From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Nov 1 19:10:05 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 19:10:05 +0000 Subject: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities: 2nd call for papers Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK, 24-26 APRIL 2014 * Full call for papers attached * Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson, Alan Palmer, Patricia Waugh, David Herman, Mark Rowlands, Vyvyan Evans * Roundtable on interdisciplinarity with Ellen Spolsky, Mark Turner and Michael Wheeler * 5 special thematic conference threads on e.g. Extended Mind * Conference banquet in Durham Castle Deadline for proposals for 20 min papers or panels: 1st December. Email cog.futures at durham.ac.uk (full details below). Please circulate this call to interested colleagues and graduate students. SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts Language, meaning and cognitive processing Embodied cognition Phenomenology of technologies Cognitive poetics and interpretation Social minds Theory of mind and mind-blindness The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity Empirical aesthetics Extended cognition Ideology and the cognitive sciences Cognitive approaches to visual culture Thinking and feeling in narrative Cognitive historicism Animal consciousness and perspective Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 1st December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver bursaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Professor/Yr Athro Vyv Evans Professor of/Yr Athro Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth www.vyvevans.net Prifysgol Bangor University General Editor of Language & Cognition A Cambridge University Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LCO President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.uk-cla.org.uk Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565 Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. From tpayne at uoregon.edu Tue Nov 5 18:27:02 2013 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:27:02 -0800 Subject: Books available for review Message-ID: An updated list of books available for review in Studies in Language is now available at: http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/Booksavailable-11-2013.pdf If you are interested in reviewing one or more of these books, please contact the Review Editor, Thomas Payne (tpayne at uoregon.edu). Please include a brief statement of why you want to review a particular book, a link to a CV or other web page that indicates your qualifications as a reviewer, and a postal address where the book may be sent. Format and content guidelines for Book Reviews and Review Articles can be found at: http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/SLstylesheet.pdf Reviews will be due five months after receipt of the book. Thank you for participating in the dialog of our discipline by reviewing one or more of these books. All the best, Tom Payne tpayne at uoregon.edu From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Nov 6 03:06:55 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:06:55 -0800 Subject: phonological rules Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, and so on. Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, but I'm not sure which. Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. Fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 6 18:45:57 2013 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:45:57 -0800 Subject: phonological rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, I don't know what literature there is on this, but isn't the question whether, in the course of history, a discrete boundary is crossed whereby (to use classic terms) something allophonic becomes phonemic, either falling together with nasalized vowels already there, or creating new nasalized vowels? At that point the language might begin to exhibit contrasts between nasalized and non-nasalized vowels, contrasts that weren't there before. I can provide Iroquoian examples on both sides of that boundary. But maybe I'm just restating what you had in mind. Wally On 11/5/2013 7:06 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! > words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, and so on. > > Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, but I'm not sure which. > > Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. > > Fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Wed Nov 6 19:57:00 2013 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:57:00 -0500 Subject: phonological rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While I can't promise 'balance', I can point out a forthcoming paper by Patricia Donegan and myself arguing that at least some phonological behavior is not 'just' statistical but closer to Neogrammarian in flavor. We have a paper forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Sound Change on Natural Phonology's view of such things. I've got another, very rough draft of a more synchronic paper on storage and the extent to which phonological processes (however construed) are real-time psychological events, primarily from a Cognitive Grammar point of view. Within CG my views are not 'mainstream', FWIW, since CG has to some extent taken a 'usage-based' turn, with which I do not wholeheartedly agree. Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) Nobody at Wayne State will EVER ask you for your password. Never send it to anyone in an email, no matter how authentic the email looks. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "Funknet" > Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:06:55 PM > Subject: [FUNKNET] phonological rules > Dear Funknetters, > I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or > two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. > Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that > evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the > idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are > algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from > Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological > process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. > But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been > claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the > *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's > not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to > a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic > stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, > nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! > words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), > the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, > and so on. > Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical > rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this > issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the > conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an > article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can > imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, > but I'm not sure which. > Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. > Fritz > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 17:47:17 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. Bischoff) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:47:17 -0500 Subject: Ordinary Language Philosophy Message-ID: Hello all, There was a nice piece on Ordinary Language Philosophy last week on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time...thought I would share. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ggc19 It will move to the archive Thursday I think. Cheers, Shannon From tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu Mon Nov 11 18:37:44 2013 From: tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Tyler Marghetis) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:37:44 -0800 Subject: Final CfP: Sixth Conference of the Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS 6) Message-ID: *apologies for cross-posting* Dear colleagues, The International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) is pleased to announce the *Sixth Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies: Gesture in Interaction*. It will be held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego, July 8-11, 2014. *The deadline for abstract submission is November 15, 2013.* The conference website is: isgs.ucsd.edu Devoted to the study of multimodality in communication, the ISGS is an interdisciplinary group of researchers including anthropologists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, linguists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and semioticians. The Society convenes for a major international conference every two years, and the 2014 meeting will be the 6th. We invite abstracts that address any aspect of the study of gesture and multimodality, including but not limited to: the relationship between sign and gesture; the cognitive and neural underpinnings of gesture; the contribution of gesture to language production and comprehension; the role of gesture in situated language use; and how gesture mediates interaction in the social, cultural, and technological world. We welcome papers on any aspect of bodily communication and are open to all theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. *Plenary Speakers* Herbert Clark, Stanford University Susan Wagner Cook, University of Iowa Marjorie H. Goodwin, UCLA Marianne Gullberg, Lund University Asli Özyürek, MPI Nijmegen and Radboud University Andy Wilson, Microsoft Research *Abstract Submission* We invite abstracts of no more than 500 words. Abstracts must report previously unpublished work. Three kinds of presentation are available: *Paper presentations*: Paper presentations will be 25 minutes, with 20 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for discussion. *Thematic Panels*: Papers that address a common theme may be submitted as a Thematic Panel. Panels should consist of four talks, which must be submitted individually as Paper Presentations. Each individual abstract should indicate the name of the proposed Thematic Panel. *Poster presentation*: Poster presentations are an opportunity for more extended interaction. Posters will be displayed during poster sessions, with ample opportunity for discussion. Please submit your abstracts at the following site: http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ISGS2014 For more information, please see the conference website: isgs.ucsd.edu *Important Dates* September 1, 2013: Submission Opens *November 15, 2013: Submission Deadline* December 15, 2013: Notification of Acceptance January 15, 2014: Registration Opens July 8 - 11, 2014: Conference *Conference Language* The conference language will be English. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters will be available. *Organization and Coordination Committee* Carol Padden, Department of Communication, UC San Diego Seana Coulson, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego John Haviland, Department of Anthropology, UC San Diego Tyler Marghetis, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego Sharon Seegers, Center for Research in Language, UC San Diego -- Tyler Marghetis Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cognitive Science University of California, San Diego tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~tmarghet/ From gkristia at ucm.es Mon Nov 11 20:20:30 2013 From: gkristia at ucm.es (GITTE KRISTIANSEN) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:20:30 +0100 Subject: CfP Theme Session SLE2014 The Perception of Non-Native Varieties. Methods and Findings in Perceptual Dialectology Message-ID: *Call for Papers for a Theme Session* 47th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea September 11-14 2014 Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland *The Perception of Non-Native Varieties: Methods and Findings in Perceptual Dialectology* Submission deadline: November 20, 2013 *Convenors* Gitte Kristiansen (Universidad Complutense de Madrid): gkristia at ucm.es Marinel Gerritsen (Radboud University Nijmegen) :m.gerritsen at let.ru.nl Dirk Geeraerts (K.U. Leuven) : dirk.geeraerts at arts.kuleuven.be *Description* We know from previous research that L1 recognition is surprisingly *fast*(Purnell et al. 1999), surprisingly *accurate* (Van Bezooijen and Gooskens 1999) and that it is an *early*acquisition, which evolves *gradually* and *experientially* (Kristiansen 2010). Listeners thus gradually construct mental representations to identify native varieties and foreign languages. At the same time, linguistic varieties trigger attitudinal reactions. Accents are socially diagnostic and serve as effective cognitive shortcuts to identification (where is this speaker from?) and characterization (what is this speaker like?). In more technical terms, accents are socially diagnostic because linguistic stereotypes, i.e. sets of abstract linguistic schemata composed of a cluster of salient features, gradually emerge to capture the essence of what a group speaks like. In this sense of the words, social and linguistic stereotypes, rather than distorted images, constitute useful cognitive reference points that emerge to allow us to navigate fast and efficiently in a complex social world. Ever since Lambert et al. (1960) published their pioneering article on speech evaluation methods, numerous studies have investigated the (conscious or unconscious) attitudes triggered by L1 varieties (e.g. Chambers and Trudgill 1998, Preston 2011, Grondelaers and van Hout 2010, Kristiansen 2010). Numerous studies thus exist on L1 perception, but L2 identification and characterization is still severely understudied. Given the role of English as a Lingua Franca in an increasingly globalised world, focus in this theme session is on the (attitudinal and identificational) perception of non-native accents of English. At the same time, given the empirical nature of the theoretical questions that we address, the scope is by no means limited to situations in which (a variety of) English constitutes the L2 language. This theme session welcomes proposals that address issues related to the study of the perception of non-native varieties such as the following: *Research questions* Which are the most novel and efficient ways of controlling speaker-related characteristics? How do we best keep voice quality, speech rate and clarity and other factors under control? How do we measure and keep speaker´s L1 variety constant while measuring L2 performances? Which are the current intricacies of speech-related factors and what are the methodological challenges? How do we best measure levels of L1 and L2 accentedness and against which standards? How can the (regional) distances of L1 and L2 accentedness be objectively measured? How do we keep speaker-related factors apart from speech-related factors? In attitudinal research, to what extent are the attitudes measured related to the speaker, to the social group related to the speaker, or to the L1 accent or the L2 accent of the speaker? How can regional aspects of L1 and L2 accents be kept under control from the point of view of attitudinal research? How can we best tease apart the numerous mixed effects of the multiple variables involved in the scenario of L2 and L1 accentedness? >>From the point of view of advanced corpus-based techniques, to what extent can multifactorial analyses help control the numerous variables involved? Ingenious methods have been developed in the past to deal with the identification and attitudes of native perceptions. Which new methods are being developed to deal specifically with non-native dimensions? *Abstract submission* Submit a short abstract (max. 300 words including references) in doc or docx format to the convenors before November 20 2013. Briefly indicate the relevant research question(s) addressed and describe the proposed methodology in detail. Acceptance to the theme session will be notified by November 25, 2013 Full versions of accepted abstracts (500 words + references) must be submitted to SLE before January 15, 2014. Notification of acceptance to SLE: March 31, 2014. *References * Berthele, Raphael (2012) Multiple languages and multiple methods: Qualitative and quantitative ways of tapping into the multilingual repertoire. *Methods in Contemporary Linguistics* 195-218. Chambers, Jack, K. and Peter Trudgill (1998) *Dialectology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grondelaers, Stefan and Roeland van Hout (2010). Do speech evaluation scales in a speaker evaluation experiment trigger conscious or unconscious attitudes? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 16 (2): 12. Selected paper from New Ways of Analysing Variation 38. Kristiansen, Gitte (2010) Lectal acquisition and linguistic stereotype formation. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen and Yves Peirsman (eds.) Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, 225-263. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kristiansen, Gitte (2003) How to do things with allophones: Linguistic stereotypes as cognitive reference points in social cognition. In René Dirven, Roslyn M. Frank and Martin Pütz (eds.) *Cognitive Models in Language and Thought*, 69-120. CLR 24. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kristiansen, Tore (2010) Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English influence in the Nordic countries: evidence for two levels of language ideology. *International Journal of the Sociology of *Language 204: 59–95. Lambert, Wallace E., Richard C. Hodgson, Robert C. Gardner and Stanley Fillenbaum (1960) Evaluative reactions to spoken languages. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology* 66: 44-51. Nejjari, W., Gerritsen, M., Haagen. M. van der, & Korzilius, H. (2012). Responses to Dutch-accented English. *World Englishes 31, 2: 248-268.* Preston, Dennis (2011) The power of language regard – discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. *Dialectologia*. Special Issue, ed. by John Nerbonne, Stefan Grondelaers and Dirk Speelman. Purnell, Thomas, William J. Idsardi and John Baugh (1999) Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. *Journal of Language and Social Psychology* 18: 10-30. Speelman, Dirk, Adriaan Spruyt, Leen Impe and Dirk Geeraerts (2013). Language attitudes revisited. Auditory affective priming. *Journal of Pragmatics* 52: 83-92. Van Bezooijen, Renée and Charlotte Gooskens (1999) Identification of language varieties. The contribution of different linguistic levels. *Journal of Language and Social Psychology* 18 (1): 31-48. Watson, Kevin and Clark, Lynn (2011) Capturing listeners' real-time reactions to local and supralocal linguistic features*. *Chester, UK: Variation and Language Processing Conference, 11-13 Apr 2011. From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Nov 13 22:22:19 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:22:19 -0800 Subject: phonological rules (summary) Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. I received several responses with references that seem to support more classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations provided by usage-based models. 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual phonetic elements. 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not 'sound change' per se. 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* of nasalisation. Thank you all for your replies. Fritz REFERENCES Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 640-70. Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu Thu Nov 14 06:35:29 2013 From: tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Tyler Marghetis) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:35:29 -0800 Subject: Deadline extension for ISGS 6: November 21, 2013 Message-ID: *apologies for cross-posting* Dear colleagues, *Please note that, due to numerous requests, the deadline for abstract submissions for ISGS 6 has been extended to Thursday, November 21, 2013. * The International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) is pleased to announce the Sixth Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies: Gesture in Interaction. It will be held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego, July 8-11, 2014. *The deadline for abstract submission has been extended to Thursday, November 21, 2013.* The conference website is: isgs.ucsd.edu Devoted to the study of multimodality in communication, the ISGS is an interdisciplinary group of researchers including anthropologists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, linguists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and semioticians. The Society convenes for a major international conference every two years, and the 2014 meeting will be the 6th. We invite abstracts that address any aspect of the study of gesture and multimodality, including but not limited to: the relationship between sign and gesture; the cognitive and neural underpinnings of gesture; the contribution of gesture to language production and comprehension; the role of gesture in situated language use; and how gesture mediates interaction in the social, cultural, and technological world. We welcome papers on any aspect of bodily communication and are open to all theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. *Plenary Speakers* Herbert Clark, Stanford University Susan Wagner Cook, University of Iowa Marjorie H. Goodwin, UCLA Marianne Gullberg, Lund University Asli Özyürek, MPI Nijmegen and Radboud University Andy Wilson, Microsoft Research *Abstract Submission* We invite abstracts of no more than 500 words. Abstracts must report previously unpublished work. Three kinds of presentation are available: *Paper presentations:* Paper presentations will be 25 minutes, with 20 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for discussion. *Thematic Panels: *Papers that address a common theme may be submitted as a Thematic Panel. Panels should consist of four talks, which must be submitted individually as Paper Presentations. Each individual abstract should indicate the name of the proposed Thematic Panel. *Poster presentation: *Poster presentations are an opportunity for more extended interaction. Posters will be displayed during poster sessions, with ample opportunity for discussion. *Please submit your abstracts at the following site: http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ISGS2014 * For more information, please see the conference website: isgs.ucsd.edu *Important Dates* September 1, 2013: Submission Opens November 21, 2013: New Submission Deadline December 15, 2013: Notification of Acceptance January 15, 2014: Registration Opens July 8 - 11, 2014: Conference *Conference Language* The conference language will be English. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters will be available. *Organization and Coordination Committee* Carol Padden, Department of Communication, UC San Diego Seana Coulson, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego John Haviland, Department of Anthropology, UC San Diego Tyler Marghetis, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego Sharon Seegers, Center for Research in Language, UC San Diego -- Tyler Marghetis Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cognitive Science University of California, San Diego tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~tmarghet/ From c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk Fri Nov 15 13:03:52 2013 From: c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:03:52 -0000 Subject: 3rd CfP: UK-CLC5 Message-ID: Dear colleagues (apologies for cross-posting), The 5th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference will take place at Lancaster University, 29-31 July 2014. We invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. The conference aims to cover a broad range of research concerned with language and cognition. However, we are be especially interested in promoting strongly empirical work. To this end, a number of thematic sessions, with our plenary speakers acting as discussants, will be organised. The themes will be: . Embodiment . Gesture . Typology and constructional analyses of the languages of the world . Acquisition . Corpora and statistical methods . Metaphor and discourse Reflecting these particular areas, we are delighted to confirm that the following distinguished guests have confirmed their participation as plenary speakers: . Alan Cienki (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) . William Croft (University of New Mexico) . Adele Goldberg (Princeton University) . Stefan Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) . Elena Semino (Lancaster University In addition to designated themes, submissions on other aspects of Cognitive Linguistics are also welcome. These include but are not limited to: . Domains and frame semantics . Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy . Mental spaces and conceptual blending . Language evolution . Linguistic variation and language change . Cognitive linguistic approaches to language teaching Cognitive linguistics is by definition highly interdisciplinary, and so in addition to primarily linguistic research, we also invite submissions that are based on disciplines such as (cognitive and social) psychology, cognitive and neuroscience, anthropology, primatology, biology, and discourse and communication studies. Talks will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and discussion. There will also be a poster session. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be submitted using EasyChair: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ukclc5. Participants are allowed to submit abstracts for no more than one single-authored paper and one joint-authored paper. All abstracts will be subject to double-blind peer review by an international scientific committee. Since 2012 UK-CLA publishes selected conference presentations in the series 'Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings' (ISSN 2046-9144); UK-CLC5 will continue this tradition. The deadline for abstract submission is 20 December 2013. Notification of acceptance will be communicated by 1 February 2014. Abstracts must be strictly anonymous, and should be submitted in plain text and/or PDF format. If you need to use phonetic characters, please make sure that they are displayed correctly. Submissions: To be able to submit an abstract you must use your existing EasyChair login details. If you have not registered with EasyChair before, please do so using the link above. Once you have created an account or signed in please follow the following steps: . Click on the 'New Submission' link at the top of the page. . Agree to the terms and conditions (if prompted). . Fill in the relevant information about the author or authors. . Give the title of the paper in the 'Title' box and then (a) enter or paste your abstract into the 'Abstract' box (please remember that this is plain text only) and/or (b) upload your abstract as a PDF file by clicking 'Choose File' under 'Upload Paper.' . At the top of your abstract, indicate whether you would prefer an oral presentation, a poster, or either. Please do this by entering 'oral presentation', 'poster', or 'oral presentation/poster' at the top of your abstract, above the title. . Type three or more keywords into the 'Keywords' box (these will help us choose suitable reviewers for your abstract, as well as a possible thematic session for your paper). . When you are done, please press 'Submit' at the very bottom of the page. Key Dates and Information: Abstract deadline: 20 December 2013 Decisions communicated by: 1 February 2014 Early bird registration opens: 1 February 2014 Early bird registration closes: 15 March 2014 Registration closes: 1 June 2014 Conference dates: 29-31 July 2014 For further information visit http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/uk-clc5/ or contact the organisers at: uk-clc5 at languageandcognition.net From jbybee at unm.edu Sun Nov 17 16:16:16 2013 From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:16:16 -0700 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way of explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types of models. As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on each point. Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence actual pronunciations. Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to derive from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of non-linguistic objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus and minus features are not compatible with gradual change. Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. I hope you find these points useful. best wishes, Joan On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to > which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to > be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the > importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying > multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. > I received several responses with references that seem to support more > classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: > > 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends > the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic > statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) > phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations > provided by usage-based models. > > 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir > and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the > phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual > phonetic elements. > > 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the > classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. > > 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls > into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not > 'sound change' per se. > > 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological > processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be > sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* > of nasalisation. > > Thank you all for your replies. > > Fritz > > REFERENCES > > Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological > representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook > of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. > > Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and > sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford > handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. > > Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John > A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, > 640-70. > > Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal > factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > -- Joan Bybee HC 66 Box 118 Mountainair, NM 87036 505-847-0137 From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Nov 17 21:48:24 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:48:24 -0800 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Joan, Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In short, if he is right, we need only the mos! t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in less-frequent words: LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] dog frog, bog, log on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth loss, boss floss, dross strong, song, wrong gong, tong cost, frost Pentecost I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. Best, Fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way of > explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT > with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more > formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than > compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types of > models. > > As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not > constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or > natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on each > point. > > Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological > processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic > agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the > neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence > actual pronunciations. > > Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus > what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to derive > from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. > Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of non-linguistic > objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these > categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe > that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories > would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on > exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne > MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that > phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. > > In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic > categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus and > minus features are not compatible with gradual change. > > Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact > that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. > > Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the > road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low > frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? > > Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. > > I hope you find these points useful. > > best wishes, Joan > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to >> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to >> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the >> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying >> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. >> I received several responses with references that seem to support more >> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: >> >> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends >> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic >> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) >> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations >> provided by usage-based models. >> >> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir >> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the >> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual >> phonetic elements. >> >> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the >> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. >> >> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls >> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not >> 'sound change' per se. >> >> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological >> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be >> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* >> of nasalisation. >> >> Thank you all for your replies. >> >> Fritz >> >> REFERENCES >> >> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological >> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook >> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. >> >> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and >> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford >> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. >> >> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John >> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, >> 640-70. >> >> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal >> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> > > > -- > Joan Bybee > HC 66 Box 118 > Mountainair, NM 87036 > 505-847-0137 > From sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it Sun Nov 17 23:13:24 2013 From: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it (Sonia Cristofaro) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:13:24 +0000 Subject: Second call for papers - Syntax of the World's Languages VI (SWL6), Pavia, Italy, 8-10 September 2014 Message-ID: Second call for papers (apologies for cross-posting) Syntax of the World's Languages VI (SWL6) University of Pavia, Italy September 8-10, 2014 http://swl-6.wikidot.com/ In the same spirit as previous conferences in this series (SWL I - Leipzig 2004, SWL II - Lancaster 2006, SWL III - Berlin 2008, SWL IV - Lyon 2010, and SWL V - Dubrovnik 2012), the conference will provide a forum for linguists working on the syntax of less widely studied languages from a variety of perspectives. The main purpose of the conference is to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of syntactic diversity. Contributions are expected to be based on first-hand data of individual languages or to adopt a broadly comparative perspective. The discussion of theoretical issues is appreciated to the extent that it helps to elucidate the data and is understandable without prior knowledge of the relevant theory. All theoretical frameworks are equally welcome, and papers that adopt a diachronic or comparative perspective are also welcome, as are papers dealing with morphological or semantic issues, as long as syntactic issues also play a major role. Invited speakers: Bjarke Frellesvig, University of Oxford http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/ea/japanese/bfrellesvig.html Mauro Tosco, University of Turin http://www.maurotosco.net/maurotosco/Home.html Abstracts of no more than one page (plus possibly one additional page for examples) should be sent in PDF format to swl6.conference at gmail.com by January 31, 2014, with ``SWL6 abstract'' in the subject line (authors will receive notification of acceptance by March 31, 2014). Abstracts will be reviewed by an abstract reading committee including members of the organizing committee as well as several linguists working in typology and language documentation (the full list of members of the abstract reading committee and the organizing committee is available on the conference website). Submissions should be anonymous and refrain from self-reference. Please provide contact details and the title of your presentation in the body of the email. Participants may not be involved in more than two abstracts, of which at most one may be single-authored. The conference will be held in English and abstracts must be submitted in English. The University of Pavia will also host two workshops held in connection with the conference on September 11, 2014: Ditranitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective Organizers: Agnes Korn and Carina Jahani http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/2trans/ East Caucasian preverb and the compounding-inflection-derivation continuum Organizer: Gilles Authier http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/cauc-pre.htm For updated information on the conference program, registration, adjacent workhops and practicalities, please refer to the conference website. -- -- Sonia Cristofaro Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Sezione di Linguistica Universita' di Pavia Strada Nuova, 65 I-27100 Pavia Italia Tel. +390382984484 Fax +390382984487 E-mail: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it From joan.bybee at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 17:43:30 2013 From: joan.bybee at gmail.com (Joan Bybee) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:43:30 -0700 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, The reason you didn't get replies from people defending exemplar approaches to phonology/phonetics is that they probably aren't on Funknet. Instead they are the Laboratory Phonology people and the sociophoneticians. Most of these researchers are finding exemplar theory indispensable. The reason things work out so neatly for you, Labov and Kiparsky is that you and they are ignoring a large and growing body of data that is in a sense below the radar of phonemic theory. These are studies that use fine phonetic detail and a large number of tokens from a large number of speakers. This type of data goes way beyond your anecdote about how you say *dog* and *frog*. Take a look at a special issue of the *Journal of Phonetics*, vol. 34, 2006. And there is also Ogura 1995 (*Diachronica 12:31-53) *which presents data from the diphthongization of ME long /i/ and /u/ (in the Great Vowel Shift) showing lexical diffusion of the phonetically gradual change (passing through stages which were not already represented by existing phonemes). Of course, Phillips 2006 (her book from Palgrave: *Word Frequency and Lexical DIffusion*), who reviews many of these studies. Important evidence for exemplar storage comes from studies that show that it is not just the frequency of the word but the frequency in which it occurs in the contexts which condition the sound change/phonological process that determine the phonetic shape of the word. See Bybee 2002 (in *Language Variation and Change*) and studies by Esther Brown and colleagues (Brown and Raymond in *Diachronica 2012: 139-161 *and papers cited there). Neither Kiparsky's theory nor Labov's taxomony accounts for any of these findings. Joan On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Joan, > > Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit > comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. > > Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the > replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big > exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper > 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem > with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal > phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up > being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. > > I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not > commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's > work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by > Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of > usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model > of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes > among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or > alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical > diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of > structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples > including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and > 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how > lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In > short, if he is right, we need only the mos! > t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. > > I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure > Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the > reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a > low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in > less-frequent words: > > LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] > dog frog, bog, log > on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth > loss, boss floss, dross > strong, song, wrong gong, tong > cost, frost Pentecost > > I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was > here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low > back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in > 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical > extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the > (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the > frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. > > Best, > > Fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: > > > Dear Fritz, > > > > Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way > of > > explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT > > with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more > > formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than > > compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types > of > > models. > > > > As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not > > constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or > > natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on > each > > point. > > > > Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological > > processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic > > agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the > > neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence > > actual pronunciations. > > > > Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus > > what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to > derive > > from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. > > Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of > non-linguistic > > objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these > > categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe > > that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories > > would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on > > exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne > > MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that > > phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. > > > > In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic > > categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus > and > > minus features are not compatible with gradual change. > > > > Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact > > that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. > > > > Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the > > road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low > > frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? > > > > Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. > > > > I hope you find these points useful. > > > > best wishes, Joan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to > >> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems > to > >> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses > the > >> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying > >> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so > on. > >> I received several responses with references that seem to support more > >> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: > >> > >> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) > defends > >> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical > phonemic > >> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) > >> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations > >> provided by usage-based models. > >> > >> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir > >> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of > the > >> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual > >> phonetic elements. > >> > >> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the > >> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. > >> > >> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie > calls > >> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and > not > >> 'sound change' per se. > >> > >> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological > >> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule > might be > >> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its > *degree* > >> of nasalisation. > >> > >> Thank you all for your replies. > >> > >> Fritz > >> > >> REFERENCES > >> > >> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological > >> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), > Handbook > >> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. > >> > >> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology > and > >> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford > >> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. > >> > >> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John > >> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: > Blackwell, > >> 640-70. > >> > >> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: > Internal > >> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Joan Bybee > > HC 66 Box 118 > > Mountainair, NM 87036 > > 505-847-0137 > > > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon Nov 18 19:29:51 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:29:51 +0000 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, Joan seems right on the money here. The issue is empirical, not terminological. The thing is that linguistics today has moved beyond the methodologies of the past generations to more quantitative, computational modeling methodologies. The quantitative-based work today simply leaves the categorical/digital models of SPE and structuralist phonologies in the dust. And Joan points out several good sources that show that. Those models/methodologies capture variation. And variation is where it is at. It is one reason why speech recognition has never paid much attention to traditional phonology. The same superiority of quantitative methods are seen in syntax: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Gibson_&_Fedorenko_2013_LCP.pdf Not to say that traditional phonologists don't have great insights. But so did Trager, Bloch, Pike, Hockett and others. The thing is to compare discoveries/analyses in which both the theory and methodology are causally implicated. -- Dan On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Joan Bybee wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > The reason you didn't get replies from people defending exemplar approaches > to phonology/phonetics is that they probably aren't on Funknet. Instead > they are the Laboratory Phonology people and the sociophoneticians. Most of > these researchers are finding exemplar theory indispensable. > > The reason things work out so neatly for you, Labov and Kiparsky is that > you and they are ignoring a large and growing body of data that is in a > sense below the radar of phonemic theory. These are studies that use fine > phonetic detail and a large number of tokens from a large number of > speakers. This type of data goes way beyond your anecdote about how you say > *dog* and *frog*. Take a look at a special issue of the *Journal of > Phonetics*, vol. 34, 2006. And there is also Ogura 1995 (*Diachronica > 12:31-53) *which presents data from the diphthongization of ME long /i/ and > /u/ (in the Great Vowel Shift) showing lexical diffusion of the > phonetically gradual change (passing through stages which were not already > represented by existing phonemes). Of course, Phillips 2006 (her book from > Palgrave: *Word Frequency and Lexical DIffusion*), who reviews many of > these studies. > > Important evidence for exemplar storage comes from studies that show that > it is not just the frequency of the word but the frequency in which it > occurs in the contexts which condition the sound change/phonological > process that determine the phonetic shape of the word. See Bybee 2002 > (in *Language > Variation and Change*) and studies by Esther Brown and colleagues (Brown > and Raymond in *Diachronica 2012: 139-161 *and papers cited there). Neither > Kiparsky's theory nor Labov's taxomony accounts for any of these findings. > > Joan > > > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > >> Thanks, Joan, >> >> Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit >> comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. >> >> Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the >> replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big >> exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper >> 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem >> with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal >> phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up >> being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. >> >> I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not >> commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's >> work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by >> Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of >> usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model >> of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes >> among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or >> alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical >> diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of >> structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples >> including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and >> 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how >> lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In >> short, if he is right, we need only the mos! >> t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. >> >> I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure >> Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the >> reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a >> low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in >> less-frequent words: >> >> LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] >> dog frog, bog, log >> on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth >> loss, boss floss, dross >> strong, song, wrong gong, tong >> cost, frost Pentecost >> >> I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was >> here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low >> back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in >> 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical >> extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the >> (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the >> frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. >> >> Best, >> >> Fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: >> >>> Dear Fritz, >>> >>> Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way >> of >>> explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT >>> with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more >>> formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than >>> compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types >> of >>> models. >>> >>> As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not >>> constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or >>> natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on >> each >>> point. >>> >>> Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological >>> processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic >>> agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the >>> neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence >>> actual pronunciations. >>> >>> Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus >>> what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to >> derive >>> from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. >>> Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of >> non-linguistic >>> objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these >>> categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe >>> that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories >>> would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on >>> exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne >>> MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that >>> phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. >>> >>> In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic >>> categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus >> and >>> minus features are not compatible with gradual change. >>> >>> Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact >>> that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. >>> >>> Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the >>> road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low >>> frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? >>> >>> Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. >>> >>> I hope you find these points useful. >>> >>> best wishes, Joan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to >>>> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems >> to >>>> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses >> the >>>> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying >>>> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so >> on. >>>> I received several responses with references that seem to support more >>>> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: >>>> >>>> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) >> defends >>>> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical >> phonemic >>>> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) >>>> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations >>>> provided by usage-based models. >>>> >>>> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir >>>> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of >> the >>>> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual >>>> phonetic elements. >>>> >>>> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the >>>> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. >>>> >>>> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie >> calls >>>> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and >> not >>>> 'sound change' per se. >>>> >>>> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological >>>> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule >> might be >>>> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its >> *degree* >>>> of nasalisation. >>>> >>>> Thank you all for your replies. >>>> >>>> Fritz >>>> >>>> REFERENCES >>>> >>>> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological >>>> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), >> Handbook >>>> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. >>>> >>>> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology >> and >>>> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford >>>> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. >>>> >>>> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John >>>> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: >> Blackwell, >>>> 640-70. >>>> >>>> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: >> Internal >>>> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joan Bybee >>> HC 66 Box 118 >>> Mountainair, NM 87036 >>> 505-847-0137 >>> >> >> >> From ARCoupe at ntu.edu.sg Tue Nov 19 08:46:54 2013 From: ARCoupe at ntu.edu.sg (Alexander Coupe) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:46:54 +0000 Subject: 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium: call for abstracts Message-ID: (with apologies for multiple postings) HLS20 The 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 16-18 July 2014 Conference website: http://portal.cohass.ntu.edu.sg/HLS20/ First circular and call for abstracts We are pleased to announce that the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium (HLS20) will be held in Singapore on 16-18 July 2014, hosted by the Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, and the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Scholars are invited to submit abstracts of papers dealing with any aspect of linguistics that is relevant to research on Himalayan languages. This encompasses descriptions of phonetics & phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse studies, semantics & pragmatics, language documentation and typology, as well as field reports of recently researched languages. In addition, abstracts of papers dealing with the history of the greater Himalayan region, population movements, genetic studies, anthropological studies, and contact with languages belonging to other linguistic families are invited for submission. Submission of abstracts Abstracts of papers for the main sessions of HLS20 should be submitted online via the Easychair system using this link: https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=hls20. To submit an abstract you will first need to sign up for an Easychair account if you do not already have one. Abstracts should be written in English using a 12 point font and have a maximum length of 350 words including references. Use a Unicode-compliant font if special characters are required, such as Doulos SIL, which is available as freeware. If you have problems submitting your abstract online, please contact the conference organizers at HLS20.email at gmail.com. Information on the website will be continually updated as conference arrangements progress. Call for workshops/panels Ideas are solicited for workshops or panels to be run in parallel with the main sessions on one or more days of HLS20. Please send suggestions together with a short write-up of the proposed workshop theme, including names of potential workshop participants, to HLS20.email at gmail.com. Important dates 15 January 2014: deadline for submission of abstracts and workshop proposals 15 March 2014: notification of acceptance of papers Kind regards, Alexander R. Coupe HLS20 Conference Chair email: HLS20.email at gmail.com --- Dr. Alexander R. Coupe, Ph.D. | Assistant Professor | Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-56, 14 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 637332 Tel: (65) 6592-1567 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | Email: arcoupe at ntu.edu.sg | Web: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/HSS/Linguistics http://nanyang.academia.edu/AlexanderCoupe/ Editor Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ltba/ ltba.email at gmail.com ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its contents. Towards a sustainable earth:Print only when necessary.Thank you. From A.Foolen at let.ru.nl Wed Nov 20 18:05:08 2013 From: A.Foolen at let.ru.nl (Ad Foolen) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:05:08 +0100 Subject: Nijmegen Lectures Message-ID: ************************** Apologies for multiple postings ************************** The Nijmegen Lectures committee is pleased to announce that the Nijmegen Lectures will take place on January 27th, 28th and 29th, 2014. The lectures will be given by *Russell Gray, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand*. The title of the lecture series is: *No miracles! A Darwinian view of the evolution of cognition, language and culture* For further information please go to the Nijmegen Lectures website: http://www.mpi.nl/events/nijmegen-lectures-2014 All lectures and seminars are free of charge and open to the public. Please note that registration is required for everybody who plans to attend, because seating is limited for the afternoon sessions. We advise you to register as soon as possible. You can do so by clicking on this link: http://www.mpi.nl/events/nijmegen-lectures-2014/registration-2014 We look forward to seeing you at the Nijmegen Lectures, January 27 – 29, 2014. The organizing committee: Sara Bögels, Dan Dediu, Michael Dunn, Monique Flecken, Pieter Muysken, Sean Roberts, and Martina Bernhard (secretary) (sent by Martina Bernhard, secretary) Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics e-mail: martina.bernhard at mpi.nl Phone: +31 24 3521443 http://www.mpi.nl From vferreira at cidles.eu Thu Nov 21 11:23:33 2013 From: vferreira at cidles.eu (Vera Ferreira) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:23:33 +0000 Subject: Poio - Technologies for Language Diversity Message-ID: Poio (http://www.poio.eu/) is a project developed at CIDLeS (Interdisciplinary Centre for Social and Language Documentation, Minde / Portugal) with the aim of creating text prediction and transliteration systems for under-resourced languages, supporting and fostering their everyday use in digital communication. Poio supports now 26 languages and works already with mobile phones. Try it out and send your feedback to info at cidles.eu Best regards, Vera Ferreira -- Vera Ferreira Centro Interdisciplinar de Documentação Linguística e Social / Interdisciplinary Centre for Social and Language Documentation Rua Dr. António da Silva Ferreira Totta, nº 29 2395-182 Minde Portugal Tel.: +351249849123 Email: vferreira at cidles.eu Web: http://www.cidles.eu From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Nov 22 12:52:41 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:52:41 -0500 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I thought this message got sent yesterday, but my email program seems to be malfunctioning. I apologize if you get more than one copy. I want to thank Fritz for raising this discussion, and Joan and everyone else for their great contributions to it. This has meshed with some things I've been wondering about in phonology, teaching it to undergrads for the second time. In particular, I'm reading Sapir 1933, which essentially anticipates a cognitive approach by explicitly comparing the categorization of phonemes to categorization of physical objects like "clubs." http://www.ucalgary.com/dflynn/files/dflynn/Sapir33.pdf "To say that a given phoneme is not sufficiently defined in articulatory or acoustic terms but needs to be fitted into the total system of sound relations particular to the language is, at bottom, no more mysterious than to say that a club is not defined for us when it is said to be made of wood and to have such and such a shape and such and such dimensions. We must understand why a roughly similar object, not so different to the eye, is no club at all, and why a third object, very different of color and much longer and heavier than the first, is for all that very much of a club." Another observation that fits in with Sapir's: my students are mostly speech pathology majors and very well-trained in basic phonetics. They can hear aspiration, flapping and sometimes nasalization because they've been trained to, but at the beginning of the semester they were completely incapable of hearing things in their own dialect of English and other familiar ones that were glaringly obvious to me, like affrication, glide-fronting and creaky voice. I've been able to train most of them, but it was striking to see them at first transcribe [ʣæ̰ɾə] as [dʰæ̃ɾə]. The /d/ seems to have a definite psychological reality there. I'm interested in what you all think. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk Fri Nov 22 13:50:50 2013 From: c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:50:50 -0000 Subject: CADAAD 2014 Final CfP: Extended Deadline Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In response to requests from several people, we have decided to extend the deadline for submission of abstracts to CADAAD 2014 until 15 December 2013. Final call for papers below. We are glad to announce that the 5th Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines Conference (CADAAD) will take place 1-3 September 2014 and will be hosted by ELTE University, Budapest, Hungary. CADAAD conferences are intended to promote current directions and new developments in cross-disciplinary critical discourse research. We welcome papers which, from a critical-analytical perspective, deal with contemporary social, scientific, political, economic, or professional discourses and genres. Possible topics include but are by no means limited to the following: • (New) Media discourse • Party political discourse • Advertising • Discourses of war and terrorism • Power, ideology and dominance in institutional discourse • Identity in discourse • Education discourses • Environmental discourses • Health communication • Business communication • Language and the law • *Discourses of inequality, discrimination and othering* • *Global economic discourses and discourses of the financial crisis* • *Discourses of political protest and civil (dis)order* • *Neoliberalism and the new divides* • *Anti-EU discourses* Papers addressing the highlighted topics are especially welcome. In giving weight to these topics we wish to call to attention some of the most pressing problems currently facing Europe. We hope that CADAAD 2014 will provide a publically visible forum for critically reflecting on these issues. We welcome papers which approach topics such as listed above from theoretical and analytical perspectives sourced from anywhere across the humanities, social and cognitive sciences, including but without being limited to the following: • Sociolinguistics • Multimodality • Media and Mass Communication Studies • Functional Linguistics • Cognitive Linguistics • Corpus Linguistics • Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory • Conversation and Discourse Analysis • Ethnography of Communication • Discursive Psychology • Political Science We especially welcome papers which re-examine existing theoretical frameworks and/or which highlight and apply new methodologies. Reflecting the diversity of topics and approaches in critical discourse studies, the following distinguished guests have confirmed their participation as plenary speakers: • PROFESSOR RUTH WODAK (Lancaster University) • PROFESSOR THEO VAN LEEUWEN (University of Technology Sydney) • PROFESSOR LILIE CHOULIARAKI (London School of Economics) • PROFESSOR ANDREAS MUSOLFF (University of East Anglia) • PROFESSOR CRISPIN THURLOW (University of Washington) All papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of 250-350 words excluding references should be sent as MS Word attachment to cadaad2014 at gmail.com before *15 December 2013*. Please include in the body of the email but not in the abstract itself (1) your name, (2) affiliation and (3) email address. Notifications of acceptance will be communicated by 1 March 2014. In addition to individual papers, panel proposals may also be submitted. A list of our new panels are available at http://cadaad2014.elte.hu/ and at http://cadaad.net/cadaad_2014. We are planning to offer a small number of bursaries to be applied for by delegates who come from disadvantaged circumstances. Application information will be provided on our website later this year. Selected papers are planned to be published in a thematically constrained volume to be submitted to an international publisher. Other selected papers will appear in a proceedings issue of the CADAAD journal. For further information please visit our new conference website at http://cadaad2014.elte.hu/ or http://cadaad.net/cadaad_2014 and our new Facebook page at facebook.com/Cadaad2014. Best regards, Christopher Hart, CADAAD, Lancaster University Tamás Eitler, CADAAD 2014 Local Organising Committee, ELTE University, Budapest From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Fri Nov 22 14:52:49 2013 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:52:49 -0500 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: <528F5399.7070806@panix.com> Message-ID: While this listserv isn't the place for a full-scale discussion of all the possible issues I can't resist mentioning several publications of mine arguing that phonemes are basic-level prototype categories that are, as Sapir said many years ago, our mode of perception, production and storage. Angus is right that getting naive speakers to hear allophonic variation is as difficult for literate English-speaking adults as it was for his non-literate Southern Paiute consultant (I'm teaching an intro to phonetics this semester that just reinforces this view). I think evidence from speech errors, second-language production and perception effects, the history of writing systems, and casual and careful speech alternants suggest that speech production and perception is an active, embodied problem-solving activity akin to picking a way through a stony path on a hike. Stored prototypes are implemented 'on the fly' as they jostle up against one another, and we choose style and register implementations. Here are some references: Nathan, Geoffrey S, 2007. “Is the Phoneme Usage-Based? – Some Issues,” International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2:173-195. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. ______, 2007. “Phonology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuykens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 611-631. ______, 2008. Phonology: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. ______, 2009. “Where is the Natural Phonology Phoneme in 2009,” Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Vol. 45, No. 1:141-148. Donegan, Patricia J., and Geoffrey S. Nathan. “Natural Phonology and Sound Change,” in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons. Oxford University Press. Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) Nobody at Wayne State will EVER ask you for your password. Never send it to anyone in an email, no matter how authentic the email looks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Grieve-Smith" To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:52:41 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] phonological rules (summary) I thought this message got sent yesterday, but my email program seems to be malfunctioning. I apologize if you get more than one copy. I want to thank Fritz for raising this discussion, and Joan and everyone else for their great contributions to it. This has meshed with some things I've been wondering about in phonology, teaching it to undergrads for the second time. In particular, I'm reading Sapir 1933, which essentially anticipates a cognitive approach by explicitly comparing the categorization of phonemes to categorization of physical objects like "clubs." http://www.ucalgary.com/dflynn/files/dflynn/Sapir33.pdf "To say that a given phoneme is not sufficiently defined in articulatory or acoustic terms but needs to be fitted into the total system of sound relations particular to the language is, at bottom, no more mysterious than to say that a club is not defined for us when it is said to be made of wood and to have such and such a shape and such and such dimensions. We must understand why a roughly similar object, not so different to the eye, is no club at all, and why a third object, very different of color and much longer and heavier than the first, is for all that very much of a club." Another observation that fits in with Sapir's: my students are mostly speech pathology majors and very well-trained in basic phonetics. They can hear aspiration, flapping and sometimes nasalization because they've been trained to, but at the beginning of the semester they were completely incapable of hearing things in their own dialect of English and other familiar ones that were glaringly obvious to me, like affrication, glide-fronting and creaky voice. I've been able to train most of them, but it was striking to see them at first transcribe [ʣæ̰ɾə] as [dʰæ̃ɾə]. The /d/ seems to have a definite psychological reality there. I'm interested in what you all think. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Fri Nov 22 19:25:40 2013 From: kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be (Kristel Van Goethem) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:25:40 +0100 Subject: CfP WS Category change from a constructional perspective (ICCG8) Message-ID: Call for papers: Workshop “Category change from a constructional perspective” Call deadline: December 9, 2013 Workshop convenors: * Muriel Norde (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin) : muriel.norde at hu-berlin.de * Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.-FNRS, Université catholique de Louvain) : kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Workshop discussant: Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh) Call for papers This is a workshop proposal to be submitted to the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8), which will be held at the University of Osnabrueck, 3-6 September, 2014. If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please send both of us a title by December 9, 2013, so we can submit our proposal (including a provisional list of participants and titles) to the ICCG8 conference organizers. If our proposal is accepted, participants will be invited to submit a full abstract (400 words) by February 1, 2014. Conference website: http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ Workshop description Category change, i.e. the shift from one word class to another or from free categories to bound categories, is inherent to many different types of change, yet it is usually not given much consideration. The aim of this workshop, therefore, will be to bring category change itself to the fore, as a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right. Adopting a rather broad definition of “category”, which includes both single words and multi-word units, we will explore how categories change and why some shifts are more frequent than others. In particular, we want to examine whether a constructional perspective enhances our understanding of category change. In our workshop, focus will be on three topics: (i) types of category change, (ii) degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity, and (iii) directionality. Types of category change Category change may result from different processes. The first process is commonly termed “non-affixal derivation” or “conversion”, as in the following examples from French (Kerleroux 1996) and English (Denison 2010). (1) calmeA ‘calm’ > calmeN ‘calmness’ (2) dailyA newspaper > dailyN The second process is category change determined by a specific syntactic context, or “distorsion catégorielle” (Kerleroux 1996), as in (3), likewise from French: (3) Elle est d’un courageux! ‘(lit. She is of a brave) She is very brave’ However, there is no strict boundary between the processes exemplified in (1-2) and (3), as suggested by cases such as Elle est d’un calme! ‘lit. She is of a calm; She is very calm’. In this example, the nominal use of calme can be accounted for both as conversion and as context-internal category change. Third, category change can be linked to processes of univerbation with structural change (Denison 2010), e.g. the use of English far from as an adverbial downtoner in (4) (De Smet 2012), or the development of the German pronoun neizwer out of a Middle High German sentence (5) (Haspelmath 1997: 131). (4) The life of a “beauty queen” is far from beautiful. (web) (5) ne weiz wer ‘I don´t know who’ > neizwer ‘somebody’ A fourth type is one in which an item shifts category in the wake of the category shift of another item, e.g. the shift of Swedish adverbs in –vis to adjectives when the head of a VP is nominalized: (6) Samhället förandras gradvisADV. ‘Society changes gradually’ (7) Den gradvisaADJ förändringen av samhället. ‘The gradual change of society’ Finally, category change may be part of a grammaticalization change, i.e. “the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18), such as the grammaticalization of English to be going to from main verb to future auxiliary in (8-9). Such gradual grammaticalization processes may account for synchronic gradience (Traugott & Trousdale 2010). (8) I [am going to]MAIN V the train station. (9) I [am going to]AUX be a star. Degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity The different types of category shift mentioned above can be arranged on a continuum, from abrupt to gradual and from context-independent to context-sensitive. While the A > N conversions in (1-2) are abrupt and context-independent processes, shifts from N > A are often gradual and determined by the syntactic environment, as in the case of keyN > keyA in English (10a) and French (10b) (Amiot & Van Goethem 2012; Denison 2001, 2010; De Smet 2012; Van Goethem & De Smet (forthc.)). (10)a. This is a really key point. b. Ceci est un point vraiment clé. However, similar developments in related languages may be characterized differently, as suggested by a contrastive case study on the adjectival uses of Dutch top and German spitze ‘top’ (Van Goethem & Hüning 2013). The category change in Dutch (11) seems abrupt, but the German (12) spelling of S/spitze and inflection of the preceding adjective/adverb is suggestive of a gradual development. (11) het was (de) absolute topN / het was absoluut topA ‘lit. it was absolute(ly) top’ (12) das war absolute SpitzeN / das war absolute spitzeN/A / das war absolut SpitzeN/A / das war absolut spitzeA ‘lit. it was absolute(ly) top’ Directionality Whereas in earlier work (e.g. Lehmann 1995 [1982], Haspelmath 2004) the view prevailed that only changes from major to minor categories are possible, research on degrammaticalization (Norde 2009) has shown that changes from minor to major word classes, albeit less frequently attested, are possible as well. In addition, specific items have been shown to change categories more than once in the course of their histories, in alternating stages of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. One example is degrammaticalization of the Dutch numeral suffix -tig ‘-ty’ into an indefinite quantifier meaning “dozens”, followed by grammaticalization into an intensifier meaning “very” (Norde 2006). Another example is the autonomous (adjectival/adverbial) use of Dutch intensifying prefixoids (Booij 2010: 60-61), such as Dutch reuze ‘giant’, which underwent multiple category changes (Van Goethem & Hiligsmann, forthc.; Norde & Van Goethem, in prep.), first from noun to intensifying affixoid (13) (grammaticalization) and later on into an adjective/adverb (14-15) (degrammaticalization): (13) Verder kunnen we reuzegoed met elkaar opschieten ‘Besides we get along very well (lit. giant-well)’ (COW2012) (14) Ik zou het gewoon weg reuze vinden als je eens langs kwam. ‘I really think it would be great (lit. giant) if you came by once.’ (COW 2012) (15) Reuze bedankt! ‘Thanks a lot’ Finally, category shift may be “non-directional”, in the sense that the input and output categories are of the same level, e.g. in shifts from one major word class to the other (examples (1-2)), or the transference of nominal case markers to verbal tense – aspect markers, such as the shift, in Kala Lagau Ya, from dative marker –pa to (verbal) completive marker (Blake 2001; examples (16-17)). (16) Nuy ay-pa amal-pa he food-dat mother-dat ‘He [went] for food for mother’ (17)Ngoeba uzar-am-pa 1dual.inclusive go-dual.incompletive ‘We two will go (are endeavouring to go)’ The constructional perspective The central aim of the workshop will be to investigate whether category change can be explained more accurately by analyzing it as an instance of “constructionalization” (Bergs & Diewald 2008; Traugott & Trousdale 2013 (forthc.)), which involves “a sequence of changes in the form and meaning poles of a construction, whereby new formal configurations come to serve particular functions, and to encode new meanings” (Trousdale & Norde 2013: 36). In this workshop, we welcome both theoretically and empirically oriented papers that account for category change from a constructional perspective. Research questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1: What is the status of category change in a diachronic construction grammar framework (e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2013) and how can the different types outlined above be accounted for? Are categories grammatical primitives, or the epiphenomenal result of constructions in the sense of Croft 2001? 2: How can the notions of gradualness and context-sensitivity be modelled in a constructional framework? Does the gradualness of some category shifts imply that categories synchronically form a “continuous spectrum” (Langacker 1987: 18) or does it merely mean that a given item may belong to two or more categories whereas “the categories in question can nevertheless be clearly delimited” (Aarts 2007: 242)? 3: Is category change a change in form which together with a change in meaning constitutes a constructionalization change and if so, is it the shift itself or changes in morphosyntactic properties (e.g. decategorialization) that are associated with it? 4: How does the distinction between lexical and grammatical constructionalization link in to the different types of category change (abrupt vs gradual, morphological vs syntactic, context-independent vs context-sensitive, word-level vs construction-level)? 5: Which role can be assigned to the notion of “category” in constructional networks? References Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amiot, D. & K. Van Goethem 2012. A constructional account of French -clé 'key' and Dutch sleutel- 'key' as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord 'keyword'. Morphology 22. 347-364. Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blake, B. J. 2001. Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COW (Corpora from the web) http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/cow/colibri/ [ Schäfer, R. & F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new effcient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, ELRA, 486–493.] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Smet, H. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88.3. 601-633. Denison, D. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 119-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, D. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds) Up and down the cline ¾ the nature of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerleroux, F. 1996. La coupure invisible. Études de syntaxe et de morphologie. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I : Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA : Stanford University Press. Lehmann, Chr. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Norde, M. 2006. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig. Tabu 35. 33-60. Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, M. & K. Van Goethem. in prep. Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Submitted. Traugott, E.C. & G. Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2013 (Forthc.). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trousdale G. & M. Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32-46. Van Goethem, K. & H. De Smet. Forthc. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast. Van Goethem, K. & Ph. Hiligsmann. Forthc. When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ‘giant; great’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Van Goethem, K. & M. Hüning. 2013. Debonding of Dutch and German compounds. Paper presented at the Germanic Sandwich Conference, Leuven, Jan. 2013. Kristel Van Goethem Chercheuse qualifiée F.R.S.-FNRS Université catholique de Louvain Institut Langage et Communication/Pôle Linguistique Collège Erasme Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.33 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve bureau c.383 Tél. (0032) 10 47 48 42 kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be http://uclouvain.academia.edu/KVanGoethem From fg-fgw at uva.nl Sat Nov 23 12:10:44 2013 From: fg-fgw at uva.nl (fg-fgw) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:10:44 +0000 Subject: Call for papers for the Third International Conference on Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG2014) - Jaen, Spain, September 2014 Message-ID: Call for papers for the Third International Conference on Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG2014) to be held in Jaén, Spain, from 17-20 September 2014. This conference will be preceded by a Preconference Course on FDG on 15 and 16 September 2014. Objectives The aim of FDG2014 is to further elaborate the model of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) as proposed by Kees Hengeveld and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. A full treatment of FDG may be found in: Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The conference All sessions at the conference will be plenary, so as to enhance discussion between participants. A poster session will be part of the programme. The language of the conference will be English. The venue FDG2014 will take place in Spain, in the city of Jaén, located in Andalucía. The conference will be hosted by the University of Jaén at their main campus, the Campus de Las Lagunillas, which is located to the north of the city. Jaén is a small city for Spanish standards (120.000 inhabitants) and is beautifully located. Details on travel and accomodation will be published in the near future at www.functionaldiscoursegrammar.info. Abstracts Each abstract should contain at least the following items: a clearly defined and well-motivated research question; the crucial examples illustrating the relevance of the research question; and the main conclusions of the paper. Abstracts should be approximately 1,000 words long, i.e. roughly 3 pages, and should not contain the name of the author. References to literature cited should be provided in addition to the 1,000 words. References containing the name of the author may also be given but will be suppressed before the abstract is sent to the programme committee. Please indicate in the accompanying message whether you want to present a paper or a poster. The deadline for the submission of abstracts for papers and posters is February 15, 2014. Abstracts should be submitted electronically to fg-fgw at uva.nl. Organizing Committee The members of the Organizing Committee are Ventura Salazar García (Chair, University of Jaén), Carmen Conti Jiménez (University of Jaén), María Belén Díez-Bedmar (Secretary, University of Jaén), Elena Felíu Arquiola (University of Jaén), Francisco Fernández-García (University of Jaén), and Paula García-Ramírez (University of Jaén). Programme Committee The board of the Functional Grammar Foundation (FGF) has appointed a Programme Committee that consists of the following members: Gudrun Rawoens (Chair, Ghent University), Evelien Keizer (University of Vienna), and Ventura Salazar García (University of Jaén). The Programme Committee will evaluate anonymized abstracts and decide on their inclusion in the conference programme. Abstracts submitted by members of the Programme Committee will be evaluated by an independent member of the board of the FGF. Preconference course The preconference course on FDG is aimed at graduates and postgraduates and will be taught by Evelien Keizer (University of Vienna), using her forthcoming new textbook on Functional Discourse Grammar. Further information Further information on accomodation, fees, and registration will be provided in the second circular. How you can reach us The email address for all enquiries related to the course and conference is fg-fgw at uva.nl ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Functional Grammar Foundation Universiteit van Amsterdam Department of Theoretical Linguistics Spuistraat 210 NL-1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: fg-fgw at uva.nl ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From OGradyGN at cardiff.ac.uk Wed Nov 27 22:18:00 2013 From: OGradyGN at cardiff.ac.uk (Gerard O'Grady) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:18:00 +0000 Subject: PhD opportunity at Cardiff University Message-ID: Dear all, If you know of anyone interested in applying for a fully funded PhD at Cardiff with a one year MA training year please pass on the message below. We  invite applications in areas of Functional Linguistics, Evolutionary Linguistics and Language Variation.  Please note that full funding is only available to UK citizens or EU nationals who have lived in the UK for the past three years. The award can be given as a fees only award to EU nationals who do not meet the residency requirements. Unfortunately other nationals are not eligible to apply. Dr. Gerard O'Grady Centre for Language and Communication Research Cardiff School of English Communication and Philosophy Cardiff University Humanities Building, Colum Road, Cardiff. CF10 3EU UK ESRC Studentship in Language and Communication at Cardiff  The Centre for Language and Communication Research (CLCR) is able to support applications by UK/EU students for one Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) 1+ 3 studentship in 2014/15, covering tuition fees plus a generous stipend, on a competitive basis within the ESRC Doctoral Training Centre (DTC) Wales Consortium, led by Cardiff University http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/degreeprogrammes/postgraduatetaught/languagecommunicationresearch/index.html The ESRC website has a very helpful section on frequently asked questions about the award scheme. In order to be considered for a studentship, you firstly need to apply for a place on the MA Language Communication Research with progression to Doctor of Philosophy (1+3)  in the Centre for Language and Communication Research at Cardiff University via the University's Direct Application Service.  As well as your application, you will need to supply the following supporting documents: 2 academic references, a detailed research proposal, personal statement, copies of your degree certificates and a transcript of the marksmailto:encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk. In the research proposal (around 1,000 words, 3-4 pages) please outline your rationale, proposed methodology, and research objectives, including a short bibliography.  In your personal statement, we would like you to tell us about why you are applying for a PhD – what your current situation is, whether you need a PhD for your own personal development, or for professional reasons, what your experience has been to date as a student/researcher/teacher in the area of English Language and Communication, and why you have chosen Cardiff as an appropriate research environment for your particular area of interest.  Once you have an offer of a place on the PhD (Language and Communication Research) programme you will be eligible to apply for ESRC funding.  Please submit your MA (1+3) application in good time to allow you to meet the 31 January 2014 ESRC application form deadline.  The ESRC application form can be obtained from encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk and should be submitted by 5 p.m. on Friday 31 January 2014.   Deadline: The deadline for submission of the ESRC application form is 5 p.m. on Friday 31 January 2014.  In order to meet this deadline you will need to ensure that you submit your PhD application by Friday 24 January 2014 at the latest.  You may be called for interview during the week commencing 10 February 2014. For further details, please contact: Rhian Rattray, Postgraduate Manager for the School of English, Communication and Philosophy. Email: encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk  For informal advice please Contact: Dr. Gerard O'Grady, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Centre for Language and Communication Research: OGradyGN at cf.ac.uk  From jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se Fri Nov 29 16:34:52 2013 From: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se (Jordan Zlatev) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:34:52 +0000 Subject: Second CfP: IACS-2014 Establishing Cognitive Semiotics Message-ID: Second Call for Papers First International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS) Conference, September 25-27, 2014, Lund, Sweden http://conference.ht.lu.se/iacs-2014/ The First International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS) Conference (IACS-2014) will be held in September 25-27, at Lund University, Sweden. Founded in Aarhus, Denmark, on May 29, 2013, The International Association for Cognitive Semiotics aims at the further establishment of Cognitive Semiotics as the trans-disciplinary study of meaning, combining concepts, theories and methods from the humanities and the social and natural sciences. Central topics are the evolution, development of, and interaction between different semiotic resources such as language, gestures and pictorial representations. Plenary speakers * Søren Brier, Copenhagen Business School * Merlin Donald, Queens University * Brian MacWhinney, Carnegie Mellon University * Cornelia Müller, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) * Raymond Tallis, University of Manchester Theme of the conference: Establishing Cognitive Semiotics Over the past two decades or so, a number of researchers from semiotics, linguistics, cognitive science and related fields, from several European and North American research centres, have experienced the needs to combine theoretical knowledge and methodological expertise in order to be able to tackle challenging questions concerning the nature of meaning, the role of consciousness, the unique cognitive features of mankind, the interaction of nature and nurture in development, and the interplay of biological and cultural evolution in phylogeny. The product of these collaborations has been the emergence of the field of Cognitive Semiotics, with its own journal (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cogsem) and academic association. The conference aims both to celebrate this, and to look forward into possibilities for further development. We invite the submission of 400 word abstracts (excluding title and references) for one of the three following categories : 1. Oral presentations (20 min presentation + 5 minute discussion), to be submitted at the site of the conference. 2. Posters (at a dedicated poster session), to be submitted at the site of the conference. 3. Theme sessions (3 to 6 thematically linked oral presentations.) Such proposals are to include: (a) Title of proposed session, (b) name(s) of convener(s), (c) max 400 word motivation of the session, (d) abstracts for 3 to 6 individual papers, (e) name of discussant - if such is involved. All this information should be sent TOGETHER to the conference organizers at iacs-2014 at semiotik.lu.se The individual abstracts should be preceded by an abstract for the theme session as a whole. In case the theme session is not accepted, individual abstracts will be reviewed as submissions for oral presentations.). Note that all abstracts should be submitted to the conference web site at http://www.sol.lu.se/conferenceRegistration/conferenceRegistration.php?conferenceId=26 - posters and oral presentations directly, those of theme sessions after that session has been accepted. No individual abstract should be sent to the e-mail adress above. The abstracts can be related, though need not be restricted, to the following topics: * Biological and cultural evolution of human cognitive specificity * Cognitive linguistics and phenomenology * Communication across cultural barriers * Cross-species comparative semiotics * Evolutionary perspectives on altruism * Experimental semiotics * Iconicity in language and other semiotic resources * Intersubjectivity and mimesis in evolution and development * Multimodality * Narrativity across different media * Semantic typology and linguistic relativity * Semiosis (sense-making) in social interaction * Semiotic and cognitive development in children * Sign use and cognition * Signs, affordances, and other meanings * Speech and gesture * The comparative semiotics of iconicity and indexicality * The evolution of language Important dates * Deadline for submission of theme sessions: 31 Dec 2013 (by email) * Deadline for abstract submission - by registration at the conference web site (oral presentations, posters): 1 Feb 2014 (by website) * Notification of acceptance (theme sessions): 15 Feb 2014 * Notification of acceptance (oral presentations, posters): 1 April 2014 * Last date for early registration: 1 July 2014 Scientific committee http://conference.ht.lu.se/iacs-2014/organizing-committee-scientific-committee/ Local organizing committee * Mats Andrén * Johan Blomberg * Anna Cabak Redei * Sara Lenninger * Joel Parthemore * Göran Sonesson * Jordan Zlatev Jordan Zlatev, Professor Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature Box 201, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Centre for Cognitive Semiotics (CCS), Deputy research director http://project.sol.lu.se/en/ccs/ The Public Journal of Semiotics (PJOS), Editor-in-Chief http://pjos.org International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS), President From d.trenkic.96 at cantab.net Fri Nov 29 18:27:48 2013 From: d.trenkic.96 at cantab.net (Danijela Trenkic) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:27:48 -0000 Subject: EUROSLA 24: call for papers Message-ID: EUROSLA 24 – Call for papers The Centre for Language Learning Research in the Department of Education, University of York, is pleased to announce that it will host EUROSLA 24, the 24th Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association. You are kindly invited to submit abstracts for papers, posters, thematic colloquia and doctoral workshops on any domain and subdomain of second language research. The Conference will start in the morning of 4 September 2014 and close at lunchtime on 6 September 2014. Preceding the Conference, there will be a doctoral workshop and a Language Learning roundtable, both on 3 September. The theme of this year’s roundtable is ’Language learning theory and practice: Bridging the gap’. Plenary speakers François Grosjean, University of Neuchâtel Leah Roberts, University of York Natasha Tokowicz, University of Pittsburgh Sharon Unsworth, Radboud University Nijmegen Key dates 28 February 2014: abstract submission deadline 25 April 2014: notification of acceptance 28 April 2014: early bird registration starts 15 June 2014: registration closes for presenters 25 June 2014: early bird registration closes 26 June 2014: full fee registration starts 3 September 2014: doctoral workshop and roundtable 4-6 September 2014: conference Abstract submission policy Each author may submit no more than one single-authored and one co-authored (i.e. not first-authored) abstract to be considered for oral presentations, including colloquia and doctoral workshops. More than one abstract can be submitted for poster presentations. Paper and poster proposals should not have been previously published. All submissions will be reviewed anonymously by the scientific committee and evaluated in terms of rigour, clarity and significance of the contribution, as well as its relevance to second language research. Abstracts should not exceed 450 words (excluding the title, but including optional references). Individual papers and posters Papers will be allocated 20 minutes for presentation plus 5 minutes for discussion. Poster sessions will be held in two 90-minute slots. In order to foster interaction, all other sessions will be suspended during the poster sessions. Thematic colloquia The Thematic colloquia will be organised in two-hour slots running in parallel with other sessions. Each colloquium will focus on one specific topic, and will bring together key contributions to the topic. Colloquium convenors should allocate time for opening and closing remarks, individual papers, discussants (if included) and general discussion. Doctoral student workshop The doctoral student workshop is intended to serve as a platform for discussion of ongoing PhD research within any aspect of second language research. PhD students are invited to submit an abstract for a 10-15-minute presentation. The abstract and the presentation should include one or two questions on which the student would like to receive audience feedback (e.g. data collection, analysis, theoretical or methodological issues), and sufficient background information for framing the questions. These sessions are not intended as opportunities to present research results, but to discuss future directions. Students whose abstracts are accepted will then be required to send their paper to a discussant (a senior researcher). The discussant will lead a 10-15-minute feedback/discussion session on their work. Student stipends As in previous years, several student stipends will be available for doctoral students. If you wish to apply, please send the following information to eurosla24 at york.ac.uk before 28 February 2014: 1. Name, institution, and address of institution; 2. Curriculum vitae (attached); 3. Official confirmation of a PhD student status; 4. Statement (email) from supervisor or head of Department that the applicant’s institution cannot (fully) cover the conference-related expenses. Publication of papers A selection of papers presented at EUROSLA 2014 will be published in the EUROSLA 24 Yearbook following a peer-review process. There is an annual prize for the best EUROSLA Yearbook article. This includes a framed certificate presented at the EUROSLA General Assembly, a fee waiver for the following EUROSLA conference and conference dinner, and free EUROSLA membership for a year. To submit an abstract please visit http://www.york.ac.uk/eurosla24 From v.evans at bangor.ac.uk Fri Nov 1 19:10:05 2013 From: v.evans at bangor.ac.uk (Vyv Frederick Evans) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 19:10:05 +0000 Subject: Cognitive Futures in the Humanities: 2nd call for papers Message-ID: COGNITIVE FUTURES IN THE HUMANITIES 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, DURHAM UNIVERSITY, UK, 24-26 APRIL 2014 * Full call for papers attached * Keynote speakers: Alan Richardson, Alan Palmer, Patricia Waugh, David Herman, Mark Rowlands, Vyvyan Evans * Roundtable on interdisciplinarity with Ellen Spolsky, Mark Turner and Michael Wheeler * 5 special thematic conference threads on e.g. Extended Mind * Conference banquet in Durham Castle Deadline for proposals for 20 min papers or panels: 1st December. Email cog.futures at durham.ac.uk (full details below). Please circulate this call to interested colleagues and graduate students. SECOND CALL FOR PAPERS We invite proposals for 20 minute papers and preformed panels for the second international conference associated with the research network, Cognitive Futures in the Humanities, funded by the UK's Arts and Humanities Research Council. The conference will be hosted by Durham University, on 24-26 April 2014. The purpose is to explore, and critically evaluate, new ways of working in the arts and humanities that respond to concepts developed in the sciences of mind and brain. It will be an interdisciplinary conference for researchers from the cognitive sciences, philosophy, literary studies, linguistics, narratology, cultural studies, critical theory, film, performance studies, and beyond. The aim is to identify how the 'cognitive humanities' can emerge as a dynamic and critical field of enquiry. Topics relevant to the conference include (but are not limited to): Cognitive neuroscience and the arts Language, meaning and cognitive processing Embodied cognition Phenomenology of technologies Cognitive poetics and interpretation Social minds Theory of mind and mind-blindness The Bayesian brain Conceptual blending and creativity Empirical aesthetics Extended cognition Ideology and the cognitive sciences Cognitive approaches to visual culture Thinking and feeling in narrative Cognitive historicism Animal consciousness and perspective Objects, artifacts and print culture The following themed sessions will be organised as part of the programme, with a leading specialist serving as a respondent. Please indicate if you would like your paper to be considered for one of these: A) Interdisciplinarity in Theory and Practice B) The Extended Mind C) Theatre and Performance D) Storyworlds and Fictionality E) Brains, Culture and Mental Pathology Submission Details Please send 250-word proposals to cog.futures at durham.ac.uk by 1st December 2013. Abstracts should be included as Word file attachments, and be anonymised. Please indicate clearly in your email whether your abstract is to be considered for a paper or as part of a panel, and if intended for one of the themed sessions, including the name of presenter(s), university affiliation(s) and email address(es). Proposers can expect to hear if their abstract has been accepted by January 2014, and registration will open soon afterwards. There will be 2 fee-waiver bursaries available for postgraduates, awarded on a competitive basis. If you wish to apply, please add a 100-word statement to your proposal explaining how your research contributes to the developing field of the cognitive humanities. Please direct any queries to the conference organiser, Dr Peter Garratt (peter.garratt at durham.ac.uk). Further details about the Cognitive Futures network, project team, steering group, and past events can be found on the project site, www.coghumanities.com. Professor/Yr Athro Vyv Evans Professor of/Yr Athro Linguistics/Ieithyddiaeth www.vyvevans.net Prifysgol Bangor University General Editor of Language & Cognition A Cambridge University Journal http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=LCO President of the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association http://www.uk-cla.org.uk Rhif Elusen Gofrestredig 1141565 - Registered Charity No. 1141565 Gall y neges e-bost hon, ac unrhyw atodiadau a anfonwyd gyda hi, gynnwys deunydd cyfrinachol ac wedi eu bwriadu i'w defnyddio'n unig gan y sawl y cawsant eu cyfeirio ato (atynt). Os ydych wedi derbyn y neges e-bost hon trwy gamgymeriad, rhowch wybod i'r anfonwr ar unwaith a dilewch y neges. Os na fwriadwyd anfon y neges atoch chi, rhaid i chi beidio a defnyddio, cadw neu ddatgelu unrhyw wybodaeth a gynhwysir ynddi. Mae unrhyw farn neu safbwynt yn eiddo i'r sawl a'i hanfonodd yn unig ac nid yw o anghenraid yn cynrychioli barn Prifysgol Bangor. Nid yw Prifysgol Bangor yn gwarantu bod y neges e-bost hon neu unrhyw atodiadau yn rhydd rhag firysau neu 100% yn ddiogel. Oni bai fod hyn wedi ei ddatgan yn uniongyrchol yn nhestun yr e-bost, nid bwriad y neges e-bost hon yw ffurfio contract rhwymol - mae rhestr o lofnodwyr awdurdodedig ar gael o Swyddfa Cyllid Prifysgol Bangor. This email and any attachments may contain confidential material and is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you must not use, retain or disclose any information contained in this email. Any views or opinions are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of Bangor University. Bangor University does not guarantee that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or 100% secure. Unless expressly stated in the body of the text of the email, this email is not intended to form a binding contract - a list of authorised signatories is available from the Bangor University Finance Office. From tpayne at uoregon.edu Tue Nov 5 18:27:02 2013 From: tpayne at uoregon.edu (Thomas E. Payne) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:27:02 -0800 Subject: Books available for review Message-ID: An updated list of books available for review in Studies in Language is now available at: http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/Booksavailable-11-2013.pdf If you are interested in reviewing one or more of these books, please contact the Review Editor, Thomas Payne (tpayne at uoregon.edu). Please include a brief statement of why you want to review a particular book, a link to a CV or other web page that indicates your qualifications as a reviewer, and a postal address where the book may be sent. Format and content guidelines for Book Reviews and Review Articles can be found at: http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/SLstylesheet.pdf Reviews will be due five months after receipt of the book. Thank you for participating in the dialog of our discipline by reviewing one or more of these books. All the best, Tom Payne tpayne at uoregon.edu From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Nov 6 03:06:55 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:06:55 -0800 Subject: phonological rules Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, and so on. Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, but I'm not sure which. Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. Fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu Wed Nov 6 18:45:57 2013 From: chafe at linguistics.ucsb.edu (Wallace Chafe) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:45:57 -0800 Subject: phonological rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, I don't know what literature there is on this, but isn't the question whether, in the course of history, a discrete boundary is crossed whereby (to use classic terms) something allophonic becomes phonemic, either falling together with nasalized vowels already there, or creating new nasalized vowels? At that point the language might begin to exhibit contrasts between nasalized and non-nasalized vowels, contrasts that weren't there before. I can provide Iroquoian examples on both sides of that boundary. But maybe I'm just restating what you had in mind. Wally On 11/5/2013 7:06 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! > words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, and so on. > > Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, but I'm not sure which. > > Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. > > Fritz > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Wed Nov 6 19:57:00 2013 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:57:00 -0500 Subject: phonological rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: While I can't promise 'balance', I can point out a forthcoming paper by Patricia Donegan and myself arguing that at least some phonological behavior is not 'just' statistical but closer to Neogrammarian in flavor. We have a paper forthcoming in the Oxford Handbook of Sound Change on Natural Phonology's view of such things. I've got another, very rough draft of a more synchronic paper on storage and the extent to which phonological processes (however construed) are real-time psychological events, primarily from a Cognitive Grammar point of view. Within CG my views are not 'mainstream', FWIW, since CG has to some extent taken a 'usage-based' turn, with which I do not wholeheartedly agree. Geoff Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) Nobody at Wayne State will EVER ask you for your password. Never send it to anyone in an email, no matter how authentic the email looks. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frederick J Newmeyer" > To: "Funknet" > Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 10:06:55 PM > Subject: [FUNKNET] phonological rules > Dear Funknetters, > I'm hoping that people can help me out with a literature reference or > two. Not being a phonologist, I'm not sure where to start looking. > Joan Bybee and others have argued for quite a few years now that > evidence from phonetics (both diachronic and synchronic) refutes the > idea of classical phonology, in which phonological processes are > algebraic and discrete. To give one example (which might not be from > Bybee), at first glance we might conclude that a common phonological > process is stated simply: 'Nasalise vowels before nasal consonants'. > But the actual facts seem to be more complicated. What has been > claimed is (and I have no reason to doubt the claim) is that the > *degree* of vowel nasalisation increases over time. That is, it's > not just that more speakers are nasalising, but all are doing it to > a somewhat higher degree over time. Likewise, at any synchronic > stage, some speakers nasalise their vowels more than others, > nasalisation tends to be more pronounced in more frequent ! > words than in less frequent ones (or is it the other way around?), > the preceding segment has an effect on the degree of nasalisation, > and so on. > Facts like these have been used to call into question the classical > rule. What I am looking for is a *balanced* discussion of this > issue. Is there a defence of classical phonology against the > conclusions that Bybee and others have drawn or, even better, an > article that contrasts and evaluates the two positions? I can > imagine that there are handbook chapters that analyse the arguments, > but I'm not sure which. > Thanks! I'll summarise if there is enough interest. > Fritz > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From bischoff.st at gmail.com Mon Nov 11 17:47:17 2013 From: bischoff.st at gmail.com (s.t. Bischoff) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:47:17 -0500 Subject: Ordinary Language Philosophy Message-ID: Hello all, There was a nice piece on Ordinary Language Philosophy last week on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time...thought I would share. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ggc19 It will move to the archive Thursday I think. Cheers, Shannon From tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu Mon Nov 11 18:37:44 2013 From: tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Tyler Marghetis) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:37:44 -0800 Subject: Final CfP: Sixth Conference of the Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS 6) Message-ID: *apologies for cross-posting* Dear colleagues, The International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) is pleased to announce the *Sixth Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies: Gesture in Interaction*. It will be held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego, July 8-11, 2014. *The deadline for abstract submission is November 15, 2013.* The conference website is: isgs.ucsd.edu Devoted to the study of multimodality in communication, the ISGS is an interdisciplinary group of researchers including anthropologists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, linguists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and semioticians. The Society convenes for a major international conference every two years, and the 2014 meeting will be the 6th. We invite abstracts that address any aspect of the study of gesture and multimodality, including but not limited to: the relationship between sign and gesture; the cognitive and neural underpinnings of gesture; the contribution of gesture to language production and comprehension; the role of gesture in situated language use; and how gesture mediates interaction in the social, cultural, and technological world. We welcome papers on any aspect of bodily communication and are open to all theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. *Plenary Speakers* Herbert Clark, Stanford University Susan Wagner Cook, University of Iowa Marjorie H. Goodwin, UCLA Marianne Gullberg, Lund University Asli ?zy?rek, MPI Nijmegen and Radboud University Andy Wilson, Microsoft Research *Abstract Submission* We invite abstracts of no more than 500 words. Abstracts must report previously unpublished work. Three kinds of presentation are available: *Paper presentations*: Paper presentations will be 25 minutes, with 20 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for discussion. *Thematic Panels*: Papers that address a common theme may be submitted as a Thematic Panel. Panels should consist of four talks, which must be submitted individually as Paper Presentations. Each individual abstract should indicate the name of the proposed Thematic Panel. *Poster presentation*: Poster presentations are an opportunity for more extended interaction. Posters will be displayed during poster sessions, with ample opportunity for discussion. Please submit your abstracts at the following site: http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ISGS2014 For more information, please see the conference website: isgs.ucsd.edu *Important Dates* September 1, 2013: Submission Opens *November 15, 2013: Submission Deadline* December 15, 2013: Notification of Acceptance January 15, 2014: Registration Opens July 8 - 11, 2014: Conference *Conference Language* The conference language will be English. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters will be available. *Organization and Coordination Committee* Carol Padden, Department of Communication, UC San Diego Seana Coulson, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego John Haviland, Department of Anthropology, UC San Diego Tyler Marghetis, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego Sharon Seegers, Center for Research in Language, UC San Diego -- Tyler Marghetis Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cognitive Science University of California, San Diego tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~tmarghet/ From gkristia at ucm.es Mon Nov 11 20:20:30 2013 From: gkristia at ucm.es (GITTE KRISTIANSEN) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:20:30 +0100 Subject: CfP Theme Session SLE2014 The Perception of Non-Native Varieties. Methods and Findings in Perceptual Dialectology Message-ID: *Call for Papers for a Theme Session* 47th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea September 11-14 2014 Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland *The Perception of Non-Native Varieties: Methods and Findings in Perceptual Dialectology* Submission deadline: November 20, 2013 *Convenors* Gitte Kristiansen (Universidad Complutense de Madrid): gkristia at ucm.es Marinel Gerritsen (Radboud University Nijmegen) :m.gerritsen at let.ru.nl Dirk Geeraerts (K.U. Leuven) : dirk.geeraerts at arts.kuleuven.be *Description* We know from previous research that L1 recognition is surprisingly *fast*(Purnell et al. 1999), surprisingly *accurate* (Van Bezooijen and Gooskens 1999) and that it is an *early*acquisition, which evolves *gradually* and *experientially* (Kristiansen 2010). Listeners thus gradually construct mental representations to identify native varieties and foreign languages. At the same time, linguistic varieties trigger attitudinal reactions. Accents are socially diagnostic and serve as effective cognitive shortcuts to identification (where is this speaker from?) and characterization (what is this speaker like?). In more technical terms, accents are socially diagnostic because linguistic stereotypes, i.e. sets of abstract linguistic schemata composed of a cluster of salient features, gradually emerge to capture the essence of what a group speaks like. In this sense of the words, social and linguistic stereotypes, rather than distorted images, constitute useful cognitive reference points that emerge to allow us to navigate fast and efficiently in a complex social world. Ever since Lambert et al. (1960) published their pioneering article on speech evaluation methods, numerous studies have investigated the (conscious or unconscious) attitudes triggered by L1 varieties (e.g. Chambers and Trudgill 1998, Preston 2011, Grondelaers and van Hout 2010, Kristiansen 2010). Numerous studies thus exist on L1 perception, but L2 identification and characterization is still severely understudied. Given the role of English as a Lingua Franca in an increasingly globalised world, focus in this theme session is on the (attitudinal and identificational) perception of non-native accents of English. At the same time, given the empirical nature of the theoretical questions that we address, the scope is by no means limited to situations in which (a variety of) English constitutes the L2 language. This theme session welcomes proposals that address issues related to the study of the perception of non-native varieties such as the following: *Research questions* Which are the most novel and efficient ways of controlling speaker-related characteristics? How do we best keep voice quality, speech rate and clarity and other factors under control? How do we measure and keep speaker?s L1 variety constant while measuring L2 performances? Which are the current intricacies of speech-related factors and what are the methodological challenges? How do we best measure levels of L1 and L2 accentedness and against which standards? How can the (regional) distances of L1 and L2 accentedness be objectively measured? How do we keep speaker-related factors apart from speech-related factors? In attitudinal research, to what extent are the attitudes measured related to the speaker, to the social group related to the speaker, or to the L1 accent or the L2 accent of the speaker? How can regional aspects of L1 and L2 accents be kept under control from the point of view of attitudinal research? How can we best tease apart the numerous mixed effects of the multiple variables involved in the scenario of L2 and L1 accentedness? >>From the point of view of advanced corpus-based techniques, to what extent can multifactorial analyses help control the numerous variables involved? Ingenious methods have been developed in the past to deal with the identification and attitudes of native perceptions. Which new methods are being developed to deal specifically with non-native dimensions? *Abstract submission* Submit a short abstract (max. 300 words including references) in doc or docx format to the convenors before November 20 2013. Briefly indicate the relevant research question(s) addressed and describe the proposed methodology in detail. Acceptance to the theme session will be notified by November 25, 2013 Full versions of accepted abstracts (500 words + references) must be submitted to SLE before January 15, 2014. Notification of acceptance to SLE: March 31, 2014. *References * Berthele, Raphael (2012) Multiple languages and multiple methods: Qualitative and quantitative ways of tapping into the multilingual repertoire. *Methods in Contemporary Linguistics* 195-218. Chambers, Jack, K. and Peter Trudgill (1998) *Dialectology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grondelaers, Stefan and Roeland van Hout (2010). Do speech evaluation scales in a speaker evaluation experiment trigger conscious or unconscious attitudes? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics vol. 16 (2): 12. Selected paper from New Ways of Analysing Variation 38. Kristiansen, Gitte (2010) Lectal acquisition and linguistic stereotype formation. In Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen and Yves Peirsman (eds.) Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, 225-263. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kristiansen, Gitte (2003) How to do things with allophones: Linguistic stereotypes as cognitive reference points in social cognition. In Ren? Dirven, Roslyn M. Frank and Martin P?tz (eds.) *Cognitive Models in Language and Thought*, 69-120. CLR 24. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kristiansen, Tore (2010) Conscious and subconscious attitudes towards English influence in the Nordic countries: evidence for two levels of language ideology. *International Journal of the Sociology of *Language 204: 59?95. Lambert, Wallace E., Richard C. Hodgson, Robert C. Gardner and Stanley Fillenbaum (1960) Evaluative reactions to spoken languages. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology* 66: 44-51. Nejjari, W., Gerritsen, M., Haagen. M. van der, & Korzilius, H. (2012). Responses to Dutch-accented English. *World Englishes 31, 2: 248-268.* Preston, Dennis (2011) The power of language regard ? discrimination, classification, comprehension and production. *Dialectologia*. Special Issue, ed. by John Nerbonne, Stefan Grondelaers and Dirk Speelman. Purnell, Thomas, William J. Idsardi and John Baugh (1999) Perceptual and phonetic experiments on American English dialect identification. *Journal of Language and Social Psychology* 18: 10-30. Speelman, Dirk, Adriaan Spruyt, Leen Impe and Dirk Geeraerts (2013). Language attitudes revisited. Auditory affective priming. *Journal of Pragmatics* 52: 83-92. Van Bezooijen, Ren?e and Charlotte Gooskens (1999) Identification of language varieties. The contribution of different linguistic levels. *Journal of Language and Social Psychology* 18 (1): 31-48. Watson, Kevin and Clark, Lynn (2011) Capturing listeners' real-time reactions to local and supralocal linguistic features*. *Chester, UK: Variation and Language Processing Conference, 11-13 Apr 2011. From fjn at u.washington.edu Wed Nov 13 22:22:19 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:22:19 -0800 Subject: phonological rules (summary) Message-ID: Dear Funknetters, Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. I received several responses with references that seem to support more classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations provided by usage-based models. 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual phonetic elements. 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not 'sound change' per se. 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* of nasalisation. Thank you all for your replies. Fritz REFERENCES Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 640-70. Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] From tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu Thu Nov 14 06:35:29 2013 From: tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu (Tyler Marghetis) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:35:29 -0800 Subject: Deadline extension for ISGS 6: November 21, 2013 Message-ID: *apologies for cross-posting* Dear colleagues, *Please note that, due to numerous requests, the deadline for abstract submissions for ISGS 6 has been extended to Thursday, November 21, 2013. * The International Society for Gesture Studies (ISGS) is pleased to announce the Sixth Conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies: Gesture in Interaction. It will be held on the campus of the University of California, San Diego, July 8-11, 2014. *The deadline for abstract submission has been extended to Thursday, November 21, 2013.* The conference website is: isgs.ucsd.edu Devoted to the study of multimodality in communication, the ISGS is an interdisciplinary group of researchers including anthropologists, cognitive scientists, computer scientists, linguists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and semioticians. The Society convenes for a major international conference every two years, and the 2014 meeting will be the 6th. We invite abstracts that address any aspect of the study of gesture and multimodality, including but not limited to: the relationship between sign and gesture; the cognitive and neural underpinnings of gesture; the contribution of gesture to language production and comprehension; the role of gesture in situated language use; and how gesture mediates interaction in the social, cultural, and technological world. We welcome papers on any aspect of bodily communication and are open to all theoretical and disciplinary perspectives. *Plenary Speakers* Herbert Clark, Stanford University Susan Wagner Cook, University of Iowa Marjorie H. Goodwin, UCLA Marianne Gullberg, Lund University Asli ?zy?rek, MPI Nijmegen and Radboud University Andy Wilson, Microsoft Research *Abstract Submission* We invite abstracts of no more than 500 words. Abstracts must report previously unpublished work. Three kinds of presentation are available: *Paper presentations:* Paper presentations will be 25 minutes, with 20 minutes for presentation and 5 minutes for discussion. *Thematic Panels: *Papers that address a common theme may be submitted as a Thematic Panel. Panels should consist of four talks, which must be submitted individually as Paper Presentations. Each individual abstract should indicate the name of the proposed Thematic Panel. *Poster presentation: *Poster presentations are an opportunity for more extended interaction. Posters will be displayed during poster sessions, with ample opportunity for discussion. *Please submit your abstracts at the following site: http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ISGS2014 * For more information, please see the conference website: isgs.ucsd.edu *Important Dates* September 1, 2013: Submission Opens November 21, 2013: New Submission Deadline December 15, 2013: Notification of Acceptance January 15, 2014: Registration Opens July 8 - 11, 2014: Conference *Conference Language* The conference language will be English. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters will be available. *Organization and Coordination Committee* Carol Padden, Department of Communication, UC San Diego Seana Coulson, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego John Haviland, Department of Anthropology, UC San Diego Tyler Marghetis, Department of Cognitive Science, UC San Diego Sharon Seegers, Center for Research in Language, UC San Diego -- Tyler Marghetis Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cognitive Science University of California, San Diego tmarghet at cogsci.ucsd.edu http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~tmarghet/ From c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk Fri Nov 15 13:03:52 2013 From: c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:03:52 -0000 Subject: 3rd CfP: UK-CLC5 Message-ID: Dear colleagues (apologies for cross-posting), The 5th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference will take place at Lancaster University, 29-31 July 2014. We invite the submission of abstracts (for paper or poster presentations) addressing all aspects of cognitive linguistics. The conference aims to cover a broad range of research concerned with language and cognition. However, we are be especially interested in promoting strongly empirical work. To this end, a number of thematic sessions, with our plenary speakers acting as discussants, will be organised. The themes will be: . Embodiment . Gesture . Typology and constructional analyses of the languages of the world . Acquisition . Corpora and statistical methods . Metaphor and discourse Reflecting these particular areas, we are delighted to confirm that the following distinguished guests have confirmed their participation as plenary speakers: . Alan Cienki (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) . William Croft (University of New Mexico) . Adele Goldberg (Princeton University) . Stefan Gries (University of California, Santa Barbara) . Elena Semino (Lancaster University In addition to designated themes, submissions on other aspects of Cognitive Linguistics are also welcome. These include but are not limited to: . Domains and frame semantics . Categorisation, prototypes and polysemy . Mental spaces and conceptual blending . Language evolution . Linguistic variation and language change . Cognitive linguistic approaches to language teaching Cognitive linguistics is by definition highly interdisciplinary, and so in addition to primarily linguistic research, we also invite submissions that are based on disciplines such as (cognitive and social) psychology, cognitive and neuroscience, anthropology, primatology, biology, and discourse and communication studies. Talks will be 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and discussion. There will also be a poster session. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of no more than 300 words (excluding references) should be submitted using EasyChair: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ukclc5. Participants are allowed to submit abstracts for no more than one single-authored paper and one joint-authored paper. All abstracts will be subject to double-blind peer review by an international scientific committee. Since 2012 UK-CLA publishes selected conference presentations in the series 'Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings' (ISSN 2046-9144); UK-CLC5 will continue this tradition. The deadline for abstract submission is 20 December 2013. Notification of acceptance will be communicated by 1 February 2014. Abstracts must be strictly anonymous, and should be submitted in plain text and/or PDF format. If you need to use phonetic characters, please make sure that they are displayed correctly. Submissions: To be able to submit an abstract you must use your existing EasyChair login details. If you have not registered with EasyChair before, please do so using the link above. Once you have created an account or signed in please follow the following steps: . Click on the 'New Submission' link at the top of the page. . Agree to the terms and conditions (if prompted). . Fill in the relevant information about the author or authors. . Give the title of the paper in the 'Title' box and then (a) enter or paste your abstract into the 'Abstract' box (please remember that this is plain text only) and/or (b) upload your abstract as a PDF file by clicking 'Choose File' under 'Upload Paper.' . At the top of your abstract, indicate whether you would prefer an oral presentation, a poster, or either. Please do this by entering 'oral presentation', 'poster', or 'oral presentation/poster' at the top of your abstract, above the title. . Type three or more keywords into the 'Keywords' box (these will help us choose suitable reviewers for your abstract, as well as a possible thematic session for your paper). . When you are done, please press 'Submit' at the very bottom of the page. Key Dates and Information: Abstract deadline: 20 December 2013 Decisions communicated by: 1 February 2014 Early bird registration opens: 1 February 2014 Early bird registration closes: 15 March 2014 Registration closes: 1 June 2014 Conference dates: 29-31 July 2014 For further information visit http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/uk-clc5/ or contact the organisers at: uk-clc5 at languageandcognition.net From jbybee at unm.edu Sun Nov 17 16:16:16 2013 From: jbybee at unm.edu (Joan Bybee) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:16:16 -0700 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way of explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types of models. As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on each point. Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence actual pronunciations. Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to derive from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of non-linguistic objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus and minus features are not compatible with gradual change. Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. I hope you find these points useful. best wishes, Joan On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Dear Funknetters, > > Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to > which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to > be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the > importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying > multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. > I received several responses with references that seem to support more > classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: > > 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends > the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic > statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) > phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations > provided by usage-based models. > > 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir > and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the > phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual > phonetic elements. > > 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the > classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. > > 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls > into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not > 'sound change' per se. > > 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological > processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be > sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* > of nasalisation. > > Thank you all for your replies. > > Fritz > > REFERENCES > > Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological > representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook > of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. > > Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and > sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford > handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. > > Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John > A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, > 640-70. > > Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal > factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. > > > > > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > > -- Joan Bybee HC 66 Box 118 Mountainair, NM 87036 505-847-0137 From fjn at u.washington.edu Sun Nov 17 21:48:24 2013 From: fjn at u.washington.edu (Frederick J Newmeyer) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 13:48:24 -0800 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Joan, Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In short, if he is right, we need only the mos! t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in less-frequent words: LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] dog frog, bog, log on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth loss, boss floss, dross strong, song, wrong gong, tong cost, frost Pentecost I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. Best, Fritz Frederick J. Newmeyer Professor Emeritus, University of Washington Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way of > explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT > with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more > formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than > compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types of > models. > > As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not > constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or > natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on each > point. > > Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological > processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic > agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the > neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence > actual pronunciations. > > Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus > what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to derive > from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. > Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of non-linguistic > objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these > categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe > that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories > would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on > exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne > MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that > phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. > > In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic > categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus and > minus features are not compatible with gradual change. > > Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact > that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. > > Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the > road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low > frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? > > Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. > > I hope you find these points useful. > > best wishes, Joan > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > >> Dear Funknetters, >> >> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to >> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems to >> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses the >> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying >> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so on. >> I received several responses with references that seem to support more >> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: >> >> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) defends >> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical phonemic >> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) >> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations >> provided by usage-based models. >> >> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir >> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of the >> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual >> phonetic elements. >> >> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the >> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. >> >> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie calls >> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and not >> 'sound change' per se. >> >> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological >> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule might be >> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its *degree* >> of nasalisation. >> >> Thank you all for your replies. >> >> Fritz >> >> REFERENCES >> >> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological >> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), Handbook >> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. >> >> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology and >> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford >> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. >> >> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John >> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, >> 640-70. >> >> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal >> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. >> >> >> >> >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> >> > > > -- > Joan Bybee > HC 66 Box 118 > Mountainair, NM 87036 > 505-847-0137 > From sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it Sun Nov 17 23:13:24 2013 From: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it (Sonia Cristofaro) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 23:13:24 +0000 Subject: Second call for papers - Syntax of the World's Languages VI (SWL6), Pavia, Italy, 8-10 September 2014 Message-ID: Second call for papers (apologies for cross-posting) Syntax of the World's Languages VI (SWL6) University of Pavia, Italy September 8-10, 2014 http://swl-6.wikidot.com/ In the same spirit as previous conferences in this series (SWL I - Leipzig 2004, SWL II - Lancaster 2006, SWL III - Berlin 2008, SWL IV - Lyon 2010, and SWL V - Dubrovnik 2012), the conference will provide a forum for linguists working on the syntax of less widely studied languages from a variety of perspectives. The main purpose of the conference is to enlarge our knowledge and understanding of syntactic diversity. Contributions are expected to be based on first-hand data of individual languages or to adopt a broadly comparative perspective. The discussion of theoretical issues is appreciated to the extent that it helps to elucidate the data and is understandable without prior knowledge of the relevant theory. All theoretical frameworks are equally welcome, and papers that adopt a diachronic or comparative perspective are also welcome, as are papers dealing with morphological or semantic issues, as long as syntactic issues also play a major role. Invited speakers: Bjarke Frellesvig, University of Oxford http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/ea/japanese/bfrellesvig.html Mauro Tosco, University of Turin http://www.maurotosco.net/maurotosco/Home.html Abstracts of no more than one page (plus possibly one additional page for examples) should be sent in PDF format to swl6.conference at gmail.com by January 31, 2014, with ``SWL6 abstract'' in the subject line (authors will receive notification of acceptance by March 31, 2014). Abstracts will be reviewed by an abstract reading committee including members of the organizing committee as well as several linguists working in typology and language documentation (the full list of members of the abstract reading committee and the organizing committee is available on the conference website). Submissions should be anonymous and refrain from self-reference. Please provide contact details and the title of your presentation in the body of the email. Participants may not be involved in more than two abstracts, of which at most one may be single-authored. The conference will be held in English and abstracts must be submitted in English. The University of Pavia will also host two workshops held in connection with the conference on September 11, 2014: Ditranitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective Organizers: Agnes Korn and Carina Jahani http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/2trans/ East Caucasian preverb and the compounding-inflection-derivation continuum Organizer: Gilles Authier http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/cauc-pre.htm For updated information on the conference program, registration, adjacent workhops and practicalities, please refer to the conference website. -- -- Sonia Cristofaro Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Sezione di Linguistica Universita' di Pavia Strada Nuova, 65 I-27100 Pavia Italia Tel. +390382984484 Fax +390382984487 E-mail: sonia.cristofaro at unipv.it From joan.bybee at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 17:43:30 2013 From: joan.bybee at gmail.com (Joan Bybee) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 10:43:30 -0700 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Fritz, The reason you didn't get replies from people defending exemplar approaches to phonology/phonetics is that they probably aren't on Funknet. Instead they are the Laboratory Phonology people and the sociophoneticians. Most of these researchers are finding exemplar theory indispensable. The reason things work out so neatly for you, Labov and Kiparsky is that you and they are ignoring a large and growing body of data that is in a sense below the radar of phonemic theory. These are studies that use fine phonetic detail and a large number of tokens from a large number of speakers. This type of data goes way beyond your anecdote about how you say *dog* and *frog*. Take a look at a special issue of the *Journal of Phonetics*, vol. 34, 2006. And there is also Ogura 1995 (*Diachronica 12:31-53) *which presents data from the diphthongization of ME long /i/ and /u/ (in the Great Vowel Shift) showing lexical diffusion of the phonetically gradual change (passing through stages which were not already represented by existing phonemes). Of course, Phillips 2006 (her book from Palgrave: *Word Frequency and Lexical DIffusion*), who reviews many of these studies. Important evidence for exemplar storage comes from studies that show that it is not just the frequency of the word but the frequency in which it occurs in the contexts which condition the sound change/phonological process that determine the phonetic shape of the word. See Bybee 2002 (in *Language Variation and Change*) and studies by Esther Brown and colleagues (Brown and Raymond in *Diachronica 2012: 139-161 *and papers cited there). Neither Kiparsky's theory nor Labov's taxomony accounts for any of these findings. Joan On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer wrote: > Thanks, Joan, > > Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit > comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. > > Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the > replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big > exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper > 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem > with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal > phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up > being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. > > I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not > commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's > work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by > Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of > usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model > of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes > among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or > alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical > diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of > structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples > including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and > 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how > lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In > short, if he is right, we need only the mos! > t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. > > I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure > Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the > reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a > low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in > less-frequent words: > > LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] > dog frog, bog, log > on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth > loss, boss floss, dross > strong, song, wrong gong, tong > cost, frost Pentecost > > I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was > here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low > back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in > 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical > extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the > (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the > frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. > > Best, > > Fritz > > Frederick J. Newmeyer > Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: > > > Dear Fritz, > > > > Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way > of > > explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT > > with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more > > formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than > > compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types > of > > models. > > > > As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not > > constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or > > natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on > each > > point. > > > > Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological > > processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic > > agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the > > neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence > > actual pronunciations. > > > > Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus > > what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to > derive > > from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. > > Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of > non-linguistic > > objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these > > categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe > > that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories > > would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on > > exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne > > MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that > > phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. > > > > In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic > > categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus > and > > minus features are not compatible with gradual change. > > > > Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact > > that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. > > > > Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the > > road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low > > frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? > > > > Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. > > > > I hope you find these points useful. > > > > best wishes, Joan > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Funknetters, > >> > >> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to > >> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems > to > >> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses > the > >> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying > >> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so > on. > >> I received several responses with references that seem to support more > >> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: > >> > >> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) > defends > >> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical > phonemic > >> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) > >> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations > >> provided by usage-based models. > >> > >> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir > >> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of > the > >> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual > >> phonetic elements. > >> > >> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the > >> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. > >> > >> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie > calls > >> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and > not > >> 'sound change' per se. > >> > >> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological > >> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule > might be > >> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its > *degree* > >> of nasalisation. > >> > >> Thank you all for your replies. > >> > >> Fritz > >> > >> REFERENCES > >> > >> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological > >> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), > Handbook > >> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. > >> > >> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology > and > >> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford > >> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. > >> > >> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John > >> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: > Blackwell, > >> 640-70. > >> > >> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: > Internal > >> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Frederick J. Newmeyer > >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington > >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U > >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Joan Bybee > > HC 66 Box 118 > > Mountainair, NM 87036 > > 505-847-0137 > > > > > From DEVERETT at bentley.edu Mon Nov 18 19:29:51 2013 From: DEVERETT at bentley.edu (Everett, Daniel) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:29:51 +0000 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Fritz, Joan seems right on the money here. The issue is empirical, not terminological. The thing is that linguistics today has moved beyond the methodologies of the past generations to more quantitative, computational modeling methodologies. The quantitative-based work today simply leaves the categorical/digital models of SPE and structuralist phonologies in the dust. And Joan points out several good sources that show that. Those models/methodologies capture variation. And variation is where it is at. It is one reason why speech recognition has never paid much attention to traditional phonology. The same superiority of quantitative methods are seen in syntax: http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Gibson_&_Fedorenko_2013_LCP.pdf Not to say that traditional phonologists don't have great insights. But so did Trager, Bloch, Pike, Hockett and others. The thing is to compare discoveries/analyses in which both the theory and methodology are causally implicated. -- Dan On Nov 18, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Joan Bybee wrote: > Dear Fritz, > > The reason you didn't get replies from people defending exemplar approaches > to phonology/phonetics is that they probably aren't on Funknet. Instead > they are the Laboratory Phonology people and the sociophoneticians. Most of > these researchers are finding exemplar theory indispensable. > > The reason things work out so neatly for you, Labov and Kiparsky is that > you and they are ignoring a large and growing body of data that is in a > sense below the radar of phonemic theory. These are studies that use fine > phonetic detail and a large number of tokens from a large number of > speakers. This type of data goes way beyond your anecdote about how you say > *dog* and *frog*. Take a look at a special issue of the *Journal of > Phonetics*, vol. 34, 2006. And there is also Ogura 1995 (*Diachronica > 12:31-53) *which presents data from the diphthongization of ME long /i/ and > /u/ (in the Great Vowel Shift) showing lexical diffusion of the > phonetically gradual change (passing through stages which were not already > represented by existing phonemes). Of course, Phillips 2006 (her book from > Palgrave: *Word Frequency and Lexical DIffusion*), who reviews many of > these studies. > > Important evidence for exemplar storage comes from studies that show that > it is not just the frequency of the word but the frequency in which it > occurs in the contexts which condition the sound change/phonological > process that determine the phonetic shape of the word. See Bybee 2002 > (in *Language > Variation and Change*) and studies by Esther Brown and colleagues (Brown > and Raymond in *Diachronica 2012: 139-161 *and papers cited there). Neither > Kiparsky's theory nor Labov's taxomony accounts for any of these findings. > > Joan > > > > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer > wrote: > >> Thanks, Joan, >> >> Yes, you are right. Nobody suggested a publication that makes explicit >> comparisons. Such a publication appears not to exist. >> >> Interestingly, given that my posting was on Funknet, almost all of the >> replies provided some sort of defence of classical phonology. The big >> exception was that a few people told me to read Port and Leary's paper >> 'Against Formal Phonology'. I had read it, and I read it again. My problem >> with it is that what they consider to be the defining features of 'formal >> phonology' are so different from what I take them to be that I ended up >> being more puzzled by their critique than anything else. >> >> I am on admittedly shakey ground not being a phonologist and not >> commanding the literature as well as I wish that I did. But I find Labov's >> work on frequency effects and lexical diffusion as is has been extended by >> Kiparsky to be a convincing way of reconciling the empirical discoveries of >> usage-based phonology (yours and those of others) with the classical model >> of phonology. Kiparsky argues that 'being a redistribution of phonemes >> among lexical items, [lexical diffusion] cannot produce and new sounds or >> alter the system of phonological contrasts.' He goes on to show how lexical >> diffusion is a species of grammar simplification driven by the system of >> structure building rules in the lexical phonology. He gives examples >> including the shortening of long /u/ in English (in words like 'took' and >> 'good') and Labov' famous AE tensing. Point by point Kiparsky shows how >> lexical diffusion manifests the same properties as lexical analogy. In >> short, if he is right, we need only the mos! >> t minimal extension of the Neogrammarian / classical phonology model. >> >> I can't resist giving an example from my own variety of English (impure >> Philadelphia) that seems to support Kiparsky's model. It pertains to the >> reflexes of Early Modern English short [o]. In this dialect, [o] became a >> low back rounded diphthong in frequent words and became [a] in >> less-frequent words: >> >> LOW BACK ROUNDED DIPHTHONG [a] >> dog frog, bog, log >> on, off honor, offal, don, doff, Goth >> loss, boss floss, dross >> strong, song, wrong gong, tong >> cost, frost Pentecost >> >> I'm not sure what the precise historical sequence of developments was >> here. But importantly, both sounds already existed in this dialect: Low >> back rounded diphthongs in 'saw', 'thought', 'bought', etc. and [a] in >> 'father', 'drama', etc. So it looks like what we have is an analogical >> extension of an existing phonological rule. Nothing new was created in the >> (presumably) word-by-word diffusion through the lexicon, nor do the >> frequency effects lead to calling into question classical phonology. >> >> Best, >> >> Fritz >> >> Frederick J. Newmeyer >> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >> >> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013, Joan Bybee wrote: >> >>> Dear Fritz, >>> >>> Thanks for the summary. It seems you didn't come up with much in the way >> of >>> explicit comparison. Also you didn't mention the models that combine OT >>> with exemplar theory (by Joeren van der Weijer, James Meyers) or more >>> formal representations of exemplar theory (Paul Boersma). Rather than >>> compare, these theorists choose to incorporate features from both types >> of >>> models. >>> >>> As for the points made in your message, they unfortunately do not >>> constitute differences between exemplar theory and phonemic theory or >>> natural phonology (of Donegan and Stampe). I would like to comment on >> each >>> point. >>> >>> Point 1: Adopting exemplar theory does not mean there are no phonological >>> processes, as Bybee 2001 and Pierrehumbert 2001 note. They are in basic >>> agreement with Donegan and colleagues that phonological processes are the >>> neuromotor patterns (thus both cognitive and real time) that influence >>> actual pronunciations. >>> >>> Point 2: Exemplar theory is above all a theory of categorization and thus >>> what would have earlier been called phonemic categories are said to >> derive >>> from the organization of exemplars that are similar to one another. >>> Exemplar theory arose from studies of the categorization of >> non-linguistic >>> objects and when frequency in experience is taken into account, these >>> categories show prototype effects. Only if one is determined to believe >>> that linguistic categories are different from other cognitive categories >>> would one want to say that phonemic categorization is not based on >>> exemplars. The empirical evidence argues against this position: Joanne >>> MIller (*Cognition* 1994, 50:271-285) in various works has shown that >>> phonemic and even allophonic categories show prototype effects. >>> >>> In addition, exemplar theory allows for the gradual merger of phonemic >>> categories and their gradual split. Phonemic categories with their plus >> and >>> minus features are not compatible with gradual change. >>> >>> Point 3: It is not really an argument that Labov has overlooked the fact >>> that gradual phonetic change diffuses gradually through the lexicon. >>> >>> Point 4: Calling lexical diffusion analogy just kicks the can down the >>> road. What is analogy then? Why do morphophonemic analogies affect low >>> frequency items first while phonetic ones affect high frequency items? >>> >>> Point 5: This is by definition; it is not an empirical finding. >>> >>> I hope you find these points useful. >>> >>> best wishes, Joan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Frederick J Newmeyer >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Funknetters, >>>> >>>> Last week I posted a request for literature references on the degree to >>>> which classical phonology (discrete rules, regular sound change) seems >> to >>>> be refuted by the 'usage-based' work of Bybee and others that stresses >> the >>>> importance of relative frequency of variants, 'exemplars' embodying >>>> multiple representations instead of discrete phonological units, and so >> on. >>>> I received several responses with references that seem to support more >>>> classical views. I summarise them below without personal comment: >>>> >>>> 1. Work in natural phonology (Donegan 2014; Donegan & Nathan 2014) >> defends >>>> the existence of 'phonological processes', which, like classical >> phonemic >>>> statements, are holistic characterisations of (non-morphological) >>>> phonological alternations, rather than the item-by-item representations >>>> provided by usage-based models. >>>> >>>> 2. Along these lines, work going back to Baudouin de Courtenay and Sapir >>>> and continuing to the present day supports the psychological reality of >> the >>>> phoneme (or its generative counterpart), not just that of individual >>>> phonetic elements. >>>> >>>> 3. Labov (1994) provides a typology of phonological change, in which the >>>> classic Neogrammarian view of exceptionless change plays a major role. >>>> >>>> 4. Kiparsky (1995) argues that lexical diffusion (which prima facie >> calls >>>> into question the classical model) is a form of analogical change and >> not >>>> 'sound change' per se. >>>> >>>> 5. (Degree of) gradience does not enter into statements of phonological >>>> processes or phonological change. For example, a phonological rule >> might be >>>> sensitive to whether a following segment is nasal, but not to its >> *degree* >>>> of nasalisation. >>>> >>>> Thank you all for your replies. >>>> >>>> Fritz >>>> >>>> REFERENCES >>>> >>>> Donegan, Patricia J. (2014), 'The emergence of phonological >>>> representation', in Brian MacWhinney and William O'Grady (eds.), >> Handbook >>>> of language emergence. Boston: Wiley. >>>> >>>> Donegan, Patricia J. and Geoffrey S. Nathan (2014), 'Natural phonology >> and >>>> sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds.), Oxford >>>> handbook of historical phonology, Oxford University Press. Oxford. >>>> >>>> Kiparsky, Paul (1995), 'The phonological basis of sound change', in John >>>> A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: >> Blackwell, >>>> 640-70. >>>> >>>> Labov, William (1994), Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: >> Internal >>>> factors, Language in Society, 20. Oxford: Blackwell. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frederick J. Newmeyer >>>> Professor Emeritus, University of Washington >>>> Adjunct Professor, U of British Columbia and Simon Fraser U >>>> [for my postal address, please contact me by e-mail] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joan Bybee >>> HC 66 Box 118 >>> Mountainair, NM 87036 >>> 505-847-0137 >>> >> >> >> From ARCoupe at ntu.edu.sg Tue Nov 19 08:46:54 2013 From: ARCoupe at ntu.edu.sg (Alexander Coupe) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:46:54 +0000 Subject: 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium: call for abstracts Message-ID: (with apologies for multiple postings) HLS20 The 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 16-18 July 2014 Conference website: http://portal.cohass.ntu.edu.sg/HLS20/ First circular and call for abstracts We are pleased to announce that the 20th Himalayan Languages Symposium (HLS20) will be held in Singapore on 16-18 July 2014, hosted by the Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, and the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University (NTU). Scholars are invited to submit abstracts of papers dealing with any aspect of linguistics that is relevant to research on Himalayan languages. This encompasses descriptions of phonetics & phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse studies, semantics & pragmatics, language documentation and typology, as well as field reports of recently researched languages. In addition, abstracts of papers dealing with the history of the greater Himalayan region, population movements, genetic studies, anthropological studies, and contact with languages belonging to other linguistic families are invited for submission. Submission of abstracts Abstracts of papers for the main sessions of HLS20 should be submitted online via the Easychair system using this link: https://www.easychair.org/account/signin.cgi?conf=hls20. To submit an abstract you will first need to sign up for an Easychair account if you do not already have one. Abstracts should be written in English using a 12 point font and have a maximum length of 350 words including references. Use a Unicode-compliant font if special characters are required, such as Doulos SIL, which is available as freeware. If you have problems submitting your abstract online, please contact the conference organizers at HLS20.email at gmail.com. Information on the website will be continually updated as conference arrangements progress. Call for workshops/panels Ideas are solicited for workshops or panels to be run in parallel with the main sessions on one or more days of HLS20. Please send suggestions together with a short write-up of the proposed workshop theme, including names of potential workshop participants, to HLS20.email at gmail.com. Important dates 15 January 2014: deadline for submission of abstracts and workshop proposals 15 March 2014: notification of acceptance of papers Kind regards, Alexander R. Coupe HLS20 Conference Chair email: HLS20.email at gmail.com --- Dr. Alexander R. Coupe, Ph.D. | Assistant Professor | Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies | Nanyang Technological University HSS-03-56, 14 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 637332 Tel: (65) 6592-1567 GMT+8h | Fax: (65) 6795-6525 | Email: arcoupe at ntu.edu.sg | Web: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/HSS/Linguistics http://nanyang.academia.edu/AlexanderCoupe/ Editor Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area http://stedt.berkeley.edu/ltba/ ltba.email at gmail.com ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its contents. Towards a sustainable earth:Print only when necessary.Thank you. From A.Foolen at let.ru.nl Wed Nov 20 18:05:08 2013 From: A.Foolen at let.ru.nl (Ad Foolen) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:05:08 +0100 Subject: Nijmegen Lectures Message-ID: ************************** Apologies for multiple postings ************************** The Nijmegen Lectures committee is pleased to announce that the Nijmegen Lectures will take place on January 27th, 28th and 29th, 2014. The lectures will be given by *Russell Gray, School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand*. The title of the lecture series is: *No miracles! A Darwinian view of the evolution of cognition, language and culture* For further information please go to the Nijmegen Lectures website: http://www.mpi.nl/events/nijmegen-lectures-2014 All lectures and seminars are free of charge and open to the public. Please note that registration is required for everybody who plans to attend, because seating is limited for the afternoon sessions. We advise you to register as soon as possible. You can do so by clicking on this link: http://www.mpi.nl/events/nijmegen-lectures-2014/registration-2014 We look forward to seeing you at the Nijmegen Lectures, January 27 ? 29, 2014. The organizing committee: Sara B?gels, Dan Dediu, Michael Dunn, Monique Flecken, Pieter Muysken, Sean Roberts, and Martina Bernhard (secretary) (sent by Martina Bernhard, secretary) Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics e-mail: martina.bernhard at mpi.nl Phone: +31 24 3521443 http://www.mpi.nl From vferreira at cidles.eu Thu Nov 21 11:23:33 2013 From: vferreira at cidles.eu (Vera Ferreira) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:23:33 +0000 Subject: Poio - Technologies for Language Diversity Message-ID: Poio (http://www.poio.eu/) is a project developed at CIDLeS (Interdisciplinary Centre for Social and Language Documentation, Minde / Portugal) with the aim of creating text prediction and transliteration systems for under-resourced languages, supporting and fostering their everyday use in digital communication. Poio supports now 26 languages and works already with mobile phones. Try it out and send your feedback to info at cidles.eu Best regards, Vera Ferreira -- Vera Ferreira Centro Interdisciplinar de Documenta??o Lingu?stica e Social / Interdisciplinary Centre for Social and Language Documentation Rua Dr. Ant?nio da Silva Ferreira Totta, n? 29 2395-182 Minde Portugal Tel.: +351249849123 Email: vferreira at cidles.eu Web: http://www.cidles.eu From grvsmth at panix.com Fri Nov 22 12:52:41 2013 From: grvsmth at panix.com (Angus Grieve-Smith) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:52:41 -0500 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I thought this message got sent yesterday, but my email program seems to be malfunctioning. I apologize if you get more than one copy. I want to thank Fritz for raising this discussion, and Joan and everyone else for their great contributions to it. This has meshed with some things I've been wondering about in phonology, teaching it to undergrads for the second time. In particular, I'm reading Sapir 1933, which essentially anticipates a cognitive approach by explicitly comparing the categorization of phonemes to categorization of physical objects like "clubs." http://www.ucalgary.com/dflynn/files/dflynn/Sapir33.pdf "To say that a given phoneme is not sufficiently defined in articulatory or acoustic terms but needs to be fitted into the total system of sound relations particular to the language is, at bottom, no more mysterious than to say that a club is not defined for us when it is said to be made of wood and to have such and such a shape and such and such dimensions. We must understand why a roughly similar object, not so different to the eye, is no club at all, and why a third object, very different of color and much longer and heavier than the first, is for all that very much of a club." Another observation that fits in with Sapir's: my students are mostly speech pathology majors and very well-trained in basic phonetics. They can hear aspiration, flapping and sometimes nasalization because they've been trained to, but at the beginning of the semester they were completely incapable of hearing things in their own dialect of English and other familiar ones that were glaringly obvious to me, like affrication, glide-fronting and creaky voice. I've been able to train most of them, but it was striking to see them at first transcribe [?????] as [d?????]. The /d/ seems to have a definite psychological reality there. I'm interested in what you all think. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk Fri Nov 22 13:50:50 2013 From: c.hart at lancaster.ac.uk (Christopher Hart) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:50:50 -0000 Subject: CADAAD 2014 Final CfP: Extended Deadline Message-ID: Dear colleagues, In response to requests from several people, we have decided to extend the deadline for submission of abstracts to CADAAD 2014 until 15 December 2013. Final call for papers below. We are glad to announce that the 5th Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines Conference (CADAAD) will take place 1-3 September 2014 and will be hosted by ELTE University, Budapest, Hungary. CADAAD conferences are intended to promote current directions and new developments in cross-disciplinary critical discourse research. We welcome papers which, from a critical-analytical perspective, deal with contemporary social, scientific, political, economic, or professional discourses and genres. Possible topics include but are by no means limited to the following: ? (New) Media discourse ? Party political discourse ? Advertising ? Discourses of war and terrorism ? Power, ideology and dominance in institutional discourse ? Identity in discourse ? Education discourses ? Environmental discourses ? Health communication ? Business communication ? Language and the law ? *Discourses of inequality, discrimination and othering* ? *Global economic discourses and discourses of the financial crisis* ? *Discourses of political protest and civil (dis)order* ? *Neoliberalism and the new divides* ? *Anti-EU discourses* Papers addressing the highlighted topics are especially welcome. In giving weight to these topics we wish to call to attention some of the most pressing problems currently facing Europe. We hope that CADAAD 2014 will provide a publically visible forum for critically reflecting on these issues. We welcome papers which approach topics such as listed above from theoretical and analytical perspectives sourced from anywhere across the humanities, social and cognitive sciences, including but without being limited to the following: ? Sociolinguistics ? Multimodality ? Media and Mass Communication Studies ? Functional Linguistics ? Cognitive Linguistics ? Corpus Linguistics ? Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory ? Conversation and Discourse Analysis ? