT Arlington will be holding office hours at the LSA on January 3rd and 4th, where we will have fliers and posters for you to take home to help us advertise CoLang, and we will also be available to answer any questions that you might have about attending CoLang. If you stop by, you can register to win a door prize in addition to getting a poster. If you know someone who is considering attending CoLang, be sure to tell them to stop by and see us. These are the office hours with locations for CoLang: Friday 9:00-10:30 a.m. - Symphony 1 Saturday 9-10:30 a.m., 2:00-4:00 p.m. - Directors Row 4 CoLang's two-week session, from June 16-27, 2014, consists of workshops in aspects of language documentation and revitalization and it costs $1450, which covers registration, room and board. Many attendees stay on for an additional four-weeks, which includes enrollment in a four-week field methods class, as well as the two weeks of workshops. Costs for the entire six-week session is $4300 (registration, room and board). The field methods classes give participants a firsthand experience in working with speakers of an endangered language to document and analyze the language. With three to four field methods classes scheduled, CoLang 2014 will be able to serve a large number of interested participants. This year, for the first time, we plan to offer a Spanish-medium field methods class featuring a language of Mexico. We should be announcing the languages for the field methods courses by February 1, 2014. The CoLang website is available: http://tinyurl.com/colang2014 Registration will open in January 2014; the final deadline for registration will be April 15, 2014. Online scholarship applications from the Linguistic Society of America and for CoLang 2014 internal scholarships will shortly be available; the due date for consideration for both is February 17, 2014. In addition, the Endangered Language Fund will also be offering a scholarship to CoLang 2014's two-week workshop session through its Native Voices Endowment, with a scholarship deadline of April 1, 2014. This scholarship is available for tribal members of those tribes that are eligible for the Native Voices Endowment. Full scholarship information and updates as they occur are at: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/scholarships/ For other questions or inquiries, please email us at uta2014institute at gmail.com. From benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se Sat Dec 21 10:57:49 2013 From: benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se (Benjamin Lyngfelt) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:57:49 +0000 Subject: Cfp: Workshop on Constructionist resources at ICCG-8 Message-ID: Workshop: Constructionist resources Organizers: Ellen Dodge, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Kyoko Ohara, Miriam R. L. Petruck & Tiago Torrent Construction Grammar has not only generated a wealth of linguistic research but also inspired the development of a number of linguistically motivated knowledge bases, which serve as resources for linguistics, language technology, and language pedagogy. The most well-known and long established of these databases is FrameNet, a large-scale and elaborate instantiation of Frame Semantics (e.g. Fillmore & Baker 2009). The first FrameNet was developed for English in Berkeley, and there are now FrameNets for quite a few languages. A complementary development are constructicons (e.g. Fillmore et al. 2012). In constructionist theory, a constructicon is the inventory of constructions that a language presumably consists of; as a practical application, a constructicon is a corresponding collection of construction descriptions. A third kind of resource is MetaNet (Dodge et al. 2013), a multilingual metaphor repository, based on the notion of conceptual metaphor, and organized according to the principles of Frame Semantics (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010) and Embodied Construction Grammar (Feldman et al. 2010). Both MetaNet and the constructicons build on FrameNet methodology and are intended to be compatible tools. We now invite papers on these and other construction related resources to a workshop at ICCG-8 (the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar) in Osnabrück, Germany, September 3–6 2014.This workshop will include both presentations of project-particular developments and discussions of how to connect the various resources in useful ways. Key topics are the relations between Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Conceptual Metaphors, as well as cross-linguistic applications of the resources. The deadline for abstract submission is January 15. Abstracts should not be longer than 1 page and should not exceed 400 words. Since all submissions will be reviewed anonymously, all author-specific information must be avoided. The time allotted for each presentation is 20 minutes plus a 10 minute discussion. Abstract reviewing is handled via EasyAbs, so please submit your abstract online to http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/cxnrec Information about the general conference can be found at http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ References Boas, Hans C. (ed.) (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dodge, Ellen, Jisup Hong, Elise Stickles & Oana David (2013). The MetaNet Wiki: A collaborative online resource for metaphor and image schema analysis. Talk presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge & John Bryant (2010). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 111–138. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker (2009). A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 313–339. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J., Russell Lee-Goldman & Russell Rhomieux (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, pp. 309–372. Stanford: CSLI. FrameNet. Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Julia Prentice, Rudolf Rydstedt, Emma Sköldberg & Sofia Tingsell (2012). Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop), pp. 452–461. Vienna. Ohara, Kyoko Hirose (2013). Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17: 11–27. Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Mirian R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: ICSI. Sköldberg, Emma, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Leif-Jöran Olsson, Julia Prentice, Rudolf Rydstedt, Sofia Tingsell & Jonatan Uppström (2013). Between Grammars and Dictionaries: a Swedish Constructicon. Proceedings of eLex 2013, pp. 310–327. Tallinn. Torrent, Tiago Timpani & Michael Ellsworth (2013). Behind the Labels: Criteria for Defining Analytical Categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas 17: 44–65. From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 16:10:44 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:44 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length Message-ID: Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short…probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this…or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sat Dec 21 18:37:13 2013 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:37:13 -0800 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. Marianne --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > Please excuse the double-posting. > > I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my > ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a > question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive > a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to > address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). > > As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes > are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme > segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological > theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be > of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 > is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal > view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 > words has to do with practical performance limitations." > > I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various > other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those > approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme > length. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Happy holidays to all, > > Dan Everett > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 18:56:15 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:56:15 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marianne, Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I had in mind originally. To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to derive an upper bound on morpheme length. "Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what "small" is and why. I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. Dan Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. > > Marianne > > --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > >> Please excuse the double-posting. >> >> I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my >> ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a >> question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive >> a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to >> address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). >> >> As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes >> are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme >> segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological >> theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be >> of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 >> is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal >> view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 >> words has to do with practical performance limitations." >> >> I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various >> other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those >> approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme >> length. >> >> Any help would be appreciated. >> >> Happy holidays to all, >> >> Dan Everett >> > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Dec 21 19:02:49 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:49 -0500 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <8B51E18F-12B0-4FBC-8596-93228AEAD37F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Doesn't every morpheme have to fit in short-term memory? "Everett, Daniel" wrote: >Marianne, > >Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. > >So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I >had in mind originally. > >To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the >matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have >said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to >derive an upper bound on morpheme length. > >"Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - >whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that >is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a >theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what >"small" is and why. > >I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, >that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. > >Dan > > Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > >> Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's >probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And >affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in >their development. >> >> Marianne >> >> --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" > wrote: >> >>> Please excuse the double-posting. >>> >>> I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly >show my >>> ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due >to a >>> question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to >derive >>> a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to >>> address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). >>> >>> As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all >morphemes >>> are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme >>> segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological >>> theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can >be >>> of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, >578 >>> is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my >ideal >>> view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length >624,578 >>> words has to do with practical performance limitations." >>> >>> I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and >various >>> other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But >those >>> approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to >morpheme >>> length. >>> >>> Any help would be appreciated. >>> >>> Happy holidays to all, >>> >>> Dan Everett >>> >> >> >> >> -- Angus. B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Dec 21 19:33:18 2013 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:33:18 +0200 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <8B51E18F-12B0-4FBC-8596-93228AEAD37F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: There are of course upper limits in individual languages. In non-borrowings at least in Mandarin Chinese it's 3, in Dinka it's 4, in Hebrew it's 5 (off-hand that's the most I can think of). I think in European languages it can be longer. John On 21.12.2013 20:56, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Marianne, > > Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. > > So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I had in mind originally. > > To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to derive an upper bound on morpheme length. > > "Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what "small" is and why. > > I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. > > Dan > > Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > >> Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. Marianne --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: >> >>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett Links: ------ [1] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 19:39:40 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:39:40 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan > 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. > > 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. > > 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. > > Best regards, > Bruce > > Bruce Hayes > Professor and Chair > Department of Linguistics, UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 > bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu > www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> >>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked > on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of > some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from > a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum > morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the > issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to > me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably > not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is > there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is > it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason > there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be > unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that > no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical > performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" > (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and > metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no > principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be > appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sat Dec 21 22:08:27 2013 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:08:27 -0700 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <10B8905D-D231-4BB8-A7F6-5A60D1FFB544@bentley.edu> Message-ID: The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan > 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. > > 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. > > 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. > > Best regards, > Bruce > > Bruce Hayes > Professor and Chair > Department of Linguistics, UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 > bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu > www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> >>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked > on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of > some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from > a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum > morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the > issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to > me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably > not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is > there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is > it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason > there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be > unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that > no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical > performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" > (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and > metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no > principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be > appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 22:15:24 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 22:15:24 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lise, Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. Thanks, Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): > > 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) > > 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds > > 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. > > Lise > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM > To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Folks, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. > > All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. > > -- Dan > > >> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >> >> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >> >> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >> >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> Bruce Hayes >> Professor and Chair >> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes > >>>> >>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Dec 22 21:05:48 2013 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:05:48 -0700 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lise Menn Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Lise, Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. Thanks, Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): > > 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) > > 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds > > 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. > > Lise > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM > To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Folks, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. > > All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. > > -- Dan > > >> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >> >> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >> >> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >> >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> Bruce Hayes >> Professor and Chair >> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes > >>>> >>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Dec 22 21:13:56 2013 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:13:56 +0200 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that folk etymologies (e.g. 'sparrow grass' for 'asparagus') might be one way to see what the 'comfortable' limit on phonemes per morpheme is. It may be that people only feel the need to make up folk etymologies with borrowings with more than a certain number of phonemes. John On 22.12.2013 23:05, Lise Menn wrote: > Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. > Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. > > Lise > > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Lise Menn > Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORGSubject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Lise, > > Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. > > Thanks, > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html [5] Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [6] [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [7]] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu [8]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG [9]Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan >> >>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. Best regards, Bruce Bruce Hayes Professor and Chair Department of Linguistics, UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu [1] www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes [2] >> >>>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >>> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett Links: ------ [1] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [3] Links: ------ [1] mailto:bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu [2] http://www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes [3] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [4] mailto:lise.menn at Colorado.EDU [5] http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html [6] mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [7] mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [8] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [9] mailto:LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sun Dec 22 22:39:00 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:39:00 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Lise, No disagreement necessarily. All accounts need to be formalized. For me the question is whether they are formalizations over structures or over functional, cultural, or other considerations e.g. cognition, climate, altitude, etc. There will always be some fundamental computational residue that needs its own account. These may or may not represent distinct components of the overall formalization. Grammars are composites of computational and other strategies. Divide and conquer may not be the best strategy in the sense that neither cognition, structure, or computation has privileged status. One may in one context but not another. All are not always needed. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 22, 2013, at 16:05, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. > Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. > > Lise > > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Lise Menn > Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Lise, > > Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. > > Thanks, > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: >> >> The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): >> >> 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) >> >> 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds >> >> 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. >> >> Lise >> Lise Menn >> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> ________________________________________ >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM >> To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >> >> Folks, >> >> Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. >> >> All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >>> >>> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >>> >>> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Bruce >>> >>> Bruce Hayes >>> Professor and Chair >>> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >>> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >>> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >>> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >> >>>>> >>>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >>> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >>> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >>> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >>> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >>> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >>> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >>> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >>> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >>> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >>> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >>> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >>> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >>> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >>> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >>> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >>> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >>> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] >>> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Mon Dec 23 05:38:23 2013 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 06:38:23 +0100 Subject: formal vs. functional account In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lise says that "a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account", but Dan's original question was about human language *in general*. So I don't quite agree with her: I'd say we need "formal accounts" (schemas/constructions like Bruce's three-foot constraint) at the language-particular level, but functional accounts at the general level, to account for cross-linguistically general phenomena. So it's not about "different folks" having different preferences. It's about different problems requiring different solutions. In the generative approach, the two things are conflated and constructions/schemas/rules are assumed to take care of cross-linguistic generalizations as well, not just of language-particular generalizations. That's just wrong, it seems to me. The case of morph length is just one (particularly spectacular, or trivial, depending on your perspective) example: A generaivist would have to formulate a UG principle that accounts for the relatively uniform length of morphs. That the explanation is functional (referring to neighbourhood density, or simply ambiguity avoidance, as Lise mentioned) is really obvious here. Any language-particular constraints that one would identify are only distantly related to the functional explanation of the cross-linguistic trend. Greetings, Martin -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Am 12/22/13 11:39 PM, schrieb Everett, Daniel: > Dear Lise, > > No disagreement necessarily. > > All accounts need to be formalized. For me the question is whether they are formalizations over structures or over functional, cultural, or other considerations e.g. cognition, climate, altitude, etc. There will always be some fundamental computational residue that needs its own account. These may or may not represent distinct components of the overall formalization. Grammars are composites of computational and other strategies. Divide and conquer may not be the best strategy in the sense that neither cognition, structure, or computation has privileged status. One may in one context but not another. All are not always needed. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 22, 2013, at 16:05, "Lise Menn" wrote: >> >> Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. >> Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. >> >> Lise >> >> Lise Menn >> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> ________________________________________ >> From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM >> To: Lise Menn >> Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >> >> Lise, >> >> Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: >>> >>> The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): >>> >>> 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) >>> >>> 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds >>> >>> 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. >>> >>> Lise >>> Lise Menn >>> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >>> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM >>> To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. >>> >>> All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. >>> >>> -- Dan >>> >>> >>>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >>>> >>>> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >>>> >>>> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> Bruce Hayes >>>> Professor and Chair >>>> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >>>> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >>>> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >>>> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Dec 23 13:55:19 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:55:19 -0500 Subject: formal vs. functional account In-Reply-To: <52B7CC4F.90400@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: On 12/23/2013 12:38 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > Lise says that "a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate > the need for a formal account", but Dan's original question was about > human language *in general*. So I don't quite agree with her: > > I'd say we need "formal accounts" (schemas/constructions like Bruce's > three-foot constraint) at the language-particular level, but > functional accounts at the general level, to account for > cross-linguistically general phenomena. So it's not about "different > folks" having different preferences. It's about different problems > requiring different solutions. I don't quite agree with either of you! ;-) http://grieve-smith.com/blog/2013/11/im-an-instrumentalist-are-you-one-too/ From an instrumentalist perspective, no theory (or type of theory) is *required* as long as there's another theory that can fulfill the same function. Formal accounts may be the best thing we've found so far for capturing the way particular communities use their language, but that doesn't mean that nothing better is possible. As an analogy, I'm currently replacing my Brita water filter. In the past I've always bought Brita branded filters because those were the only ones I ever saw that fitted, but recently I saw some store-brand filters and bought them. So this problem required a particular solution - until it didn't. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From wcroft at unm.edu Tue Dec 24 02:14:51 2013 From: wcroft at unm.edu (William Croft) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:14:51 +0000 Subject: Trends Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] generative grammar, cognitive linguistics formal linguistics, functional linguistics Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. Happy Holidays, Bill Croft From rcameron at uic.edu Tue Dec 24 02:17:30 2013 From: rcameron at uic.edu (Cameron, Richard) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:17:30 -0600 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: So, Bill, what trends did you see? - Richard Cameron On Mon, December 23, 2013 8:14 pm, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books > Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who > have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token > frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google > Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token > frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); > some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token > frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of > "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many > references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent > trends are interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > > From macw at cmu.edu Tue Dec 24 02:36:44 2013 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:36:44 -0500 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Both slope and the scale on the ordinate are important. If you contrast “Chomskyan linguistics” and “corpus linguistics” you get a similar rising slope but the latter is 10 times more frequent than the former. Interestingly, the sharply rising profiles for “cognitive linguistics” and “corpus linguistics” are very similar. The steepest and most recent rise I found was for “embodied cognition” but its raw frequency is still low. Too bad we can’t see the last 5 years for that one. One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in “generative grammar” but maybe that was because terminology shifted to “Universal grammar”, but that was also in decline and “transformational grammar” is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. Best wishes, —Brian MacWhinney On Dec 23, 2013, at 9:14 PM, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Tue Dec 24 02:53:14 2013 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:53:14 -0500 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is FUN! I have looked at so many things already, trying to keep them unambiguous (which is the hard part). So far the most interesting to me is the parallel rise of "psycholinguistics" and "sociolinguistics" until the late 1970s. After that, psycholinguistics took a dive, and sociolinguistics has held steady or risen a bit (I don't know the sample size, but assume it's big enough that any apparent difference is likely to be statistically significant). The crossover for psycho/sociolinguistics came around 1982. This link will make a great Christmas "present" for just about anyone! Hours of fun guaranteed! ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Psychology and Linguistics University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Both slope and the scale on the ordinate are important. If you contrast “Chomskyan linguistics” and “corpus linguistics” you get a similar rising slope but the latter is 10 times more frequent than the former. Interestingly, the sharply rising profiles for “cognitive linguistics” and “corpus linguistics” are very similar. The steepest and most recent rise I found was for “embodied cognition” but its raw frequency is still low. Too bad we can’t see the last 5 years for that one. > > One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in “generative grammar” but maybe that was because terminology shifted to “Universal grammar”, but that was also in decline and “transformational grammar” is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. > > Best wishes, > > —Brian MacWhinney > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 9:14 PM, William Croft wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. >> We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: >> >> linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] >> generative grammar, cognitive linguistics >> formal linguistics, functional linguistics >> >> Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. >> >> Happy Holidays, >> Bill Croft >> > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Dec 24 05:29:03 2013 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:29:03 +0100 Subject: Trends and labels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian MacWhinney wrote: > One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in “generative grammar” but maybe that was because terminology shifted to “Universal grammar”, but that was also in decline and “transformational grammar” is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. What I think has happened over the last 15 years is that generative grammarians increasingly just take their approach as default and don't label it at all. For example, the journal "Syntax" just published hard-core generative syntax, and likewise for the Blackwell "Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory". This may not be very scientific, but it seems to work. So maybe it will be a good sign if at some time in the future, the Ngram viewer shows a drop in labels like "cognitive/functional linguistics", because we don't have to label our approach anymore. Season's Greetings, Martin -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de ) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 From Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Dec 24 09:39:34 2013 From: Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:39:34 +0100 Subject: Trends and labels In-Reply-To: <52B91B9F.7000207@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Both Brian's and Martin's points are well taken. "Minimalist program" has become a new specific term used in formalist circles over the last two decades (plot it against "construction grammar", from 1990 till 2008 - hopeful trend?). Or take "theoretical linguistics" as another GENERAL term appropriated by formalists (plot it against "corpus linguistics", from 1980 till 2008). Happy holidays, --Arie Verhagen ------ Original Message ------ From: Martin Haspelmath Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:29:03 +0100 Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Trends and labels > Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >> One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see >> a clear decline in “generative grammar” but maybe that was because >> terminology shifted to “Universal grammar”, but that was also in >> decline and “transformational grammar” is nearing extinction. But, >> still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on >> the rise and we are just missing it. > > What I think has happened over the last 15 years is that generative > grammarians increasingly just take their approach as default and don't > label it at all. For example, the journal "Syntax" just published > hard-core generative syntax, and likewise for the Blackwell "Handbook of > contemporary syntactic theory". > > This may not be very scientific, but it seems to work. So maybe it will > be a good sign if at some time in the future, the Ngram viewer shows a > drop in labels like "cognitive/functional linguistics", because we don't > have to label our approach anymore. > > Season's Greetings, > Martin > From silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it Fri Dec 27 07:57:24 2013 From: silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it (Silvia CACCHIANI) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:57:24 +0100 Subject: conference announcement/cfps: Non-word morphology; ESSE2014; 29 Aug 2014 - 2 Sept 204, Kosice, Slovakia] Message-ID: ESSE 2014 Seminar – Linguistics strand (SLANG28) 29 August 2014 – 2 September 2014, Kosice, Slovakia http://kaa.ff.upjs.sk/en/event/4/12th-esse-conference Full title: Non-words, nonce-words and morphology teaching Acronym: NWM: NON-WORD MORPHOLOGY Call for papers The seminar ‘Non-words, Nonce-words and Morphology Teaching’ will be held within the 12th ESSE Conference in Košice, Slovakia. Convenors Silvia Cacchiani, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy Christoph Haase, Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic While psycho- and neurolinguistics (e.g. Marslen-Wilson 1987, 2007, Kielar et al. 2008, Rastle et al. 2008, Crepaldi 2010) have shown increasing interest in the representation of non-words, nonce-words or nonsensical words in the mental lexicon, their potential as a yardstick for the morphological competence of L2 learners has not been widely explored. The aim of this seminar is to bring together theoretical and applied research on non-words, nonce-words, and the teaching of English morphology. Suggested topics include (but are not restricted to): – morphological processes in language comprehension, also models of word recognition; – analogy in morphology and analogy in L2 learning; – best practice in morphology teaching; – learner access to lexical strata, feature percolation and permissibility, and related performance. Please send your abstract totaling no more than 300 words (including references) by February 1st 2014 to the following addresses: silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it, christoph.haase at ujep.cz. From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Sat Dec 28 00:03:32 2013 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 00:03:32 +0000 Subject: 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistic Message-ID: Dear colleagues, This is a reminder about the call for papers for the 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics/ VI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística de Corpus (CILC2014) that will take place 22-24 May 2014 at the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The deadline for submissions is January 27, 2014 via EasyChair. Please, check the conference website for further information: http://www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6/. All the best, Francisco Alonso On behalf of the Organizing Committee From paulibbotson at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 12:11:04 2013 From: paulibbotson at gmail.com (Paul Ibbotson) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:11:04 +0000 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have a paper that uses Google Ngram to explore the un-construction in English. Link below for those who are interested. http://www.frontiersin.org/Language_Sciences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00989/abstract Best wishes, Paul Ibbotson On 24 December 2013 02:14, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books > Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have > not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency > of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you > separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple > strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); > some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token > frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive > linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to > articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are > interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > > From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Wed Dec 4 11:16:32 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 11:16:32 +0000 Subject: Extended deadline: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities Conference 2014 Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 24-26 APRIL 2014, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK The deadline for abstracts has been extended to 13 December 2013. Abstracts should be sent to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk. Please see attached Call for Papers for full details of the conference, keynote speakers, and the submissions process. Enquiries should be directed to Dr Peter Garratt, peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk. Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson (Boston College) Patricia Waugh (Durham University) Mark Rowlands (University of Miami) David Herman (Durham University) Alan Palmer (Independent scholar) Vyvyan Evans (Bangor University) We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts ? Language, meaning and cognitive processing ? Embodied cognition ? Phenomenology of technologies ? Cognitive poetics and interpretation ? Social minds ? Theory of mind and mind-blindness ? The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity ? Empirical aesthetics ? Extended cognition ? Ideology and the cognitive sciences ? Cognitive approaches to visual culture ? Thinking and feeling in narrative ? Cognitive historicism ? Animal consciousness and perspective ? Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 13th December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver busaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Thu Dec 5 10:02:43 2013 From: kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be (Kristel Van Goethem) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:02:43 +0100 Subject: Second call for papers: "Category change from a constructional perspective" Deadline 09/12/2013 Message-ID: Second call for papers: ?Category change from a constructional perspective? Call deadline: December 9, 2013 Workshop convenors: * Muriel Norde (Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin) : muriel.norde at hu-berlin.de * Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.-FNRS, Universit? catholique de Louvain) : kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Workshop discussant: Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh) Call for papers This is a workshop proposal to be submitted to the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8), which will be held at the University of Osnabrueck, 3-6 September, 2014. If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please send both of us a title by December 9, 2013, so we can submit our proposal (including a provisional list of participants and titles) to the ICCG8 conference organizers. If our proposal is accepted, participants will be invited to submit a full abstract (400 words) by February 1, 2014. Conference website: http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ Workshop description Category change, i.e. the shift from one word class to another or from free categories to bound categories, is inherent to many different types of change, yet it is usually not given much consideration. The aim of this workshop, therefore, will be to bring category change itself to the fore, as a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right. Adopting a rather broad definition of ?category?, which includes both single words and multi-word units, we will explore how categories change and why some shifts are more frequent than others. In particular, we want to examine whether a constructional perspective enhances our understanding of category change. In our workshop, focus will be on three topics: (i) types of category change, (ii) degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity, and (iii) directionality. Types of category change Category change may result from different processes. The first process is commonly termed ?non-affixal derivation? or ?conversion?, as in the following examples from French (Kerleroux 1996) and English (Denison 2010). (1) calmeA ?calm? > calmeN ?calmness? (2) dailyA newspaper > dailyN The second process is category change determined by a specific syntactic context, or ?distorsion cat?gorielle? (Kerleroux 1996), as in (3), likewise from French: (3) Elle est d?un courageux! ?