From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Jun 3 16:42:50 2013 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:42:50 +0000 Subject: New Issue Alert - The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58:1/2013 Message-ID: Now available on Project MUSE The Canadian Journal of Linguistics Volume 58, Number 1, March/mars 2013 Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses Guest editor/Rédacteur invité: Benjamin Shaer This issue contains: Introduction Benjamin Shaer pp. 1-12 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0004 I begin this introduction with an introduction. This is in part because the title of this thematic issue, "Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses", does not really give away much, either about the choice of topics—time, after all, being a dimension of everything and modal notions being ubiquitous in reasoning, communication, and the study of theseâ€or about the choice to investigate "legal discourses" rather than, say, "law", or "laws", or "legal texts", or even "legal discourse". Read more Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse Martin Aher pp. 13-42 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0006 Abstract: This study investigates the interpretation of or in legal texts, focusing on two puzzles: "inclusive/exclusive" or and "free choice permission". Read more Résumé: Cette étude porte sur l'interprétation de or ('ou') dans les textes juridiques et se concentre sur deux questions : or «inclusif/exclusif» et or «autorisation de libre choix». Lisez plus Some linguistic properties of legal notices Nicholas Allott, Benjamin Shaer pp. 43-62 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0008 Abstract: In this article, we consider legal notices of various forms, including imperative, indicative, and non-sentential. We argue that these convey various illocutionary forces depending on their particular content. Read more Résumé: Dans cet article, nous considérons une variété d'annonces juridiques dont des formulations à l'impératif, à l'affirmatif et non sentencielles. Nous affirmons que ces formulations comportent diverses forces illocutionnaires selon leur contenu spécifique. Lisez plus "Always speaking"?: Interpreting the present tense in statutes Neal Goldfarb pp. 63-83 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0010 Abstract: This article takes a critical look through the lens of linguistics at the "always speaking" principle in law—an influential principle that is recited in materials on legislative drafting as the justification for using the present tense, adopted in many common-law jurisdictions as a principle of interpretation, and accepted as a foundation for the linguistic analysis of the use of tense in statutes. Read more Résumé: Cet article étudie dans une perspective linguistique le principe de l'«énonciation continuelle» tel qu'utilisé en droit. Il s'agit d'un principe qui, dans les textes traitant de rédaction législative, est invoqué pour justifier l'emploi du temps présent, qui a été adopté comme principe d'interprétation dans le droit commun de bien des pays ou territoires et qui a été accepté comme base de l'analyse linguistique de l'emploi des temps dans les lois. Lisez plus Temporal modifiers and the Rogers—Aliant dispute E. Graham Katz, Benjamin Shaer pp. 85-103 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0001 Abstract: In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Read more Is legal English "going European"?: The case of the simple present Christopher Williams pp. 105-126 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0002 Abstract: In many countries in continental Europe the simple present is extensively used in main clauses in legislative texts to express obligation. Read more Résumé: Dans bien des pays de l'Europe continentale le présent simple est abondamment utilisé dans les propositions principales de textes législatifs pour exprimer l'obligation. Lisez plus Reviews / Comptes Rendus Coordination in syntax by Niina Ning Zhang (review) Anna Bondaruk pp. 127-130 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0003 nłeʔképmxcín: Thompson River Salish speech by Steven M. Egesdal, M. Terry Thompson, and Mandy N. Jimmie (review) Karsten Koch pp. 130-133 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0005 Complex Predicates: The syntax-morphology interface by Leila Lomashvili (review) Anna Malicka-Kleparska pp. 133-137 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0007 Anaphora and language design by Eric Reuland (review) Francesco-Alessio Ursini pp. 137-140 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0009 The sociolinguistics of globalization by Jan Blommaert (review) Zhiying Xin pp. 140-143 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0000 The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. About Project MUSE Project MUSE is a unique collaboration between libraries and publishers, providing 100% full-text, affordable and user-friendly online access to a comprehensive selection of prestigious humanities and social sciencesjournals. MUSE's online journal collections support a diverse array of research needs at academic, public, special and school libraries worldwide. For more information about the Canadian Journal of Linguistics or for submissions information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca www.utpjournals.com/cjl Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus. From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Tue Jun 4 22:56:31 2013 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:56:31 +0100 Subject: Cfp - VI Congreso Internacional de Ling=?iso-8859-1?Q?=FC=EDstica_?=de Corpus/ 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics Message-ID: [Apologies for cross-postings] CILC2014: VI Congreso Internacional de Lingüística de Corpus CILC2014: 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 22-24 May, 2014 www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6 The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria on behalf of the Spanish Association for Corpus Linguistics (AELINCO) will be hosting the Sixth International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2014). The theme of the 2014 conference will be Input a word, analyze the world: Corpus linguistics and society. The Organizing Committee of CILC2014 invites scholars and researchers to submit paper and abstract proposals preferably related to the theme of this edition within any one of the following nine thematic panels: Corpus design, compilation and types. Discourse, literary analysis and corpora. Corpus-based grammatical studies. Corpus-based lexicology and lexicography. Corpora, contrastive studies and translation. Corpus and linguistic variation. Corpus-based computational linguistics. Corpora, language acquisition and teaching. Special uses of corpus linguistics. The deadline for submitting proposals via EasyChair is January 27, 2014. More information is available on the conference website (www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6). The conference site will be regularly updated. In the meantime, you may contact us via the web contact form at http://www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6/contact-form/ We look forward to seeing you in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in May 2014! Francisco Alonso (on behalf of the Organizing Committee) From collfitz at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 17:18:04 2013 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:18:04 -0700 Subject: Call for proposals: Workshops on Language Documentation, Maintenance, and Revitalization Message-ID: *Call for proposals: Workshops on Language Documentation, Maintenance, and Revitalization *Deadline for receipt of proposals: July 15, 2013 Selection of proposals: August 30, 2013 To be held as part of: 2014 Institute on Collaborative Language Research (CoLang/InField) Institute on Field Linguistics and Language Documentation http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/ (please note this web address is case sensitive) University of Texas at Arlington June 16th – June 27th, 2014 We are soliciting proposals for workshops in language documentation, language maintenance, and language revitalization to be held as part of the fourth CoLang/InField, Institute on Collaborative Language Research. The CoLang/InField training institutes take place in summers alternating with the Linguistic Society of America's Institute. The participant audience at CoLang 2014 will include Indigenous community members, practicing linguists, graduate and undergraduate students in linguistics and anthropology, archivists, and language activists with an interest in documenting, maintaining, or revitalizing their languages. Previous workshops have been hosted by the University of Kansas, the University of Oregon and the University of California, Santa Barbara. Past participants have gone on to great success in developing documentation and revitalization projects, generating funding, and presenting results at major international venues like the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas, and the International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation. The 2014 Institute will take place at The University of Texas at Arlington from June 16 to June 27, 2014. CoLang 2014 will offer courses that address technological training, interdisciplinary collaborations with the sciences, developing collaborative community language projects, and pedagogical/teaching applications. Several foundation courses in linguistics are also offered. The current list of planned courses is online at http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/CoLang2014-courselistv1.htm. These courses are already assigned instructors. In keeping with CoLang as a training venue that promotes exposure to cutting-edge techniques and innovative approaches in language documentation and revitalization, proposals for new workshop topics are being solicited. Workshops should not duplicate currently planned courses. At CoLang 2014, there will be two instruction formats for workshop offerings : 4-day courses (6 hours total) and 2-hour workshops (2 hours total). We estimate accepting approximately five new workshops of each type (ten accepted workshops from this solicitation, five in 4-day format, five in 2-hour format). The proposal should be a maximum of 2 pages in length, and should include: topic, rationale for including it as part of CoLang, proposed length (2-hour or 4-day), a brief description of workshop content (general lesson plan , target audience, and level, e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced), how it would be taught (balance of theory, examples, hands-on exercises), and what experience qualifies you to teach it. We encourage students and language activists to apply. For an example of workshop titles and descriptions from a previous institute, go to http://linguistics.uoregon.edu/infield2010/workshops/index.php Travel and room and board will be covered for instructors, and a modest honorarium provided. Questions should be directed to Colleen Fitzgerald, Director of the 2014 Institute on Collaborative Research at cmfitz at uta.edu. Completed proposals should be submitted as a PDF to uta2014institute at gmail.com. CoLang/InField is partially funded by the National Science Foundation. From dwhieb at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:51:27 2013 From: dwhieb at gmail.com (Daniel Hieber) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:51:27 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. best, Danny On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" > at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me with a > request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: > > I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those > professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on approach is > what we’re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots of really cool > props.* > > The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, but > was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done something > like this before. Participants will include folks from the community, > adults and children. > > Thanks in advance, > Shannon > -- Omnis habet sua dona dies. ~ Martial From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:22:37 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:22:37 -0700 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q Message-ID: Hello all, I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on approach is what we’re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots of really cool props.* The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done something like this before. Participants will include folks from the community, adults and children. Thanks in advance, Shannon From mike_cahill at sil.org Wed Jun 12 17:35:05 2013 From: mike_cahill at sil.org (Mike Cahill) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:35:05 -0500 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. Mike Cahill -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM To: s.t. bischoff Cc: Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. best, Danny On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" > at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me > with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: > > I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those > professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on > approach is what we’re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots > of really cool > props.* > > The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, > but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done > something like this before. Participants will include folks from the > community, adults and children. > > Thanks in advance, > Shannon > -- Omnis habet sua dona dies. ~ Martial From elc9j at virginia.edu Wed Jun 12 17:42:19 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:42:19 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard varieties. A good example is Wolfram's a-prefixing quiz (see http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/a-prefixing/). Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/12/2013 1:35 PM, Mike Cahill wrote: > Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. > > 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. > > 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. > > Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. > > Mike Cahill > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: Funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q > > I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. > > Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. > > best, > > Danny > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" >> at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me >> with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: >> >> I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those >> professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on >> approach is what we’re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots >> of really cool >> props.* >> >> The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, >> but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done >> something like this before. Participants will include folks from the >> community, adults and children. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Shannon >> > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Jun 13 07:41:01 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B8B2FB.4070605@virginia.edu> Message-ID: >>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/2013 7:42 pm >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard varieties. Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I wonder if anyone else is interested in this? You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only mispronunciation. Best Tahir From elc9j at virginia.edu Thu Jun 13 12:12:38 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:12:38 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B993A9.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> > People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're > not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard > varieties. > > Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. > > I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. > > OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I wonder if anyone else is interested in this? > > You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. > > If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only mispronunciation. > > Best > Tahir > From elc9j at virginia.edu Thu Jun 13 17:03:11 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:03:11 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B9B736.1080402@virginia.edu> Message-ID: I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. Brenneis and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of > Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to > discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, > in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that > nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some > major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to > referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the > English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of > English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: > 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: > Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're >> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >> varieties. >> >> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may >> just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't >> believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass >> other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript >> on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >> >> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart >> from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of >> regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you >> mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules >> as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the >> regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is >> dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule >> after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the >> rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in >> that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs >> do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >> >> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has >> done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what >> does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I >> think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I >> would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >> >> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >> >> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. >> But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the >> important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only >> mispronunciation. >> >> Best >> Tahir >> > From Eva.Staudinger at romanistik.uni-freiburg.de Thu Jun 13 20:04:53 2013 From: Eva.Staudinger at romanistik.uni-freiburg.de (Eva Staudinger) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:04:53 +0200 Subject: RRG conference 2013 in Freiburg, Germany Message-ID: Dear all, the registration for this year's Role and Reference Grammar conference in Freiburg, Germany, is open. Early registration closes on July 7. There is no conference fee. We are happy to accept late registrations, but we might not be able to offer the same "service" to the late-comers. For further information please go to: http://www.frias.uni-freiburg.de/lang_and_lit/veranstaltungen/role-and-reference-grammar Kind regards, Eva ************************************* Eva Staudinger Research assistant University of Freiburg Department of Romance Languages Platz der Universität 3 D-79085 Freiburg Phone +49-761-203 9066 Fax +49-761-203 3195 ************************************* From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Jun 14 04:24:35 2013 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:35 -0700 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51B9FB4F.6070305@virginia.edu> Message-ID: These messages have lifted my spirits. I’ve always felt this way about “rules”, and I still remember futile discussions about them during the 1960s when people were especially rule happy. The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to “phonological rules”, which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a fusional language the shape it has. I’ve been struggling in vain to keep people from calling them rules, and it’s hard not to feel like giving up. Wally O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language > ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one > has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an > hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: > Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. Brenneis > and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >> issue). >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>> they're >>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>> varieties. >>> >>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >>> >>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>> >>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. >>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which >>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>> >>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >>> >>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >>> sees only mispronunciation. >>> >>> Best >>> Tahir >>> >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 07:43:35 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:43:35 +0200 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B9FB4F.6070305@virginia.edu> Message-ID: But my point was that there is a quite legitimate notion of rules that one gets in ordinary English speech. That is where one says "as a rule X happens in manner Y in context C", a description of a regularity where one is NOT claiming that the rule creates the regularity. The trouble is then you have to take pains to clarify what 'rules' means. But our analytic friends might deny that there can be such a thing as a descriptive rule. Yet they have no problem with the hocus-pocus of 'constitutive rules' (very scary quotes). Tahir >>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/13/2013 7:03 pm >>> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. Brenneis and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of > Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to > discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, > in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that > nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some > major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to > referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the > English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of > English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: > 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: > Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're >> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >> varieties. >> >> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may >> just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't >> believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass >> other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript >> on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >> >> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart >> from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of >> regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you >> mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules >> as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the >> regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is >> dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule >> after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the >> rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in >> that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs >> do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >> >> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has >> done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what >> does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I >> think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I >> would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >> >> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >> >> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. >> But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the >> important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only >> mispronunciation. >> >> Best >> Tahir >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 08:15:08 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:15:08 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BA9B03.9030008@linguistics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: This is just what it is: the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products – thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions – whose limits are set by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) And also: … the process of acquisition – a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as a model – and the process of reproduction – a practical reactivation which is opposed to both memory and knowledge – tend to take place below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) Tahir >>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> These messages have lifted my spirits. I’ve always felt this way about “rules”, and I still remember futile discussions about them during the 1960s when people were especially rule happy. The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to “phonological rules”, which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a fusional language the shape it has. I’ve been struggling in vain to keep people from calling them rules, and it’s hard not to feel like giving up. Wally O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language > ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one > has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an > hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in America: > Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. Brenneis > and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >> issue). >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>> they're >>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>> varieties. >>> >>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >>> >>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>> >>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. >>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which >>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>> >>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >>> >>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >>> sees only mispronunciation. >>> >>> Best >>> Tahir >>> >> > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri Jun 14 08:19:02 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:19:02 +0000 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BAED29.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. Dan On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: > This is just what it is: > > the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products – > thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions – whose limits are set > by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, > the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from > creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical > reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) > > And also: > > … the process of acquisition – a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) > which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in > common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to > reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as > a model – and the process of reproduction – a practical reactivation > which is opposed to both memory and knowledge – tend to take place > below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance > which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) > > Tahir > >>>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> > These messages have lifted my spirits. I’ve always felt this way > about > “rules”, and I still remember futile discussions about them during > the > 1960s when people were especially rule happy. > > The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to “phonological > rules”, > which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a > fusional language the shape it has. I’ve been struggling in vain to > keep > people from calling them rules, and it’s hard not to feel like giving > up. > > Wally > > O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > >> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > >> varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language >> ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But > one >> has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in > an >> hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in > America: >> Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. > Brenneis >> and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > >> Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >>> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > >>> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > >>> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >>> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >>> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >>> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >>> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting > >>> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this > >>> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking > >>> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function > >>> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, > >>> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >>> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >>> issue). >>> >>> Ellen >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>> University of Virginia >>> P.O. Box 400120 >>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>> USA >>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>> >>> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>>> they're >>>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>>> varieties. >>>> >>>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to > >>>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point > briefly. >>>> >>>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with > >>>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case > >>>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a > >>>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, > >>>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>>> >>>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop > >>>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from > a >>>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So > >>>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific > question. >>>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, > which >>>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>>> >>>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it > has >>>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna > come. >>>> >>>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle > >>>> sees only mispronunciation. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Tahir >>>> >>> >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 08:30:01 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:30:01 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <8A79DAA0-70A8-434D-BA39-B4D9B5B62746@bentley.edu> Message-ID: >>> "Everett, Daniel" 6/14/2013 10:19 am >>> John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. No doubt with copious references to baseball and chess. Tahir From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri Jun 14 08:31:09 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:31:09 +0000 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BAF0A7.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: And Reaganite economics, at least in their lecture form. Dan On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> "Everett, Daniel" 6/14/2013 10:19 am >>> > John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. > > No doubt with copious references to baseball and chess. > Tahir > > > > From Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl Fri Jun 14 17:50:41 2013 From: Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:50:41 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <8A79DAA0-70A8-434D-BA39-B4D9B5B62746@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Other worthwile philosophy reading on the notion of rules are Wittgenstein (on what it means to "follow a rule") and David Lewis. In his 1969 book /Convention/, Lewis discusses a cluster of related notions, and 'rule' turns out to be one of the most tricky and elusive; cf. this on page 104: "it is hard to show that there is /any/ regularity that could not be called a rule in /some/ context". Enjoy, --Arie On 14-6-2013 10:19, Everett, Daniel wrote: > John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule > following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at > length in the philosophical literature. > > Dan > > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> This is just what it is: >> >> the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products – >> thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions – whose limits are set >> by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, >> the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from >> creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical >> reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) >> >> And also: >> >> … the process of acquisition – a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) >> which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in >> common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to >> reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as >> a model – and the process of reproduction – a practical reactivation >> which is opposed to both memory and knowledge – tend to take place >> below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance >> which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) >> >> Tahir >> >>>>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> >> These messages have lifted my spirits. I’ve always felt this way >> about >> “rules”, and I still remember futile discussions about them during >> the >> 1960s when people were especially rule happy. >> >> The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to “phonological >> rules”, >> which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a >> fusional language the shape it has. I’ve been struggling in vain to >> keep >> people from calling them rules, and it’s hard not to feel like giving >> up. >> >> Wally >> >> O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> >>> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard >> >>> varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language >>> ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But >> one >>> has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in >> an >>> hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. “Monoglot ‘Standard’ in >> America: >>> Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.” In D. >> Brenneis >>> and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic >> >>> Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) >>> >>> Ellen >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>> University of Virginia >>> P.O. Box 400120 >>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>> USA >>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>> >>> On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >>>> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> >>>> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> >>>> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >>>> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >>>> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >>>> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >>>> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> >>>> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> >>>> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> >>>> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> >>>> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> >>>> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >>>> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >>>> issue). >>>> >>>> Ellen >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>>> University of Virginia >>>> P.O. Box 400120 >>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>>> USA >>>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>>> >>>> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>>>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>>>> they're >>>>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>>>> varieties. >>>>> >>>>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>>>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>>>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >> >>>>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>>>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point >> briefly. >>>>> >>>>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>>>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>>>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >> >>>>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>>>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >> >>>>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>>>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>>>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>>>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >> >>>>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >> >>>>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>>>> >>>>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>>>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>>>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> >>>>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from >> a >>>>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>>>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >> >>>>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific >> question. >>>>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, >> which >>>>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>>>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>>>> >>>>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it >> has >>>>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>>>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>>>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>>>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna >> come. >>>>> >>>>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>>>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>>>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >> >>>>> sees only mispronunciation. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sat Jun 15 01:00:52 2013 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:00:52 -0700 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I always say to my students that I use "rule" to mean "pattern," a statement that describes a regularity. The rules we write down when we do native-speaker tests are just descriptions of something we have in our minds that guides our formation of utterances. Surely in an introductory session there is no need to go further than that. I do a fun "you know more about English grammar than you know you know" exercise, with tag questions -- they require about 7 rules to construct. If you're interested, I'll send it to you. I do it on the first or second day of class. It starts with a plain sentence, then that sentence with a tag. Then I give them puzzle-piece terminology: SUBJ AUX PRO NEG rest of sentence, and attach those to the example sentence. Then they construct tags for given sentences, and then answer questions: "What did you look at in the base sentence to decide which PRO to use?", etc. I begin with sentences that have AUX. Then I move to sentences without AUX, then we do be. At each point I have them test the rules by trying out other tags: "Mikey fed the dog, fed he?" And ask which rule is violated. I also find that a lot of students like morphology problems. I start my morphology unit with a Swahili problem, and make sure they use lists to find the morphemes (they always just want to eyeball it). I think I took the problem from the SIL problem book, but maybe not. I can send that, too, if you like. I think the most important message linguists have to get across to the general public is that "nonstandard" ≠ "substandard." So much harm comes from this absurd idea, and it can be prevented via a public education campaign. My students generally report, on exit surveys, that this is the most important bit of information they got from my class, and they vow never to judge someone based on their language again. Don't know if it really sticks, but it's gratifying at that moment. Trouble is, I can't think of a fun way to present that idea that won't make them all feel like closet racists. Maybe doing something with matched-guise tests. My students are always impressed with John Baugh's story about calling up landlords about an apartment, using AAE half the time and St E half the time. Only the SE class rendered a meaningful response rate. I'd love to know what you do in the end, and how it turns out. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Mike Cahill wrote: > Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. > > 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. > > 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. > > Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. > > Mike Cahill > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: Funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q > > I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. > > Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. > > best, > > Danny > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" >> at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me >> with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: >> >> I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those >> professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on >> approach is what we’re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots >> of really cool >> props.* >> >> The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, >> but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done >> something like this before. Participants will include folks from the >> community, adults and children. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Shannon >> > > > > -- > > Omnis habet sua dona dies. > ~ Martial > > > From okb at umail.ucsb.edu Mon Jun 17 06:23:09 2013 From: okb at umail.ucsb.edu (Brendan Barnwell) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:23:09 -0700 Subject: CLaW abstract submission deadline approaching Message-ID: This is a reminder that abstract submissions for talks and posters for at the 2013 Cognition and Language Workshop (CLaW) are due June 30. For more information see the website at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/claw/call.html . -- Brendan Barnwell "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail." --author unknown From g.philip.polidoro at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 09:36:24 2013 From: g.philip.polidoro at gmail.com (Gill Philip) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:36:24 +0200 Subject: Metaphor and Austerity - final call for audience participation Message-ID: Dear Colleagues We invite you to come and join us in Lancaster on Monday 22nd July 2013 for the 5th Workshop on Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language. A regular event held in conjunction with the Corpus Linguistics conferences, this workshop is dedicated to the theme of Metaphor and Austerity, and has been endorsed by the Researching and Applying Metaphor International Association www.raam.org.uk/ For further details about the workshop theme and programme, visit: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/cl2013/workshops.php How to register: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/cl2013/register.php Registration open until 30 June *It is possible to register for just the pre-conference workshop.* looking forward to seeing you in Lancaster! Gill Philip on behalf of the organising committee -- ********************************* Dr. Gill Philip Università degli Studi di Macerata Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, dei Beni Culturali, e del Turismo Piazzale L. Bertelli Contrada Vallebona 62100 Macerata Italy From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 16:29:25 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:29:25 -0700 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation Message-ID: Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon From mike_cahill at sil.org Thu Jun 20 17:12:52 2013 From: mike_cahill at sil.org (Mike Cahill) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:12:52 -0500 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wow. Lots of potential. On the animal communication topic, there's a tendency for a fair number of people to look at animals as almost ready to write Shakespeare. Stephen Anderson's book "Doctor Dolittle's Delusion" is a good overview of what birds, bees, and apes can and cannot do, and how animal communication differs from human language. Mike -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of s.t. bischoff Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:29 AM To: LINGUA at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; lingua at list.arizona.edu; Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Linguistics: Public Presenation Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Jun 20 17:22:52 2013 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:22:52 +0000 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation In-Reply-To: <22296218d962df4c9a4b2761ace79b78@sil.org> Message-ID: Also, please don't forget the possibility of letting people know that not all languages are spoken. The SIL Ethnologue lists several hundred signed languages. People are often startled to learn that American Sign Language and British Sign Language are entirely distinct languages, mutually unintelligible, while ASL and French Sign Language (LSF) share a very high number of cognates. They're also surprised to learn that writing systems for ASL exist (although they are not generally taught or used, which can raise interesting questions about the development of writing systems in general, e.g., among native communities speaking endangered languages). See attached for one example (with English translation). -- Sherman On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Mike Cahill > wrote: Wow. Lots of potential. On the animal communication topic, there's a tendency for a fair number of people to look at animals as almost ready to write Shakespeare. Stephen Anderson's book "Doctor Dolittle's Delusion" is a good overview of what birds, bees, and apes can and cannot do, and how animal communication differs from human language. Mike -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of s.t. bischoff Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:29 AM To: LINGUA at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; lingua at list.arizona.edu; Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Linguistics: Public Presenation Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon [cid:DDF9886D-4DE3-4CDB-9A68-6AA2CF66FB6C at hsd1.nm.comcast.net.] From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 09:50:32 2013 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:50:32 +0800 Subject: request for paper Message-ID: Hello All, I am trying to prepare a presentation at a conference while on the road, and forgot to bring a copy of the following paper, which will be very important to what I want to argue in my paper: Firbas, J. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1:267-280 I can't find a copy on line or through my University's library. Does anyone have a soft copy they could send me? Thanks very much! All the best, Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA （罗仁地）| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/ From agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca Mon Jun 3 16:42:50 2013 From: agreenwood at utpress.utoronto.ca (Greenwood, Audrey) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:42:50 +0000 Subject: New Issue Alert - The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 58:1/2013 Message-ID: Now available on Project MUSE The Canadian Journal of Linguistics Volume 58, Number 1, March/mars 2013 Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses Guest editor/R?dacteur invit?: Benjamin Shaer This issue contains: Introduction Benjamin Shaer pp. 1-12 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0004 I begin this introduction with an introduction. This is in part because the title of this thematic issue, "Temporal and modal dimensions of legal discourses", does not really give away much, either about the choice of topics???time, after all, being a dimension of everything and modal notions being ubiquitous in reasoning, communication, and the study of these??or about the choice to investigate "legal discourses" rather than, say, "law", or "laws", or "legal texts", or even "legal discourse". Read more Deontic contexts and the interpretation of disjunction in legal discourse Martin Aher pp. 13-42 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0006 Abstract: This study investigates the interpretation of or in legal texts, focusing on two puzzles: "inclusive/exclusive" or and "free choice permission". Read more R?sum?: Cette ?tude porte sur l'interpr?tation de or ('ou') dans les textes juridiques et se concentre sur deux questions : or ?inclusif/exclusif? et or ?autorisation de libre choix?. Lisez plus Some linguistic properties of legal notices Nicholas Allott, Benjamin Shaer pp. 43-62 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0008 Abstract: In this article, we consider legal notices of various forms, including imperative, indicative, and non-sentential. We argue that these convey various illocutionary forces depending on their particular content. Read more R?sum?: Dans cet article, nous consid?rons une vari?t? d'annonces juridiques dont des formulations ? l'imp?ratif, ? l'affirmatif et non sentencielles. Nous affirmons que ces formulations comportent diverses forces illocutionnaires selon leur contenu sp?cifique. Lisez plus "Always speaking"?: Interpreting the present tense in statutes Neal Goldfarb pp. 63-83 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0010 Abstract: This article takes a critical look through the lens of linguistics at the "always speaking" principle in law?an influential principle that is recited in materials on legislative drafting as the justification for using the present tense, adopted in many common-law jurisdictions as a principle of interpretation, and accepted as a foundation for the linguistic analysis of the use of tense in statutes. Read more R?sum?: Cet article ?tudie dans une perspective linguistique le principe de l'??nonciation continuelle? tel qu'utilis? en droit. Il s'agit d'un principe qui, dans les textes traitant de r?daction l?gislative, est invoqu? pour justifier l'emploi du temps pr?sent, qui a ?t? adopt? comme principe d'interpr?tation dans le droit commun de bien des pays ou territoires et qui a ?t? accept? comme base de l'analyse linguistique de l'emploi des temps dans les lois. Lisez plus Temporal modifiers and the Rogers?Aliant dispute E. Graham Katz, Benjamin Shaer pp. 85-103 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0001 Abstract: In this article, we discuss a recent dispute between two Canadian companies, Rogers and Aliant, which went before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Read more Is legal English "going European"?: The case of the simple present Christopher Williams pp. 105-126 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0002 Abstract: In many countries in continental Europe the simple present is extensively used in main clauses in legislative texts to express obligation. Read more R?sum?: Dans bien des pays de l'Europe continentale le pr?sent simple est abondamment utilis? dans les propositions principales de textes l?gislatifs pour exprimer l'obligation. Lisez plus Reviews / Comptes Rendus Coordination in syntax by Niina Ning Zhang (review) Anna Bondaruk pp. 127-130 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0003 n?e?k?pmxc?n: Thompson River Salish speech by Steven M. Egesdal, M. Terry Thompson, and Mandy N. Jimmie (review) Karsten Koch pp. 130-133 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0005 Complex Predicates: The syntax-morphology interface by Leila Lomashvili (review) Anna Malicka-Kleparska pp. 133-137 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0007 Anaphora and language design by Eric Reuland (review) Francesco-Alessio Ursini pp. 137-140 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0009 The sociolinguistics of globalization by Jan Blommaert (review) Zhiying Xin pp. 140-143 | DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2013.0000 The Canadian Journal of Linguistics publishes articles of original research in linguistics in both English and French. The articles deal with linguistic theory, linguistic description of English, French and a variety of other natural languages, phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, first and second language acquisition, and other areas of interest to linguists. About Project MUSE Project MUSE is a unique collaboration between libraries and publishers, providing 100% full-text, affordable and user-friendly online access to a comprehensive selection of prestigious humanities and social sciencesjournals. MUSE's online journal collections support a diverse array of research needs at academic, public, special and school libraries worldwide. For more information about the Canadian Journal of Linguistics or for submissions information, please contact: University of Toronto Press - Journals Division 5201 Dufferin St. Toronto, ON M3H 5T8 Tel: (416) 667-7810 Fax: (416) 667-7881 E-mail: journals at utpress.utoronto.ca www.utpjournals.com/cjl Join us on Facebook www.facebook.com/utpjournals Join us for advance notice of tables of contents of forthcoming issues, author and editor commentaries and insights, calls for papers and advice on publishing in our journals. Become a fan and receive free access to articles weekly through UTPJournals focus. From falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es Tue Jun 4 22:56:31 2013 From: falonso at dfm.ulpgc.es (Francisco Alonso Almeida) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:56:31 +0100 Subject: Cfp - VI Congreso Internacional de Ling=?iso-8859-1?Q?=FC=EDstica_?=de Corpus/ 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics Message-ID: [Apologies for cross-postings] CILC2014: VI Congreso Internacional de Ling??stica de Corpus CILC2014: 6th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 22-24 May, 2014 www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6 The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria on behalf of the Spanish Association for Corpus Linguistics (AELINCO) will be hosting the Sixth International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC2014). The theme of the 2014 conference will be Input a word, analyze the world: Corpus linguistics and society. The Organizing Committee of CILC2014 invites scholars and researchers to submit paper and abstract proposals preferably related to the theme of this edition within any one of the following nine thematic panels: Corpus design, compilation and types. Discourse, literary analysis and corpora. Corpus-based grammatical studies. Corpus-based lexicology and lexicography. Corpora, contrastive studies and translation. Corpus and linguistic variation. Corpus-based computational linguistics. Corpora, language acquisition and teaching. Special uses of corpus linguistics. The deadline for submitting proposals via EasyChair is January 27, 2014. More information is available on the conference website (www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6). The conference site will be regularly updated. In the meantime, you may contact us via the web contact form at http://www.congresos.ulpgc.es/cilc6/contact-form/ We look forward to seeing you in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria in May 2014! Francisco Alonso (on behalf of the Organizing Committee) From collfitz at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 17:18:04 2013 From: collfitz at gmail.com (Colleen Fitzgerald) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:18:04 -0700 Subject: Call for proposals: Workshops on Language Documentation, Maintenance, and Revitalization Message-ID: *Call for proposals: Workshops on Language Documentation, Maintenance, and Revitalization *Deadline for receipt of proposals: July 15, 2013 Selection of proposals: August 30, 2013 To be held as part of: 2014 Institute on Collaborative Language Research (CoLang/InField) Institute on Field Linguistics and Language Documentation http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/ (please note this web address is case sensitive) University of Texas at Arlington June 16th ? June 27th, 2014 We are soliciting proposals for workshops in language documentation, language maintenance, and language revitalization to be held as part of the fourth CoLang/InField, Institute on Collaborative Language Research. The CoLang/InField training institutes take place in summers alternating with the Linguistic Society of America's Institute. The participant audience at CoLang 2014 will include Indigenous community members, practicing linguists, graduate and undergraduate students in linguistics and anthropology, archivists, and language activists with an interest in documenting, maintaining, or revitalizing their languages. Previous workshops have been hosted by the University of Kansas, the University of Oregon and the University of California, Santa Barbara. Past participants have gone on to great success in developing documentation and revitalization projects, generating funding, and presenting results at major international venues like the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas, and the International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation. The 2014 Institute will take place at The University of Texas at Arlington from June 16 to June 27, 2014. CoLang 2014 will offer courses that address technological training, interdisciplinary collaborations with the sciences, developing collaborative community language projects, and pedagogical/teaching applications. Several foundation courses in linguistics are also offered. The current list of planned courses is online at http://www.uta.edu/faculty/cmfitz/swnal/projects/CoLang/CoLang2014-courselistv1.htm. These courses are already assigned instructors. In keeping with CoLang as a training venue that promotes exposure to cutting-edge techniques and innovative approaches in language documentation and revitalization, proposals for new workshop topics are being solicited. Workshops should not duplicate currently planned courses. At CoLang 2014, there will be two instruction formats for workshop offerings : 4-day courses (6 hours total) and 2-hour workshops (2 hours total). We estimate accepting approximately five new workshops of each type (ten accepted workshops from this solicitation, five in 4-day format, five in 2-hour format). The proposal should be a maximum of 2 pages in length, and should include: topic, rationale for including it as part of CoLang, proposed length (2-hour or 4-day), a brief description of workshop content (general lesson plan , target audience, and level, e.g., beginning, intermediate, advanced), how it would be taught (balance of theory, examples, hands-on exercises), and what experience qualifies you to teach it. We encourage students and language activists to apply. For an example of workshop titles and descriptions from a previous institute, go to http://linguistics.uoregon.edu/infield2010/workshops/index.php Travel and room and board will be covered for instructors, and a modest honorarium provided. Questions should be directed to Colleen Fitzgerald, Director of the 2014 Institute on Collaborative Research at cmfitz at uta.edu. Completed proposals should be submitted as a PDF to uta2014institute at gmail.com. CoLang/InField is partially funded by the National Science Foundation. From dwhieb at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:51:27 2013 From: dwhieb at gmail.com (Daniel Hieber) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:51:27 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. best, Danny On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" > at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me with a > request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: > > I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those > professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on approach is > what we?re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots of really cool > props.* > > The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, but > was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done something > like this before. Participants will include folks from the community, > adults and children. > > Thanks in advance, > Shannon > -- Omnis habet sua dona dies. ~ Martial From bischoff.st at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:22:37 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:22:37 -0700 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q Message-ID: Hello all, I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on approach is what we?re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots of really cool props.* The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done something like this before. Participants will include folks from the community, adults and children. Thanks in advance, Shannon From mike_cahill at sil.org Wed Jun 12 17:35:05 2013 From: mike_cahill at sil.org (Mike Cahill) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:35:05 -0500 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. Mike Cahill -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM To: s.t. bischoff Cc: Funknet Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. best, Danny On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" > at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me > with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: > > I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those > professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on > approach is what we?re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots > of really cool > props.* > > The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, > but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done > something like this before. Participants will include folks from the > community, adults and children. > > Thanks in advance, > Shannon > -- Omnis habet sua dona dies. ~ Martial From elc9j at virginia.edu Wed Jun 12 17:42:19 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:42:19 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard varieties. A good example is Wolfram's a-prefixing quiz (see http://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/a-prefixing/). Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/12/2013 1:35 PM, Mike Cahill wrote: > Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. > > 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. > > 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. > > Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. > > Mike Cahill > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: Funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q > > I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. > > Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. > > best, > > Danny > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" >> at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me >> with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: >> >> I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those >> professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on >> approach is what we?re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots >> of really cool >> props.* >> >> The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, >> but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done >> something like this before. Participants will include folks from the >> community, adults and children. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Shannon >> > > From twood at uwc.ac.za Thu Jun 13 07:41:01 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:41:01 +0200 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B8B2FB.4070605@virginia.edu> Message-ID: >>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/2013 7:42 pm >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard varieties. Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I wonder if anyone else is interested in this? You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only mispronunciation. Best Tahir From elc9j at virginia.edu Thu Jun 13 12:12:38 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:12:38 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B993A9.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> > People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're > not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard > varieties. > > Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. > > I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. > > OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I wonder if anyone else is interested in this? > > You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. > > If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only mispronunciation. > > Best > Tahir > From elc9j at virginia.edu Thu Jun 13 17:03:11 2013 From: elc9j at virginia.edu (Ellen Contini-Morava) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:03:11 -0400 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B9B736.1080402@virginia.edu> Message-ID: I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. Brenneis and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of > Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to > discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, > in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that > nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some > major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to > referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the > English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of > English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: > 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: > Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're >> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >> varieties. >> >> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may >> just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't >> believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass >> other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript >> on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >> >> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart >> from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of >> regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you >> mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules >> as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the >> regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is >> dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule >> after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the >> rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in >> that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs >> do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >> >> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has >> done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what >> does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I >> think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I >> would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >> >> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >> >> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. >> But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the >> important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only >> mispronunciation. >> >> Best >> Tahir >> > From Eva.Staudinger at romanistik.uni-freiburg.de Thu Jun 13 20:04:53 2013 From: Eva.Staudinger at romanistik.uni-freiburg.de (Eva Staudinger) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:04:53 +0200 Subject: RRG conference 2013 in Freiburg, Germany Message-ID: Dear all, the registration for this year's Role and Reference Grammar conference in Freiburg, Germany, is open. Early registration closes on July 7. There is no conference fee. We are happy to accept late registrations, but we might not be able to offer the same "service" to the late-comers. For further information please go to: http://www.frias.uni-freiburg.de/lang_and_lit/veranstaltungen/role-and-reference-grammar Kind regards, Eva ************************************* Eva Staudinger Research assistant University of Freiburg Department of Romance Languages Platz der Universit?t 3 D-79085 Freiburg Phone +49-761-203 9066 Fax +49-761-203 3195 ************************************* From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Fri Jun 14 04:24:35 2013 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:24:35 -0700 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51B9FB4F.6070305@virginia.edu> Message-ID: These messages have lifted my spirits. I?ve always felt this way about ?rules?, and I still remember futile discussions about them during the 1960s when people were especially rule happy. The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to ?phonological rules?, which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a fusional language the shape it has. I?ve been struggling in vain to keep people from calling them rules, and it?s hard not to feel like giving up. Wally O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language > ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one > has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an > hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in America: > Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. Brenneis > and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >> issue). >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>> they're >>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>> varieties. >>> >>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >>> >>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>> >>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. >>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which >>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>> >>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >>> >>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >>> sees only mispronunciation. >>> >>> Best >>> Tahir >>> >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 07:43:35 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:43:35 +0200 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: <51B9FB4F.6070305@virginia.edu> Message-ID: But my point was that there is a quite legitimate notion of rules that one gets in ordinary English speech. That is where one says "as a rule X happens in manner Y in context C", a description of a regularity where one is NOT claiming that the rule creates the regularity. The trouble is then you have to take pains to clarify what 'rules' means. But our analytic friends might deny that there can be such a thing as a descriptive rule. Yet they have no problem with the hocus-pocus of 'constitutive rules' (very scary quotes). Tahir >>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/13/2013 7:03 pm >>> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in America: Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. Brenneis and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini-Morava Professor, Department of Anthropology University of Virginia P.O. Box 400120 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 USA phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of > Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to > discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware of, > in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously that > nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting some > major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this post to > referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking the > English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function of > English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, 2011: > 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely different: > Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same issue). > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that they're >> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >> varieties. >> >> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You may >> just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I don't >> believe that any such things exist and I would really like to canvass >> other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive manuscript >> on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >> >> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language apart >> from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are descriptions of >> regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with you. But if you >> mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be committed to rules >> as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case create the >> regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I think this is >> dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it formulates a rule >> after having observed a regularity and then it backtracks to say the >> rule caused the regularity. At best one has a Humean causality in >> that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, just because all Xs >> do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >> >> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule has >> done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So what >> does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. I >> think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which I >> would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >> >> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >> >> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as well. >> But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' and the >> important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle sees only >> mispronunciation. >> >> Best >> Tahir >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 08:15:08 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:15:08 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BA9B03.9030008@linguistics.ucsb.edu> Message-ID: This is just what it is: the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products ? thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions ? whose limits are set by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) And also: ? the process of acquisition ? a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as a model ? and the process of reproduction ? a practical reactivation which is opposed to both memory and knowledge ? tend to take place below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) Tahir >>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> These messages have lifted my spirits. I?ve always felt this way about ?rules?, and I still remember futile discussions about them during the 1960s when people were especially rule happy. The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to ?phonological rules?, which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a fusional language the shape it has. I?ve been struggling in vain to keep people from calling them rules, and it?s hard not to feel like giving up. Wally O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language > ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But one > has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in an > hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in America: > Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. Brenneis > and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) > > Ellen > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Ellen Contini-Morava > Professor, Department of Anthropology > University of Virginia > P.O. Box 400120 > Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 > USA > phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 > fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 > > On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >> issue). >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>> they're >>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>> varieties. >>> >>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point briefly. >>> >>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>> >>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from a >>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific question. >>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, which >>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>> >>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it has >>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna come. >>> >>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >>> sees only mispronunciation. >>> >>> Best >>> Tahir >>> >> > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri Jun 14 08:19:02 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:19:02 +0000 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BAED29.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. Dan On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: > This is just what it is: > > the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products ? > thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions ? whose limits are set > by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, > the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from > creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical > reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) > > And also: > > ? the process of acquisition ? a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) > which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in > common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to > reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as > a model ? and the process of reproduction ? a practical reactivation > which is opposed to both memory and knowledge ? tend to take place > below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance > which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) > > Tahir > >>>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> > These messages have lifted my spirits. I?ve always felt this way > about > ?rules?, and I still remember futile discussions about them during > the > 1960s when people were especially rule happy. > > The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to ?phonological > rules?, > which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a > fusional language the shape it has. I?ve been struggling in vain to > keep > people from calling them rules, and it?s hard not to feel like giving > up. > > Wally > > O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: > >> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard > >> varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language >> ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But > one >> has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in > an >> hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in > America: >> Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. > Brenneis >> and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic > >> Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) >> >> Ellen >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Ellen Contini-Morava >> Professor, Department of Anthropology >> University of Virginia >> P.O. Box 400120 >> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >> USA >> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >> >> On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >>> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad > >>> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the > >>> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >>> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >>> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >>> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >>> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting > >>> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this > >>> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking > >>> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function > >>> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, > >>> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >>> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >>> issue). >>> >>> Ellen >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>> University of Virginia >>> P.O. Box 400120 >>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>> USA >>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>> >>> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>>> they're >>>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>>> varieties. >>>> >>>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to > >>>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point > briefly. >>>> >>>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with > >>>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case > >>>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a > >>>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, > >>>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>>> >>>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop > >>>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from > a >>>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So > >>>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific > question. >>>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, > which >>>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>>> >>>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it > has >>>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna > come. >>>> >>>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle > >>>> sees only mispronunciation. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Tahir >>>> >>> >> > From twood at uwc.ac.za Fri Jun 14 08:30:01 2013 From: twood at uwc.ac.za (Tahir Wood) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:30:01 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <8A79DAA0-70A8-434D-BA39-B4D9B5B62746@bentley.edu> Message-ID: >>> "Everett, Daniel" 6/14/2013 10:19 am >>> John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. No doubt with copious references to baseball and chess. Tahir From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Fri Jun 14 08:31:09 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:31:09 +0000 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <51BAF0A7.1F1D.0069.1@uwc.ac.za> Message-ID: And Reaganite economics, at least in their lecture form. Dan On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:30 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>> "Everett, Daniel" 6/14/2013 10:19 am >>> > John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at length in the philosophical literature. > > No doubt with copious references to baseball and chess. > Tahir > > > > From Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl Fri Jun 14 17:50:41 2013 From: Arie.Verhagen at hum.leidenuniv.nl (Arie Verhagen) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:50:41 +0200 Subject: The ontology of rules In-Reply-To: <8A79DAA0-70A8-434D-BA39-B4D9B5B62746@bentley.edu> Message-ID: Other worthwile philosophy reading on the notion of rules are Wittgenstein (on what it means to "follow a rule") and David Lewis. In his 1969 book /Convention/, Lewis discusses a cluster of related notions, and 'rule' turns out to be one of the most tricky and elusive; cf. this on page 104: "it is hard to show that there is /any/ regularity that could not be called a rule in /some/ context". Enjoy, --Arie On 14-6-2013 10:19, Everett, Daniel wrote: > John Searle has written extensively (and very critically) of "rule > following" analyses in linguistics and this has been discussed at > length in the philosophical literature. > > Dan > > > On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:15 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: > >> This is just what it is: >> >> the habitus is an infinite capacity for generating products ? >> thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions ? whose limits are set >> by the historically and socially situated conditions of its production, >> the conditioned and conditional freedom it provides is as remote from >> creation of unpredictable novelty as it is from simple mechanical >> reproduction of the original conditioning. (Bourdieu 1990: 55) >> >> And also: >> >> ? the process of acquisition ? a practical mimesis (or mimeticism) >> which implies an overall relation of identification and has nothing in >> common with an imitation that would presuppose a conscious effort to >> reproduce a gesture, an utterance or an object explicitly constituted as >> a model ? and the process of reproduction ? a practical reactivation >> which is opposed to both memory and knowledge ? tend to take place >> below the level of consciousness, expression and the reflexive distance >> which these presuppose. (Bourdieu 1990:72-73) >> >> Tahir >> >>>>> Wallace Chafe 6/14/2013 6:24 am >>> >> These messages have lifted my spirits. I?ve always felt this way >> about >> ?rules?, and I still remember futile discussions about them during >> the >> 1960s when people were especially rule happy. >> >> The issue has arisen for me lately with respect to ?phonological >> rules?, >> which are nothing more than statements of sound changes that give a >> fusional language the shape it has. I?ve been struggling in vain to >> keep >> people from calling them rules, and it?s hard not to feel like giving >> up. >> >> Wally >> >> O n 6/13/2013 10:03 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >> >>> I confess that convincing a public audience that (even) non-standard >> >>> varieties have "rules" itself panders to the hegemonic language >>> ideology that having reified "rules" is a badge of legitimacy. But >> one >>> has to pick one's battles; there's only so much that can be done in >> an >>> hour. (See Michael Silverstein, 1996. ?Monoglot ?Standard? in >> America: >>> Standardization and Metaphors of Linguistic Hegemony.? In D. >> Brenneis >>> and R. Macauley, eds. The Matrix of Language: Contemporary Linguistic >> >>> Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Pp. 284-306.) >>> >>> Ellen >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>> University of Virginia >>> P.O. Box 400120 >>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>> USA >>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>> >>> On 6/13/2013 8:12 AM, Ellen Contini-Morava wrote: >>>> Oh dear, to be accused of believing in determinative rules! I'm glad >> >>>> you noticed the scare quotes, which were there exactly to place the >> >>>> word in others' mouths (such as those of the likely audience of >>>> Shannon's talk). My point was that people find it illuminating to >>>> discover that there are indeed regularities that they may be aware >>>> of, in some sense, without being conscious of, and simultaneously >>>> that nonstandard varieties are not chaotic. Right now we're awaiting >> >>>> some major thunderstorms with threat of tornados so I'll limit this >> >>>> post to referring you to my response to Wally Reid's paper debunking >> >>>> the English verb "agreement rule" (Reid: "The communicative function >> >>>> of English verb number", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29, >> >>>> 2011: 1087-1146); Ellen C-M: "And now for something completely >>>> different: Reid on English verb number", pp. 1147-1162 of the same >>>> issue). >>>> >>>> Ellen >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Ellen Contini-Morava >>>> Professor, Department of Anthropology >>>> University of Virginia >>>> P.O. Box 400120 >>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4120 >>>> USA >>>> phone: +1 (434) 924-6825 >>>> fax: +1 (434) 924-1350 >>>> >>>> On 6/13/2013 3:41 AM, Tahir Wood wrote: >>>>>>>> Ellen Contini-Morava 6/12/7:42 pm >>> >>>>> People also find it cool to discover that they know "rules" that >>>>> they're >>>>> not aware of knowing, and that these even apply to nonstandard >>>>> varieties. >>>>> >>>>> Ooh! You've hit right on my current favourite debating topic. You >>>>> may just be referring to something called 'constitutive rules'. I >>>>> don't believe that any such things exist and I would really like to >> >>>>> canvass other opinions. I'm working at producing a comprehensive >>>>> manuscript on this soon, but let me just make the main point >> briefly. >>>>> >>>>> I would say that the only sorts of rules that exist in language >>>>> apart from 'regulative rules' (prescriptions basically) are >>>>> descriptions of regularities. If that's what you mean then I'm with >> >>>>> you. But if you mean Searlean constitutive rules then you must be >>>>> committed to rules as causal or 'creative'. The rules in that case >> >>>>> create the regularities, don't just describe them. If so, than I >>>>> think this is dead wrong. The approach is unscientific because it >>>>> formulates a rule after having observed a regularity and then it >>>>> backtracks to say the rule caused the regularity. At best one has a >> >>>>> Humean causality in that case: X behaves in manner Y in context C, >> >>>>> just because all Xs do. Oops. Constant conjunction redux. >>>>> >>>>> OK then, one may ask, what about Searle's linguistic example (his >>>>> only real one as far as I know) around the nasal consonants in >>>>> 'finger' and 'singer' respectively? The rule is that the velar stop >> >>>>> occurs after the nasal whenever the word is not a noun formed from >> a >>>>> verb. Isn't this a clincher? Actually, no, it's not. All the rule >>>>> has done is describe a pattern not 'created' (Searle's word) it. So >> >>>>> what does create it? That is precisely the true scientific >> question. >>>>> I think what is at stake is something like Bourdieu's habitus, >> which >>>>> I would like to draw into linguistics and then explore further. I >>>>> wonder if anyone else is interested in this? >>>>> >>>>> You see, what I have admired in cognitive linguistics is that it >> has >>>>> dispensed with Chomskyan rules in explanations of syntax and >>>>> semantics. That is still very far from a reality in pragmatics >>>>> unfortunately, which still tends to suffer under the weight of >>>>> Searlean and Gricean philosophy, but a change is surely gonna >> come. >>>>> >>>>> If no-one objects I might just take this debate onto cogling as >>>>> well. But let me say I appreciate the scare quotes around 'rules' >>>>> and the important reference to nonstandard varieties, where Searle >> >>>>> sees only mispronunciation. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Tahir >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > From jrubba at calpoly.edu Sat Jun 15 01:00:52 2013 From: jrubba at calpoly.edu (Johanna Rubba) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:00:52 -0700 Subject: Public Linguistics Presentation Q In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I always say to my students that I use "rule" to mean "pattern," a statement that describes a regularity. The rules we write down when we do native-speaker tests are just descriptions of something we have in our minds that guides our formation of utterances. Surely in an introductory session there is no need to go further than that. I do a fun "you know more about English grammar than you know you know" exercise, with tag questions -- they require about 7 rules to construct. If you're interested, I'll send it to you. I do it on the first or second day of class. It starts with a plain sentence, then that sentence with a tag. Then I give them puzzle-piece terminology: SUBJ AUX PRO NEG rest of sentence, and attach those to the example sentence. Then they construct tags for given sentences, and then answer questions: "What did you look at in the base sentence to decide which PRO to use?", etc. I begin with sentences that have AUX. Then I move to sentences without AUX, then we do be. At each point I have them test the rules by trying out other tags: "Mikey fed the dog, fed he?" And ask which rule is violated. I also find that a lot of students like morphology problems. I start my morphology unit with a Swahili problem, and make sure they use lists to find the morphemes (they always just want to eyeball it). I think I took the problem from the SIL problem book, but maybe not. I can send that, too, if you like. I think the most important message linguists have to get across to the general public is that "nonstandard" ? "substandard." So much harm comes from this absurd idea, and it can be prevented via a public education campaign. My students generally report, on exit surveys, that this is the most important bit of information they got from my class, and they vow never to judge someone based on their language again. Don't know if it really sticks, but it's gratifying at that moment. Trouble is, I can't think of a fun way to present that idea that won't make them all feel like closet racists. Maybe doing something with matched-guise tests. My students are always impressed with John Baugh's story about calling up landlords about an apartment, using AAE half the time and St E half the time. Only the SE class rendered a meaningful response rate. I'd love to know what you do in the end, and how it turns out. Dr. Johanna Rubba, Professor, Linguistics Linguistics Minor Advisor English Department Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo Tel. 805.756.2184 Dept. Tel 805.756.2596 E-mail: jrubba at calpoly.edu URL: http://cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ******************************************* "Justice is what love looks like in public." - Cornel West On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Mike Cahill wrote: > Two possible phonetics demos that show people they're pronouncing things they didn't know about. > > 1) Aspiration - take a piece of paper, firmly press it to your forehead with a finger so most of it covers your face. Then say (vigorously) "pool". It will puff out, showing the aspirated P. Then say "spool." Not as much of a puff out. Hey, we pronounce

two ways! This works for most people. Best to have the [pu] word initially, since it will give more of a noticeable puff. > > 2) English has nasalized vowels, like French! Well, sort of. Place your thumb and forefinger lightly against both your nostrils, and say "green." You'll notice a vibration - air is coming out your nose. Then do the same thing saying "greed." No vibration, no nasal vowel. > > Have fun with the demo. I'd like to hear what you end up doing. > > Mike Cahill > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Hieber > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:51 AM > To: s.t. bischoff > Cc: Funknet > Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Public Linguistics Presentation Q > > I once pulled out my digital recorder at my parents' home, and recorded them saying their primary vowels, showed them the spectrograms, then quickly mapped their formants in a vowel space and showed them the resulting chart. It took all of maybe 20 minutes. I was surprised to find that they thought this was the coolest thing ever, and were extremely impressed. In particular, they liked that you could see the intonation contours on Praat, and see the difference between questions and declaratives. Also that you could see the difference between male and female pitch. > > Anything where people get to analyze their own speech in some way seems like it would go over well. Perhaps polling the audience about dialectal differences. > > best, > > Danny > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:22 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I've been asked to participate in a program called "Lunch with a Scientist" >> at our local science center. The program organizer has provided me >> with a request for a brief description of what I will be presenting: >> >> I. *a brief description of what the day/program will entail. For those >> professors new to the program, please remember that a hands-on >> approach is what we?re trying for. That could be an activity, or lots >> of really cool >> props.* >> >> The presentation/activity will be about 60 minutes. I have some ideas, >> but was curious if anyone had suggestions or might have actually done >> something like this before. Participants will include folks from the >> community, adults and children. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Shannon >> > > > > -- > > Omnis habet sua dona dies. > ~ Martial > > > From okb at umail.ucsb.edu Mon Jun 17 06:23:09 2013 From: okb at umail.ucsb.edu (Brendan Barnwell) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:23:09 -0700 Subject: CLaW abstract submission deadline approaching Message-ID: This is a reminder that abstract submissions for talks and posters for at the 2013 Cognition and Language Workshop (CLaW) are due June 30. For more information see the website at http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/claw/call.html . -- Brendan Barnwell "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail." --author unknown From g.philip.polidoro at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 09:36:24 2013 From: g.philip.polidoro at gmail.com (Gill Philip) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:36:24 +0200 Subject: Metaphor and Austerity - final call for audience participation Message-ID: Dear Colleagues We invite you to come and join us in Lancaster on Monday 22nd July 2013 for the 5th Workshop on Corpus-Based Approaches to Figurative Language. A regular event held in conjunction with the Corpus Linguistics conferences, this workshop is dedicated to the theme of Metaphor and Austerity, and has been endorsed by the Researching and Applying Metaphor International Association www.raam.org.uk/ For further details about the workshop theme and programme, visit: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/cl2013/workshops.php How to register: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/cl2013/register.php Registration open until 30 June *It is possible to register for just the pre-conference workshop.* looking forward to seeing you in Lancaster! Gill Philip on behalf of the organising committee -- ********************************* Dr. Gill Philip Universit? degli Studi di Macerata Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione, dei Beni Culturali, e del Turismo Piazzale L. Bertelli Contrada Vallebona 62100 Macerata Italy From bischoff.st at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 16:29:25 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. bischoff) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 09:29:25 -0700 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation Message-ID: Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon From mike_cahill at sil.org Thu Jun 20 17:12:52 2013 From: mike_cahill at sil.org (Mike Cahill) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:12:52 -0500 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wow. Lots of potential. On the animal communication topic, there's a tendency for a fair number of people to look at animals as almost ready to write Shakespeare. Stephen Anderson's book "Doctor Dolittle's Delusion" is a good overview of what birds, bees, and apes can and cannot do, and how animal communication differs from human language. Mike -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of s.t. bischoff Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:29 AM To: LINGUA at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; lingua at list.arizona.edu; Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Linguistics: Public Presenation Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon From wilcox at unm.edu Thu Jun 20 17:22:52 2013 From: wilcox at unm.edu (Sherman Wilcox) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:22:52 +0000 Subject: Linguistics: Public Presenation In-Reply-To: <22296218d962df4c9a4b2761ace79b78@sil.org> Message-ID: Also, please don't forget the possibility of letting people know that not all languages are spoken. The SIL Ethnologue lists several hundred signed languages. People are often startled to learn that American Sign Language and British Sign Language are entirely distinct languages, mutually unintelligible, while ASL and French Sign Language (LSF) share a very high number of cognates. They're also surprised to learn that writing systems for ASL exist (although they are not generally taught or used, which can raise interesting questions about the development of writing systems in general, e.g., among native communities speaking endangered languages). See attached for one example (with English translation). -- Sherman On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Mike Cahill > wrote: Wow. Lots of potential. On the animal communication topic, there's a tendency for a fair number of people to look at animals as almost ready to write Shakespeare. Stephen Anderson's book "Doctor Dolittle's Delusion" is a good overview of what birds, bees, and apes can and cannot do, and how animal communication differs from human language. Mike -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of s.t. bischoff Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 11:29 AM To: LINGUA at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU; lingua at list.arizona.edu; Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] Linguistics: Public Presenation Hello all, Last week I asked for ideas for a public presentation at our local science center that I will be giving on linguistics and language. Thanks to everyone that provided suggests. Below are some ideas that came up and links to resources I have used in the past that I think serve to illustrate the different ideas. (1) The McGurk effect -- which can be used to demonstrate a number of things, e.g. how speech sounds are physical objects, issues of production and perception, auditory illusions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQoYKuNcCpU (2) Phonetics Flash Animation -- which can be used to demonstrate what an accent is, how speech sounds are produced, and the physiology of language http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/# (3) The Fair Housing PSA based on John Baugh's research -- can be used to explore our attitudes about language and how often those are subconscious and reflect our attitudes not about language but about speakers...this can be used to move into the standard non-standard issue... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84k2iM30vbY (4) Labov's Do you speak American clip on the N. Cities vowel shift -- demonstrates how languages change etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UoJ1-ZGb1w (5) WALS Chapter 81: Order of subject, object, verb --- illustrates language diversity and language structure http://wals.info/chapter/81 (6) UNESCO Endangered Languages --- explores issues of human rights, language endangerment http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/ There are also a number of great clips of speakers discussing the plight of their languages...all quite moving. (7) Animal communication --- the public seems very interested in this issue and there has been some interesting research comparing humans and birds using fmri and other *cool* technology that people seem to enjoy seeing...there is also Slobodchikoff's work on Prarie Dogs...and of course dolphins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w (dolphins) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bird-brains.html (PBS *Bird Brains* first or last half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1kXCh496U0 (Prairie dogs) (8) The stroop effect --- illustrates again how there is more to language than we assume, raises issues of perception, provides insights into the mind/brain... http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/02/03/a-special-case-of-the-stroop-e/ Additionally, some folks sent exercises that participants can do to explore their knowledge of language and language use. One, for example, illustrates how speakers *know* how to construct tag questions, which in turn reveals patterns in language use. Thanks all, if you have other ideas or thoughts I'd still appreciate hearing from you. Regards, Shannon [cid:DDF9886D-4DE3-4CDB-9A68-6AA2CF66FB6C at hsd1.nm.comcast.net.] From randy.lapolla at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 09:50:32 2013 From: randy.lapolla at gmail.com (Randy LaPolla) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:50:32 +0800 Subject: request for paper Message-ID: Hello All, I am trying to prepare a presentation at a conference while on the road, and forgot to bring a copy of the following paper, which will be very important to what I want to argue in my paper: Firbas, J. 1964. On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1:267-280 I can't find a copy on line or through my University's library. Does anyone have a soft copy they could send me? Thanks very much! All the best, Randy ----- Prof. Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA ?????| Head, Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332 | Tel: (65) 6592-1825 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | http://sino-tibetan.net/rjlapolla/