(lit. She is of a brave) She is very brave? However, there is no strict boundary between the processes exemplified in (1-2) and (3), as suggested by cases such as Elle est d?un calme! ?lit. She is of a calm; She is very calm?. In this example, the nominal use of calme can be accounted for both as conversion and as context-internal category change. Third, category change can be linked to processes of univerbation with structural change (Denison 2010), e.g. the use of English far from as an adverbial downtoner in (4) (De Smet 2012), or the development of the German pronoun neizwer out of a Middle High German sentence (5) (Haspelmath 1997: 131). (4) The life of a ?beauty queen? is far from beautiful. (web) (5) ne weiz wer ?I don?t know who? > neizwer ?somebody? A fourth type is one in which an item shifts category in the wake of the category shift of another item, e.g. the shift of Swedish adverbs in ?vis to adjectives when the head of a VP is nominalized: (6) Samh?llet f?randras gradvisADV. ?Society changes gradually? (7) Den gradvisaADJ f?r?ndringen av samh?llet. ?The gradual change of society? Finally, category change may be part of a grammaticalization change, i.e. ?the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions? (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18), such as the grammaticalization of English to be going to from main verb to future auxiliary in (8-9). Such gradual grammaticalization processes may account for synchronic gradience (Traugott & Trousdale 2010). (8) I [am going to]MAIN V the train station. (9) I [am going to]AUX be a star. Degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity The different types of category shift mentioned above can be arranged on a continuum, from abrupt to gradual and from context-independent to context-sensitive. While the A > N conversions in (1-2) are abrupt and context-independent processes, shifts from N > A are often gradual and determined by the syntactic environment, as in the case of keyN > keyA in English (10a) and French (10b) (Amiot & Van Goethem 2012; Denison 2001, 2010; De Smet 2012; Van Goethem & De Smet (forthc.)). (10)a. This is a really key point. b. Ceci est un point vraiment cl?. However, similar developments in related languages may be characterized differently, as suggested by a contrastive case study on the adjectival uses of Dutch top and German spitze ?top? (Van Goethem & H?ning 2013). The category change in Dutch (11) seems abrupt, but the German (12) spelling of S/spitze and inflection of the preceding adjective/adverb is suggestive of a gradual development. (11)het was (de) absolute topN / het was absoluut topA ?lit. it was absolute(ly) top? (12)das war absolute SpitzeN / das war absolute spitzeN/A / das war absolut SpitzeN/A / das war absolut spitzeA ?lit. it was absolute(ly) top? Directionality Whereas in earlier work (e.g. Lehmann 1995 [1982], Haspelmath 2004) the view prevailed that only changes from major to minor categories are possible, research on degrammaticalization (Norde 2009) has shown that changes from minor to major word classes, albeit less frequently attested, are possible as well. In addition, specific items have been shown to change categories more than once in the course of their histories, in alternating stages of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. One example is degrammaticalization of the Dutch numeral suffix -tig ?-ty? into an indefinite quantifier meaning ?dozens?, followed by grammaticalization into an intensifier meaning ?very? (Norde 2006). Another example is the autonomous (adjectival/adverbial) use of Dutch intensifying prefixoids (Booij 2010: 60-61), such as Dutch reuze ?giant?, which underwent multiple category changes (Van Goethem & Hiligsmann, forthc.; Norde & Van Goethem, in prep.), first from noun to intensifying affixoid (13) (grammaticalization) and later on into an adjective/adverb (14-15) (degrammaticalization): (13)Verder kunnen we reuzegoed met elkaar opschieten ?Besides we get along very well (lit. giant-well)? (COW2012) (14)Ik zou het gewoon weg reuze vinden als je eens langs kwam. ?I really think it would be great (lit. giant) if you came by once.? (COW 2012) (15)Reuze bedankt! ?Thanks a lot? Finally, category shift may be ?non-directional?, in the sense that the input and output categories are of the same level, e.g. in shifts from one major word class to the other (examples (1-2)), or the transference of nominal case markers to verbal tense ? aspect markers, such as the shift, in Kala Lagau Ya, from dative marker ?pa to (verbal) completive marker (Blake 2001; examples (16-17)). (16)Nuy ay-pa amal-pa he food-dat mother-dat ?He [went] for food for mother? (17)Ngoeba uzar-am-pa 1dual.inclusive go-dual.incompletive ?We two will go (are endeavouring to go)? The constructional perspective The central aim of the workshop will be to investigate whether category change can be explained more accurately by analyzing it as an instance of ?constructionalization? (Bergs & Diewald 2008; Traugott & Trousdale 2013 (forthc.)), which involves ?a sequence of changes in the form and meaning poles of a construction, whereby new formal configurations come to serve particular functions, and to encode new meanings? (Trousdale & Norde 2013: 36). In this workshop, we welcome both theoretically and empirically oriented papers that account for category change from a constructional perspective. Research questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1: What is the status of category change in a diachronic construction grammar framework (e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2013) and how can the different types outlined above be accounted for? Are categories grammatical primitives, or the epiphenomenal result of constructions in the sense of Croft 2001? 2: How can the notions of gradualness and context-sensitivity be modelled in a constructional framework? Does the gradualness of some category shifts imply that categories synchronically form a ?continuous spectrum? (Langacker 1987: 18) or does it merely mean that a given item may belong to two or more categories whereas ?the categories in question can nevertheless be clearly delimited? (Aarts 2007: 242)? 3: Is category change a change in form which together with a change in meaning constitutes a constructionalization change and if so, is it the shift itself or changes in morphosyntactic properties (e.g. decategorialization) that are associated with it? 4: How does the distinction between lexical and grammatical constructionalization link in to the different types of category change (abrupt vs gradual, morphological vs syntactic, context-independent vs context-sensitive, word-level vs construction-level)? 5: Which role can be assigned to the notion of ?category? in constructional networks? References Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amiot, D. & K. Van Goethem 2012. A constructional account of French -cl? 'key' and Dutch sleutel- 'key' as in mot-cl? / sleutelwoord 'keyword'. Morphology 22. 347-364. Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blake, B. J. 2001. Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COW (Corpora from the web) http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/cow/colibri/ [ Sch?fer, R. & F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new effcient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, ELRA, 486?493.] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Smet, H. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88.3. 601-633. Denison, D. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 119-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, D. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds) Up and down the cline ? the nature of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerleroux, F. 1996. La coupure invisible. ?tudes de syntaxe et de morphologie. Villeneuve d?Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I : Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA : Stanford University Press. Lehmann, Chr. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Norde, M. 2006. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig. Tabu 35. 33-60. Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, M. & K. Van Goethem. in prep. Emancipatie van affixen en affixo?den: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Submitted. Traugott, E.C. & G. Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2013 (Forthc.). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trousdale G. & M. Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32-46. Van Goethem, K. & H. De Smet. Forthc. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast. Van Goethem, K. & Ph. Hiligsmann. Forthc. When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ?giant; great?. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Van Goethem, K. & M. H?ning. 2013. Debonding of Dutch and German compounds. Paper presented at the Germanic Sandwich Conference, Leuven, Jan. 2013. Kristel Van Goethem Chercheuse qualifi?e F.R.S.-FNRS Universit? catholique de Louvain Institut Langage et Communication/P?le Linguistique Coll?ge Erasme Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.33 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve bureau c.383 T?l. (0032) 10 47 48 42 kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be http://uclouvain.academia.edu/KVanGoethem From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Dec 6 21:54:46 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 21:54:46 +0000 Subject: Extended deadline: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities Conference 2014 In-Reply-To: <1c947350a5e44c36b9e67d20becf90eb@AMSPR03MB018.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 24-26 APRIL 2014, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK The deadline for abstracts has been extended to 13 December 2013. Abstracts should be sent to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk. Please see the Call for Papers , below, for full details of the conference, keynote speakers, and the submissions process. Enquiries should be directed to Dr Peter Garratt, peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk. Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson (Boston College) Patricia Waugh (Durham University) Mark Rowlands (University of Miami) David Herman (Durham University) Alan Palmer (Independent scholar) Vyvyan Evans (Bangor University) We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts ? Language, meaning and cognitive processing ? Embodied cognition ? Phenomenology of technologies ? Cognitive poetics and interpretation ? Social minds ? Theory of mind and mind-blindness ? The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity ? Empirical aesthetics ? Extended cognition ? Ideology and the cognitive sciences ? Cognitive approaches to visual culture ? Thinking and feeling in narrative ? Cognitive historicism ? Animal consciousness and perspective ? Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 13th December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver busaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu Tue Dec 10 03:22:02 2013 From: iwasaki at humnet.ucla.edu (Iwasaki, Shoichi) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:22:02 +0000 Subject: Workshop announcement (University of Hawaii) Message-ID: Call for papers Fiction and Practice in Japanese: ?Virtual Language? and ?Gender in Language? Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures, the University of Hawai?i at Manoa will host a one-day workshop on ?Virtual Language? and ?Gender in Language? on Saturday, February 15, 2014. ?Virtual language? is a type of speech associated with fictional characters found in comic books and translated speeches in novels and movies. ?Japanese? spoken by Tom Sawyer in translation, or overly feminine ?Japanese? spoken by Marilyn Monroe in her movies are examples of virtual language. We are surrounded by virtual language, but are rarely conscious about its existence. We solicit abstracts of papers discussing topics related to the conference theme such as ?gender and language,? ?language in translation,? ?language in media,? and ?textbook language.? Keynote Speakers: Dr. Satoshi Kinsui (Osaka University) Dr. Momoko Nakamura (Kanto Gakuin University) ? Paper abstract submission An abstract should be no more than 300 words (excluding references). We only accept electronic submission. Prepare either MS Word or pdf files. ? Send the abstract via email attachment. ? Do not include any information that may reveal your identity in the abstract ? No changes in the title or the author?s names will be possible after acceptance. ? Please write the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), affiliation, email address and phone number in the body of your email message. Deadline All submission must be received by Monday, January 6, 2014 Send submissions to: iwasaki9 at hawaii.edu Acceptance announcement will be sent by January 11, 2014. Respond with your acceptance by January 15, 2014. If we do not hear from you by this date, we will assign your spot to someone else. A modest registration fee may be requested. Organizers: Shoichi Iwasaki Haruko Cook From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 11:17:30 2013 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:17:30 +0800 Subject: postdoctoral opportunities Message-ID: Postdoctoral Fellowships 2014 The Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS), College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, invites applications for postdoctoral fellowships for the Academic Year 2014. CLASS Postdoctoral Fellowships The successful candidates will be appointed as CLASS Postdoctoral Fellows and affiliated with one or more than one of the constituent schools of the College?namely, School of Art, Design, and Media (ADM), School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), and the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI). Applications are welcome for the three research themes below. For each of the themes, we are particularly interested in candidates whose expertise spans more than one of the following fields: Art, Design and Media, Art History, Art Theory, Broadcast and Cinema Studies, Cultural Studies, Chinese, Communication Research, Economics, English, History, Information Studies, Journalism and Publishing, Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, Literary Studies, Philosophy, Psychology, Public Policy and Global Affairs, Public and Promotional Communication, and Sociology. 1. Global Cities 2. Health, Culture and Society 3. Interdisciplinary Humanities Please the following link for more detailed information: http://cohass.ntu.edu.sg/Research/Pages/PostdoctoralFellowships2014.aspx ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-80, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ From grvsmth at panix.com Tue Dec 10 15:19:31 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:19:31 -0500 Subject: CFP: Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon, New York City In-Reply-To: <3EDCC4D1C1E84449AC6094C45CE4353704639F433148@SQNEW07MAIL.admin.ads.stjohns.edu> Message-ID: My colleague Ninah Beliavsky is organizing this conference here in New York on the application of formulaic lexicography to teaching English. I hope to see some of you there! -Angus B. Grieve-Smith Saint John's University grvsmth at panix.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Jeffrey Fagen *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 4:01 PM *To:* Jeffrey Fagen *Subject:* FW: Conference on the Manhattan Campus: Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon ****PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED CALL FOR PAPERS**** *One of the main features of Academic Discourse is the use of "Preforms" or Preformulations, which are known as chunks, lexical phrases or formulaic sequences. It is a remarkably promising activity in intermediate and advanced ESL classes to teach students (1) some of the more popular Preforms, (2) the methods of recognizing them in texts, and (3) the manner in which they can be used with great effect. Students are very enthusiastic about learning to write beginning Academic English. * * This has been done by Dr. Ninah Beliavsky and Dr. Clyde Coreil, co-chairs of the conference on "Teaching the Formulaic Lexicon." Methods based on this principle will be the focus of fifteen, 25-minute presentations plus two plenary addresses. The place is St. John's University Manhattan Campus. The date is April 19, 2014. The fee is $65. Full versions of the 300-3,000 wordpresentations will be printed in proper book form by September 1, 2014.* * Some of the methods are discussed in great detail in Coreil's /Term Papers and Academic Writing: Setting New Parameters/ available on Amazon.com. * Dr. Ninah Beliavsky Associate Professor Dept. Languages and Literatures Coordinator of ESL Modern Hebrew St. John's University St. John Hall 434f 8000 Utopia Parkway Queens, NY 11439 718-990-5262 718-990-1929 beliavsn at stjohns.edu From danjiesu at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 17:53:24 2013 From: danjiesu at gmail.com (Danjie Su) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:53:24 -0800 Subject: Call-for-papers: AMPRA Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Thank you for your attention. Please see below the call-for-papers of the 2nd Conference of the American Pragmatics Association. Best, Daisy _______________________ Danjie Su PhD Student Asian Languages and Cultures UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095 danjiesu at gmail.com www.danjiesu.com *2nd Conference of the American Pragmatics Association* October 17-19, 2014 at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 2nd Call for Papers Call Deadline: 15-Apr-2014 The goal of the joint conference is to promote both theoretical and applied research in pragmatics, and bring together scholars who are interested in different subfields of pragmatics (philosophical, linguistic, cognitive, social, intercultural, interlanguage, etc.). Three main topics of the conference are as follows: 1. Pragmatics theories: neo-Gricean approaches, relevance theory, theory of mind, meaning, role of context, grammaticalization, semantics-pragmatics interface, explicature, implicature, speech act theory, presuppositions, im/politeness, experimental pragmatics, etc. 2. Intercultural, cross-cultural and societal aspects of pragmatics: research involving more than one language and culture or varieties of one language, lingua franca, technologically mediated communication, bilinguals? and heritage speakers? language use, intercultural misunderstandings, effect of dual language and multilingual systems on the development and use of pragmatic skills, language of aggression and conflict, etc. 3. Applications: usage and corpus-based approaches, pragmatic competence, teachability and learnability of pragmatic skills, pragmatic variations within one language and across languages, developmental pragmatics, etc. Conference website: http://ampra.appling.ucla.edu/ AMPRA website: http://www.albany.edu/ampra/index.html *Email address for inquires*: ampra14ucla at gmail.com Abstracts (max. 300 words) are invited for papers on any topic relevant to the fields of pragmatics and intercultural communication. When submitting the abstract the presenter should indicate which of the three main topics (1. Pragmatics theory, 2. Intercultural, cross-cultural, societal aspects of pragmatics, 3. Applications) s/he thinks the abstract belongs to. *Online submission* is at http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/Ampra2014 *Abstract deadline*: 15 April 2014 *Notification of acceptance*: 1 June 2014 Please, include your name, affiliation and email address. Abstracts will be double-blind peer-reviewed, and should include sufficient details to allow reviewers to judge the scientific merits of the work. Paper presentations will be allowed 20 minutes, plus 10 minutes for questions. All presentations will be in English. Panels are welcome. Panel organizers should send an abstract of the panel (max. 300 words) and abstracts of the panel participants as an email attachment toampra14ucla at gmail.com. The deadline for panels is the same as for papers: 15 April 2014. *Publication:* Two volumes of selected papers (Mouton de Gruyter, John Benjamins) are planned. *Co-Chairs* Katrina Daly Thompson (UCLA) Olga Yokoyama (UCLA) Istvan Kecskes (AMPRA President) *Organizing Committee* Lindy Comstock Katrina Daly Thompson Nickolas De Carlo Natalia Konstantinovskaia Don Lee Jori Lindley Ingrid Norrmann-Vigil Danjie Su Hongyin Tao Wei Wang Patricia Wiley Olga Yokoyama From reng at rice.edu Fri Dec 13 20:06:01 2013 From: reng at rice.edu (Robert Englebretson) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:06:01 -0600 Subject: Latest on the plight of Rice Linguistics Message-ID: Colleagues, For those of you who have been following the ongoing threat to our graduate program, here's the latest. We submitted our response to the administration's termination proposal: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/71092077/Linguistics%20Response%20to%20phasing%20out%20document%20redacted.pdf This is a slightly-redacted version (the only difference from the original is that potentially-confidential e-mails have been redacted from Appendices 7-8). Best, --Robert Englebretson From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Dec 13 21:08:22 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:08:22 +0000 Subject: UK-CLC5 conference: Jan 10th extended deadline for abstract submission Message-ID: 5th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference: Empirical Approaches to Language and Cognition 29-31 July 2014, Lancaster University, United Kingdom Final Call for Papers (*NEW* extended deadline): 10th January 2014 We invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. Plenary speakers: * Daniel Casasanto (University of Chicago) * Alan Cienki (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) * William Croft (University of New Mexico) * Adele Goldberg (Princeton University) * Stefan Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) * Elena Semino (Lancaster University) The conference aims to cover a broad range of research concerned with language and cognition. We will be especially interested in promoting strongly empirical work. To this end, we intend to organise (some of) the papers into thematic sessions, with our plenary speakers acting as discussants. The themes will be: * embodiment * gesture * typology and constructional analyses of the languages of the world * acquisition * corpora and statistical methods * metaphor and discourse In addition to these themes, submissions on other aspects of the field are also welcome, including: * domains and frame semantics * categorisation, prototypes and polysemy * mental spaces and conceptual blending * language evolution * linguistic variation and language change * cognitive linguistic approaches to language teaching Talks will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and discussion. There will also be a poster session. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of max. 300 words (excl. references) should be submitted using EasyChair: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ukclc5. Participants may submit abstracts for no more than one single-authored paper and one joint-authored paper. Abstracts must be anonymous, and should be submitted in plain text and/or PDF format. If you need phonetic characters, please ensure that they are displayed correctly. To submit an abstract you must use your existing EasyChair login details. If you have not registered with EasyChair before, please do so using the link above. Once you have created an account or signed in follow the following steps: 1. Click on the 'New Submission' link at the top of the page; 2. Agree to the terms and conditions (if prompted); 3. Fill in the relevant information about the author or authors; 4. Give the title of the paper in the 'Title' box and then (a) enter/paste your abstract into the 'Abstract' box (remember that this is plain text only) and/or: (b) upload your abstract as a PDF file by clicking 'Choose File' under 'Upload Paper'; 5. At the top of your abstract, indicate whether you prefer an oral presentation, a poster, or either. Please do this by entering "oral presentation", "poster", or "oral presentation/poster" at the top of your abstract, above the title. 6. Type three or more keywords into the 'Keywords' box (these will help us choose reviewers for your abstract, as well as a possible thematic session for your paper); 7. When you are done, press 'Submit' at the bottom of the page. Selected conference presentations are published by UK-CLA in 'Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings' (ISSN 2046-9144). Key dates and information *NEW* Extended abstract deadline: 10 January 2014 Decisions communicated by: 21 February 2014 Early bird registration opens: 21 February 2014 Early bird registration closes: 31 March 2014 Registration closes: 1 June 2014 Conference dates: 29-31 July 2014 Queries: uk-clc5 at languageandcognition.net Professor/Yr Athro Vyv Evans Professor of/Yr Athro Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth www.vyvevans.net Prifysgol Bangor University General Editor of Language & Cognition A Cambridge University Press Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LCO President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.uk-cla.org.uk Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - 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 dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a 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. 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. From Maj-Britt.MosegaardHansen at manchester.ac.uk Sun Dec 15 08:48:40 2013 From: Maj-Britt.MosegaardHansen at manchester.ac.uk (Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 08:48:40 +0000 Subject: Funding for postgraduate research - University of Manchester In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ________________________________ The Department of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Manchester, UK, invites applications from outstanding students for 2014-15 entry (start September 2014) for the following degree programmes: - PhD in English Language (3 years) - PhD in Linguistics (3 years) - 1+3 (MA + PhD) programme in Linguistics / English Language (4 years) High-ranking applications will be eligible for a range of competitive scholarships. Summaries of the eligibility criteria for each award, submission dates and additional links are provided further below. Please visit http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/fees/postgraduate-research-funding/ for details of the application process and further information. The Department of Linguistics and English Language is an international centre for Linguistics and English Language, with 20 full-time members of staff and approximately 30 Postgraduate Research students. It is unique in the UK and beyond in the breadth of subject areas and theoretical approaches represented by its members, many of whom are internationally renowned scholars in their specialisms. Areas of expertise include phonetics and phonology, morphology, syntax (lexical-functional grammar, role and reference grammar, construction grammar, and minimalism), (formal) semantics, pragmatics, historical linguistics, dialectology, language contact, variational sociolinguistics, first language acquisition, field linguistics and language documentation, typology, and quantitative corpus-based approaches. In their research, members of the department combine the advancement of theoretical approaches with a strong concern for their empirical and methodological foundations. For more information about the research interests of individual members of staff and current postgraduate students, please visit http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/. Note that we cannot normally supervise projects with a primary focus on second language teaching and learning. PhD students in Linguistics and English Language are part of the diverse and dynamic postgraduate community in the new Graduate School of the School of Arts, Languages and Cultures, and an outstanding and collegial research environment in the department. Students enjoy access to excellent library and IT resources and training provision which also includes the possibility of accessing training and facilities at the partner institutions, Lancaster University and Liverpool University. PhD Funding is available from the following sources ? follow the links for further information: The President's Doctoral Scholar (PDS) Competition Eligibility: students of all nationalities and research areas starting in September 2013. The Award covers tuition fees (home/EU or international, as appropriate) and the equivalent of the research council stipend (?13,726 in 2013-14). Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 31 January 2014. Apply for the PDS award by Friday 21 February 2014. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Competition Eligibility: UK and EU students intending to take a PhD degree (+3) or an MA followed by a PhD (1+3) in an area related to the Social Sciences (including some subfields of linguistics). The award covers tuition fees and an annual maintenance stipend of ?13,863 for UK residents and EU nationals who have lived in the UK for three years, and tuition fees only for EU residents. Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 17 January 2014. Apply for the ESRC award by Monday 3 February 2014. The University of Manchester is a member of the ESRC's North West Doctoral Training College (DTC), which receives the largest number of ESRC PhD studentships in England. Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) Competition Eligibility: UK and EU students intending to take a PhD degree (3 years) or an MA followed by a PhD (1+3) in an area of Arts and Humanities (including linguistics). The award covers tuition fees and an annual maintenance stipend of ?13,863 for UK residents and EU nationals who have lived in the UK for three years, and tuition fees only for EU residents. Apply for a place on the PhD programme by Friday 31 January 2014. Apply for the AHRC award by 5pm on Friday 21 February 2014. Applicants will be notified of the outcome of their application by 14th April 2014. The University of Manchester is a member of the AHRC-funded North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership (NWCDTP). In addition to the above awards, the School offers a number of Graduate Scholarships. These School awards are open to both Home/EU and Overseas students, and often come with the opportunity to teach or assist in research-related activities. Additional information about the application process for these awards will be found und [Highlight] er http://www.alc.manchester.ac.uk/fees/postgraduate-research-funding/. Informal inquiries about potential research topics and the academic side of the application process can be directed to the department?s Postgraduate Research Programme director, Prof Eva Schultze-Berndt (Eva.Schultze-Berndt at manchester.ac.uk). For questions about the administrative side of the application process, please contact Phdsalc at manchester.ac.uk. From collfitz at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:37:19 2013 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:37:19 -0600 Subject: CoLang 2014 Office Hours at the LSA in January Message-ID: *CoLang 2014 team to hold office hours at the Linguistic Society of America Meeting in Minneapolis on January 3rd and 4th. * CoLang 2014: the Institute on Collaborative Language Research will take place at The University of Texas at Arlington in June and July 2014. CoLang (previously known as InField) allows students, faculty, and indigenous community members to acquire or refine cutting edge skills in language documentation, revitalization and field linguistics, to network with established international experts in these areas, and to gain hands-on experience in working with endangered and underdescribed language communities through field methods offerings. An exciting development this year is our partnership with the Linguistic Society of America. Part of this co-sponsorship includes LSA scholarships to CoLang 2014, creating expanded opportunities for academic training in language documentation and field linguistics for (and by) a diverse group of indigenous community members,academic linguists and those involved in a wide variety of language documentation and revitalization activities. The CoLang 2014 team from UT Arlington will be holding office hours at the LSA on January 3rd and 4th, where we will have fliers and posters for you to take home to help us advertise CoLang, and we will also be available to answer any questions that you might have about attending CoLang. If you stop by, you can register to win a door prize in addition to getting a poster. If you know someone who is considering attending CoLang, be sure to tell them to stop by and see us. These are the office hours with locations for CoLang: Friday 9:00-10:30 a.m. - Symphony 1 Saturday 9-10:30 a.m., 2:00-4:00 p.m. - Directors Row 4 CoLang's two-week session, from June 16-27, 2014, consists of workshops in aspects of language documentation and revitalization and it costs $1450, which covers registration, room and board. Many attendees stay on for an additional four-weeks, which includes enrollment in a four-week field methods class, as well as the two weeks of workshops. Costs for the entire six-week session is $4300 (registration, room and board). The field methods classes give participants a firsthand experience in working with speakers of an endangered language to document and analyze the language. With three to four field methods classes scheduled, CoLang 2014 will be able to serve a large number of interested participants. This year, for the first time, we plan to offer a Spanish-medium field methods class featuring a language of Mexico. We should be announcing the languages for the field methods courses by February 1, 2014. The CoLang website is available: http://tinyurl.com/colang2014 Registration will open in January 2014; the final deadline for registration will be April 15, 2014. Online scholarship applications from the Linguistic Society of America and for CoLang 2014 internal scholarships will shortly be available; the due date for consideration for both is February 17, 2014. In addition, the Endangered Language Fund will also be offering a scholarship to CoLang 2014's two-week workshop session through its Native Voices Endowment, with a scholarship deadline of April 1, 2014. This scholarship is available for tribal members of those tribes that are eligible for the Native Voices Endowment. Full scholarship information and updates as they occur are at: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/scholarships/ For other questions or inquiries, please email us at uta2014institute at gmail.com. From benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se Sat Dec 21 10:57:49 2013 From: benjamin.lyngfelt at svenska.gu.se (Benjamin Lyngfelt) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:57:49 +0000 Subject: Cfp: Workshop on Constructionist resources at ICCG-8 Message-ID: Workshop: Constructionist resources Organizers: Ellen Dodge, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Kyoko Ohara, Miriam R. L. Petruck & Tiago Torrent Construction Grammar has not only generated a wealth of linguistic research but also inspired the development of a number of linguistically motivated knowledge bases, which serve as resources for linguistics, language technology, and language pedagogy. The most well-known and long established of these databases is FrameNet, a large-scale and elaborate instantiation of Frame Semantics (e.g. Fillmore & Baker 2009). The first FrameNet was developed for English in Berkeley, and there are now FrameNets for quite a few languages. A complementary development are constructicons (e.g. Fillmore et al. 2012). In constructionist theory, a constructicon is the inventory of constructions that a language presumably consists of; as a practical application, a constructicon is a corresponding collection of construction descriptions. A third kind of resource is MetaNet (Dodge et al. 2013), a multilingual metaphor repository, based on the notion of conceptual metaphor, and organized according to the principles of Frame Semantics (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010) and Embodied Construction Grammar (Feldman et al. 2010). Both MetaNet and the constructicons build on FrameNet methodology and are intended to be compatible tools. We now invite papers on these and other construction related resources to a workshop at ICCG-8 (the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar) in Osnabr?ck, Germany, September 3?6 2014.This workshop will include both presentations of project-particular developments and discussions of how to connect the various resources in useful ways. Key topics are the relations between Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Conceptual Metaphors, as well as cross-linguistic applications of the resources. The deadline for abstract submission is January 15. Abstracts should not be longer than 1 page and should not exceed 400 words. Since all submissions will be reviewed anonymously, all author-specific information must be avoided. The time allotted for each presentation is 20 minutes plus a 10 minute discussion. Abstract reviewing is handled via EasyAbs, so please submit your abstract online to http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/cxnrec Information about the general conference can be found at http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ References Boas, Hans C. (ed.) (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dodge, Ellen, Jisup Hong, Elise Stickles & Oana David (2013). The MetaNet Wiki: A collaborative online resource for metaphor and image schema analysis. Talk presented at the 12th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Edmonton, Alberta. Feldman, Jerome, Ellen Dodge & John Bryant (2010). Embodied Construction Grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 111?138. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin F. Baker (2009). A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, pp. 313?339. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Fillmore, Charles J., Russell Lee-Goldman & Russell Rhomieux (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Hans C. Boas & Ivan A. Sag (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, pp. 309?372. Stanford: CSLI. FrameNet. Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Julia Prentice, Rudolf Rydstedt, Emma Sk?ldberg & Sofia Tingsell (2012). Adding a Constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Spr?kbanken. Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop), pp. 452?461. Vienna. Ohara, Kyoko Hirose (2013). Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17: 11?27. Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Mirian R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson & Jan Scheffczyk (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley: ICSI. Sk?ldberg, Emma, Linn?a B?ckstr?m, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Leif-J?ran Olsson, Julia Prentice, Rudolf Rydstedt, Sofia Tingsell & Jonatan Uppstr?m (2013). Between Grammars and Dictionaries: a Swedish Constructicon. Proceedings of eLex 2013, pp. 310?327. Tallinn. Torrent, Tiago Timpani & Michael Ellsworth (2013). Behind the Labels: Criteria for Defining Analytical Categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas 17: 44?65. From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 16:10:44 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:10:44 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length Message-ID: Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett From mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu Sat Dec 21 18:37:13 2013 From: mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Marianne Mithun) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:37:13 -0800 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. Marianne --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > Please excuse the double-posting. > > I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my > ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a > question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive > a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to > address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). > > As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes > are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme > segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological > theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be > of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 > is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal > view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 > words has to do with practical performance limitations." > > I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various > other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those > approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme > length. > > Any help would be appreciated. > > Happy holidays to all, > > Dan Everett > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 18:56:15 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:56:15 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Marianne, Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I had in mind originally. To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to derive an upper bound on morpheme length. "Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what "small" is and why. I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. Dan Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. > > Marianne > > --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: > >> Please excuse the double-posting. >> >> I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my >> ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a >> question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive >> a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to >> address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). >> >> As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes >> are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme >> segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological >> theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be >> of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 >> is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal >> view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 >> words has to do with practical performance limitations." >> >> I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various >> other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those >> approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme >> length. >> >> Any help would be appreciated. >> >> Happy holidays to all, >> >> Dan Everett >> > > > > From grvsmth at panix.com Sat Dec 21 19:02:49 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus B. Grieve-Smith) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:02:49 -0500 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <8B51E18F-12B0-4FBC-8596-93228AEAD37F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Doesn't every morpheme have to fit in short-term memory? "Everett, Daniel" wrote: >Marianne, > >Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. > >So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I >had in mind originally. > >To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the >matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have >said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to >derive an upper bound on morpheme length. > >"Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - >whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that >is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a >theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what >"small" is and why. > >I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, >that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. > >Dan > > Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > >> Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's >probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And >affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in >their development. >> >> Marianne >> >> --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" > wrote: >> >>> Please excuse the double-posting. >>> >>> I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly >show my >>> ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due >to a >>> question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to >derive >>> a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to >>> address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). >>> >>> As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all >morphemes >>> are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme >>> segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological >>> theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can >be >>> of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, >578 >>> is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my >ideal >>> view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length >624,578 >>> words has to do with practical performance limitations." >>> >>> I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and >various >>> other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But >those >>> approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to >morpheme >>> length. >>> >>> Any help would be appreciated. >>> >>> Happy holidays to all, >>> >>> Dan Everett >>> >> >> >> >> -- Angus. B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sat Dec 21 19:33:18 2013 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:33:18 +0200 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <8B51E18F-12B0-4FBC-8596-93228AEAD37F@bentley.edu> Message-ID: There are of course upper limits in individual languages. In non-borrowings at least in Mandarin Chinese it's 3, in Dinka it's 4, in Hebrew it's 5 (off-hand that's the most I can think of). I think in European languages it can be longer. John On 21.12.2013 20:56, Everett, Daniel wrote: > Marianne, > > Thanks. I certainly agree with what you say. > > So, let us just say, any morpheme, though I bound morphemes are what I had in mind originally. > > To reiterate, what I am asking is not if people have an opinion on the matter (which is not what you said at all, Marianne, but what some have said off-line) but whether anyone knows of a theory that proposes to derive an upper bound on morpheme length. > > "Tend to be small" I certainly agree with. And I think that cognitive - whether learnability or processing - reasons are implicated. But that is not my theory. Just my hunch. I was interested in identifying a theory, should one exist, that derives the length limits and says what "small" is and why. > > I suspect that none exists. And I doubt that one should. But, again, that's just me thinking overtly in electrons at my computer. > > Dan > > Dec 21, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Marianne Mithun wrote: > >> Dan, you haven't said what kind of morphemes. For a start, there's probably going to be a difference between roots and affixes. And affixes tend to be small because of all of the processes involved in their development. Marianne --On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:10 PM +0000 "Everett, Daniel" wrote: >> >>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett Links: ------ [1] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 19:39:40 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:39:40 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan > 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. > > 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. > > 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. > > Best regards, > Bruce > > Bruce Hayes > Professor and Chair > Department of Linguistics, UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 > bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu > www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> >>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked > on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of > some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from > a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum > morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the > issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to > me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably > not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is > there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is > it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason > there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be > unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that > no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical > performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" > (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and > metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no > principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be > appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sat Dec 21 22:08:27 2013 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 15:08:27 -0700 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: <10B8905D-D231-4BB8-A7F6-5A60D1FFB544@bentley.edu> Message-ID: The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan > 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. > > 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. > > 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. > > Best regards, > Bruce > > Bruce Hayes > Professor and Chair > Department of Linguistics, UCLA > Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 > bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu > www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> >>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked > on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of > some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from > a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum > morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the > issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to > me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably > not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is > there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is > it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason > there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be > unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that > no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical > performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" > (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and > metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no > principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be > appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sat Dec 21 22:15:24 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 22:15:24 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lise, Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. Thanks, Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): > > 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) > > 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds > > 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. > > Lise > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM > To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Folks, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. > > All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. > > -- Dan > > >> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >> >> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >> >> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >> >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> Bruce Hayes >> Professor and Chair >> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes > >>>> >>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From lise.menn at Colorado.EDU Sun Dec 22 21:05:48 2013 From: lise.menn at Colorado.EDU (Lise Menn) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 14:05:48 -0700 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM To: Lise Menn Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Lise, Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. Thanks, Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): > > 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) > > 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds > > 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. > > Lise > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM > To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Folks, > > Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. > > All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. > > -- Dan > > >> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >> >> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >> >> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >> >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> Bruce Hayes >> Professor and Chair >> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes > >>>> >>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] >> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From john at research.haifa.ac.il Sun Dec 22 21:13:56 2013 From: john at research.haifa.ac.il (john) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:13:56 +0200 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think that folk etymologies (e.g. 'sparrow grass' for 'asparagus') might be one way to see what the 'comfortable' limit on phonemes per morpheme is. It may be that people only feel the need to make up folk etymologies with borrowings with more than a certain number of phonemes. John On 22.12.2013 23:05, Lise Menn wrote: > Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. > Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. > > Lise > > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Lise Menn > Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORGSubject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Lise, > > Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. > > Thanks, > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. Lise Lise Menn Home Office: 303-444-4274 1625 Mariposa Ave Boulder CO 80302 http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html [5] Professor Emerita of Linguistics Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado ________________________________________ From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [6] [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [7]] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu [8]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG [9]Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length Folks, Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. -- Dan >> >>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. Best regards, Bruce Bruce Hayes Professor and Chair Department of Linguistics, UCLA Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu [1] www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes [2] >> >>>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >>> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett Links: ------ [1] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [3] Links: ------ [1] mailto:bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu [2] http://www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes [3] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [4] mailto:lise.menn at Colorado.EDU [5] http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html [6] mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [7] mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [8] mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu [9] mailto:LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Sun Dec 22 22:39:00 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:39:00 +0000 Subject: Upper limits to morpheme length - formal vs. functional account. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Lise, No disagreement necessarily. All accounts need to be formalized. For me the question is whether they are formalizations over structures or over functional, cultural, or other considerations e.g. cognition, climate, altitude, etc. There will always be some fundamental computational residue that needs its own account. These may or may not represent distinct components of the overall formalization. Grammars are composites of computational and other strategies. Divide and conquer may not be the best strategy in the sense that neither cognition, structure, or computation has privileged status. One may in one context but not another. All are not always needed. Dan Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 22, 2013, at 16:05, "Lise Menn" wrote: > > Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. > Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. > > Lise > > Lise Menn > Home Office: 303-444-4274 > 1625 Mariposa Ave > Boulder CO 80302 > http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html > > Professor Emerita of Linguistics > Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science > University of Colorado > ________________________________________ > From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM > To: Lise Menn > Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length > > Lise, > > Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. > > Thanks, > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: >> >> The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): >> >> 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) >> >> 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds >> >> 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. >> >> Lise >> Lise Menn >> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> ________________________________________ >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM >> To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >> >> Folks, >> >> Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. >> >> All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. >> >> -- Dan >> >> >>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >>> >>> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >>> >>> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Bruce >>> >>> Bruce Hayes >>> Professor and Chair >>> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >>> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >>> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >>> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >> >>>>> >>>>>> Please excuse the double-posting. I haven't worked >>> on this stuff for a while, so I will undoubtedly show my ignorance of >>> some large body of research, but I was wondering (due to a question from >>> a colleague) whether there is any work that tries to derive a maximum >>> morpheme length (I wouldn't think this would be the way to address the >>> issue, frankly, but I could be quite wrong). As the question was put to >>> me: "It seems to me that almost all morphemes are quite short?probably >>> not easy to find one with e.g. 12 phoneme segments. The question is is >>> there anything in known phonological theories which predict this?or is >>> it just assumed that morphemes can be of any length and that the reason >>> there are none of length e.g. 624, 578 is simply that they would be >>> unlearnable? The latter would be my ideal view, just as the reason that >>> no one uses a sentence of length 624,578 words has to do with practical >>> performance limitations." I know that there is work on "resizing theory" >>> (Pycha 2008) and various other approaches linking morphology and >>> metrical structure. But those approaches so far as I know offer no >>> principled upper bound to morpheme length. Any help would be >>> appreciated. Happy holidays to all, Dan Everett >>> >>> >>> >>> Links: >>> ------ >>> [1] >>> mailto:DEVERETT at bentley.edu From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Mon Dec 23 05:38:23 2013 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 06:38:23 +0100 Subject: formal vs. functional account In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lise says that "a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account", but Dan's original question was about human language *in general*. So I don't quite agree with her: I'd say we need "formal accounts" (schemas/constructions like Bruce's three-foot constraint) at the language-particular level, but functional accounts at the general level, to account for cross-linguistically general phenomena. So it's not about "different folks" having different preferences. It's about different problems requiring different solutions. In the generative approach, the two things are conflated and constructions/schemas/rules are assumed to take care of cross-linguistic generalizations as well, not just of language-particular generalizations. That's just wrong, it seems to me. The case of morph length is just one (particularly spectacular, or trivial, depending on your perspective) example: A generaivist would have to formulate a UG principle that accounts for the relatively uniform length of morphs. That the explanation is functional (referring to neighbourhood density, or simply ambiguity avoidance, as Lise mentioned) is really obvious here. Any language-particular constraints that one would identify are only distantly related to the functional explanation of the cross-linguistic trend. Greetings, Martin -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Am 12/22/13 11:39 PM, schrieb Everett, Daniel: > Dear Lise, > > No disagreement necessarily. > > All accounts need to be formalized. For me the question is whether they are formalizations over structures or over functional, cultural, or other considerations e.g. cognition, climate, altitude, etc. There will always be some fundamental computational residue that needs its own account. These may or may not represent distinct components of the overall formalization. Grammars are composites of computational and other strategies. Divide and conquer may not be the best strategy in the sense that neither cognition, structure, or computation has privileged status. One may in one context but not another. All are not always needed. > > Dan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Dec 22, 2013, at 16:05, "Lise Menn" wrote: >> >> Thanks, Dan, but at the risk of opening another topic, I'd say that a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate the need for a formal account (or vice versa), because formal accounts and functional accounts are different kinds of entities. They serve different purposes and both are useful. >> Formal constraints/accounts, like macro-level physical laws, look elegant and abstract away from particulars (think about the simple, elegant laws relating pressure, temperature, and volume of gases). Functional accounts are clunkier, concrete, but provide explanations for why things are the way they are (cf. the statistics of how molecules behave when they bump into each other, which is way beyond me but is what underlies the simple gas laws). Both kinds of accounts should yield testable predictions, and it seems that different folks prefer to work more with the abstract formulations or more with the concrete mechanics. And both kinds of people are needed to keep a science both accessible and empirical. >> >> Lise >> >> Lise Menn >> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >> 1625 Mariposa Ave >> Boulder CO 80302 >> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >> >> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >> University of Colorado >> ________________________________________ >> From: Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 3:15 PM >> To: Lise Menn >> Cc: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >> >> Lise, >> >> Great comments. These remarks likely obviate the need for a more formal account. But now we have a bit of both. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Dec 21, 2013, at 17:09, "Lise Menn" wrote: >>> >>> The cognitive underpinnings of the Hayes and Wilson constraint (and of Zipf's law, of course) would come from several sources that I can think of (there might well be others): >>> >>> 1) the difficulty of catching all the phonemes when you a long, unfamiliar, unanalyzed word (hard to imagine Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg surviving in English without having been written down) >>> >>> 2) The very sparse neighborhoods of long monomorphemic words (that is, the rarity of pairs of long monomorphemic words that differ by only one phoneme) means that they are identifiable by listeners even when some of the sounds are inaudible, so misunderstandings won't offer any barrier to elision of the sounds >>> >>> 3) Speakers will abbreviate long words because - other things being equal - they are more work to produce. >>> >>> Lise >>> Lise Menn >>> Home Office: 303-444-4274 >>> 1625 Mariposa Ave >>> Boulder CO 80302 >>> http://spot.colorado.edu/~menn/index.html >>> >>> Professor Emerita of Linguistics >>> Fellow, Institute of Cognitive Science >>> University of Colorado >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Everett, Daniel [DEVERETT at bentley.edu] >>> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:39 PM >>> To: Funknet List; LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG >>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Upper limits to morpheme length >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Thanks for the suggestions. I just received the following from Bruce Hayes which exactly answers my question. With Bruce's permission, I pass this along here. >>> >>> All the best for the end of one year and the beginning of another. I hope you have all finished posting your grades and are now able to relax a bit. >>> >>> -- Dan >>> >>> >>>> 1) The main way to get really long morphemes, I suspect, is to borrow from languages with which you have little contact, so you can't parse their long polymorphemic words. Hence English Okaloacoochee, Hanamanioa, Chaugoggagoggmanchagaugagoochaubungungamogg. >>>> >>>> 2) I think the upper limit for English morphemes is three metrical feet. When I make up a four-foot word it sounds odd to me, e.g. ?Okaloaseppacoochee. The famous lake Chaugoggagoggmanchaugagoggchaubungungamogg is not an exception; it pronounced as three separate phonological words: Chaugoggagogg, manchaugagaug, ch[schwa]bunagungamogg. >>>> >>>> 3) If you adopt the phonotactic model of Hayes and Wilson (LI 2008), then if you include a contraint of the type *Struc, and train up the grammar, you get the right predictions: *Struc gets a modest weight, which predicts a descending-exponential probability function for words of ever-increasing length. In this theory, the extreme unlikelihood of extremely long words is simply an extrapolation from the moderate unlikelihood of somewhat-long words. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> Bruce Hayes >>>> Professor and Chair >>>> Department of Linguistics, UCLA >>>> Los Angeles CA 90095-1543 >>>> bhayes at humnet.ucla.edu >>>> www.linguistics.ucla/people/hayes >>> From grvsmth at panix.com Mon Dec 23 13:55:19 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 08:55:19 -0500 Subject: formal vs. functional account In-Reply-To: <52B7CC4F.90400@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: On 12/23/2013 12:38 AM, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > Lise says that "a psycholinguistic/diachronic account doesn't obviate > the need for a formal account", but Dan's original question was about > human language *in general*. So I don't quite agree with her: > > I'd say we need "formal accounts" (schemas/constructions like Bruce's > three-foot constraint) at the language-particular level, but > functional accounts at the general level, to account for > cross-linguistically general phenomena. So it's not about "different > folks" having different preferences. It's about different problems > requiring different solutions. I don't quite agree with either of you! ;-) http://grieve-smith.com/blog/2013/11/im-an-instrumentalist-are-you-one-too/ From an instrumentalist perspective, no theory (or type of theory) is *required* as long as there's another theory that can fulfill the same function. Formal accounts may be the best thing we've found so far for capturing the way particular communities use their language, but that doesn't mean that nothing better is possible. As an analogy, I'm currently replacing my Brita water filter. In the past I've always bought Brita branded filters because those were the only ones I ever saw that fitted, but recently I saw some store-brand filters and bought them. So this problem required a particular solution - until it didn't. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From wcroft at unm.edu Tue Dec 24 02:14:51 2013 From: wcroft at unm.edu (William Croft) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 02:14:51 +0000 Subject: Trends Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] generative grammar, cognitive linguistics formal linguistics, functional linguistics Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. Happy Holidays, Bill Croft From rcameron at uic.edu Tue Dec 24 02:17:30 2013 From: rcameron at uic.edu (Cameron, Richard) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:17:30 -0600 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: So, Bill, what trends did you see? - Richard Cameron On Mon, December 23, 2013 8:14 pm, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books > Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who > have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token > frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google > Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token > frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); > some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token > frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of > "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many > references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent > trends are interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > > From macw at cmu.edu Tue Dec 24 02:36:44 2013 From: macw at cmu.edu (Brian MacWhinney) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:36:44 -0500 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Both slope and the scale on the ordinate are important. If you contrast ?Chomskyan linguistics? and ?corpus linguistics? you get a similar rising slope but the latter is 10 times more frequent than the former. Interestingly, the sharply rising profiles for ?cognitive linguistics? and ?corpus linguistics? are very similar. The steepest and most recent rise I found was for ?embodied cognition? but its raw frequency is still low. Too bad we can?t see the last 5 years for that one. One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in ?generative grammar? but maybe that was because terminology shifted to ?Universal grammar?, but that was also in decline and ?transformational grammar? is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. Best wishes, ?Brian MacWhinney On Dec 23, 2013, at 9:14 PM, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > From smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca Tue Dec 24 02:53:14 2013 From: smyth at utsc.utoronto.ca (Ron Smyth) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:53:14 -0500 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This is FUN! I have looked at so many things already, trying to keep them unambiguous (which is the hard part). So far the most interesting to me is the parallel rise of "psycholinguistics" and "sociolinguistics" until the late 1970s. After that, psycholinguistics took a dive, and sociolinguistics has held steady or risen a bit (I don't know the sample size, but assume it's big enough that any apparent difference is likely to be statistically significant). The crossover for psycho/sociolinguistics came around 1982. This link will make a great Christmas "present" for just about anyone! Hours of fun guaranteed! ron ============================================================================== Ron Smyth, Associate Professor Psychology and Linguistics University of Toronto =========================================================================== On Mon, 23 Dec 2013, Brian MacWhinney wrote: > Both slope and the scale on the ordinate are important. If you contrast ?Chomskyan linguistics? and ?corpus linguistics? you get a similar rising slope but the latter is 10 times more frequent than the former. Interestingly, the sharply rising profiles for ?cognitive linguistics? and ?corpus linguistics? are very similar. The steepest and most recent rise I found was for ?embodied cognition? but its raw frequency is still low. Too bad we can?t see the last 5 years for that one. > > One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in ?generative grammar? but maybe that was because terminology shifted to ?Universal grammar?, but that was also in decline and ?transformational grammar? is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. > > Best wishes, > > ?Brian MacWhinney > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 9:14 PM, William Croft wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple strings on a single graph. >> We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); some of the more interesting plots we tried were: >> >> linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] >> generative grammar, cognitive linguistics >> formal linguistics, functional linguistics >> >> Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are interesting to consider. >> >> Happy Holidays, >> Bill Croft >> > > From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Tue Dec 24 05:29:03 2013 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:29:03 +0100 Subject: Trends and labels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Brian MacWhinney wrote: > One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see a clear decline in ?generative grammar? but maybe that was because terminology shifted to ?Universal grammar?, but that was also in decline and ?transformational grammar? is nearing extinction. But, still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on the rise and we are just missing it. What I think has happened over the last 15 years is that generative grammarians increasingly just take their approach as default and don't label it at all. For example, the journal "Syntax" just published hard-core generative syntax, and likewise for the Blackwell "Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory". This may not be very scientific, but it seems to work. So maybe it will be a good sign if at some time in the future, the Ngram viewer shows a drop in labels like "cognitive/functional linguistics", because we don't have to label our approach anymore. Season's Greetings, Martin -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de ) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 From Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl Tue Dec 24 09:39:34 2013 From: Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 10:39:34 +0100 Subject: Trends and labels In-Reply-To: <52B91B9F.7000207@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Both Brian's and Martin's points are well taken. "Minimalist program" has become a new specific term used in formalist circles over the last two decades (plot it against "construction grammar", from 1990 till 2008 - hopeful trend?). Or take "theoretical linguistics" as another GENERAL term appropriated by formalists (plot it against "corpus linguistics", from 1980 till 2008). Happy holidays, --Arie Verhagen ------ Original Message ------ From: Martin Haspelmath Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 06:29:03 +0100 Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Trends and labels > Brian MacWhinney wrote: > >> One worries that some crucial pair could be missing. So, you can see >> a clear decline in ?generative grammar? but maybe that was because >> terminology shifted to ?Universal grammar?, but that was also in >> decline and ?transformational grammar? is nearing extinction. But, >> still, maybe there is some term in the formalist literature that is on >> the rise and we are just missing it. > > What I think has happened over the last 15 years is that generative > grammarians increasingly just take their approach as default and don't > label it at all. For example, the journal "Syntax" just published > hard-core generative syntax, and likewise for the Blackwell "Handbook of > contemporary syntactic theory". > > This may not be very scientific, but it seems to work. So maybe it will > be a good sign if at some time in the future, the Ngram viewer shows a > drop in labels like "cognitive/functional linguistics", because we don't > have to label our approach anymore. > > Season's Greetings, > Martin > From silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it Fri Dec 27 07:57:24 2013 From: silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it (Silvia CACCHIANI) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 08:57:24 +0100 Subject: conference announcement/cfps: Non-word morphology; ESSE2014; 29 Aug 2014 - 2 Sept 204, Kosice, Slovakia] Message-ID: ESSE 2014 Seminar ? Linguistics strand (SLANG28) 29 August 2014 ? 2 September 2014, Kosice, Slovakia http://kaa.ff.upjs.sk/en/event/4/12th-esse-conference Full title: Non-words, nonce-words and morphology teaching Acronym: NWM: NON-WORD MORPHOLOGY Call for papers The seminar ?Non-words, Nonce-words and Morphology Teaching? will be held within the 12th ESSE Conference in Ko?ice, Slovakia. Convenors Silvia Cacchiani, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy Christoph Haase, Purkyn? University, ?st? nad Labem, Czech Republic While psycho- and neurolinguistics (e.g. Marslen-Wilson 1987, 2007, Kielar et al. 2008, Rastle et al. 2008, Crepaldi 2010) have shown increasing interest in the representation of non-words, nonce-words or nonsensical words in the mental lexicon, their potential as a yardstick for the morphological competence of L2 learners has not been widely explored. The aim of this seminar is to bring together theoretical and applied research on non-words, nonce-words, and the teaching of English morphology. Suggested topics include (but are not restricted to): ? morphological processes in language comprehension, also models of word recognition; ? analogy in morphology and analogy in L2 learning; ? best practice in morphology teaching; ? learner access to lexical strata, feature percolation and permissibility, and related performance. Please send your abstract totaling no more than 300 words (including references) by February 1st 2014 to the following addresses: silvia.cacchiani at unimore.it, christoph.haase at ujep.cz. From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Sat Dec 28 00:03:32 2013 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 00:03:32 +0000 Subject: 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistic Message-ID: Dear colleagues, This is a reminder about the call for papers for the 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics/ VI Congreso Internacional de Ling??stica de Corpus (CILC2014) that will take place 22-24 May 2014 at the Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. The deadline for submissions is January 27, 2014 via EasyChair. Please, check the conference website for further information: http://www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6/. All the best, Francisco Alonso On behalf of the Organizing Committee From paulibbotson at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 12:11:04 2013 From: paulibbotson at gmail.com (Paul Ibbotson) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:11:04 +0000 Subject: Trends In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I have a paper that uses Google Ngram to explore the un-construction in English. Link below for those who are interested. http://www.frontiersin.org/Language_Sciences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00989/abstract Best wishes, Paul Ibbotson On 24 December 2013 02:14, William Croft wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week Terry Regier and I were playing around with the Google Books > Ngram Viewer (https://books.google.com/ngrams). For those of you who have > not yet become addicted to the Ngram Viewer, it plots the token frequency > of words and word strings over time in the books in Google Books. If you > separate words by commas, you can plot the token frequencies of multiple > strings on a single graph. > We set the time window as 1950 to 2008 (the latest year available); > some of the more interesting plots we tried were: > > linguistics, Chomsky [NB: search terms are case sensitive] > generative grammar, cognitive linguistics > formal linguistics, functional linguistics > > Of course, there are many caveats that must be added to these raw token > frequencies (for instance, we dropped the case sensitivity of "cognitive > linguistics", but the results were distorted by the many references to > articles in "Cognitive Linguistics"). But the apparent trends are > interesting to consider. > > Happy Holidays, > Bill Croft > >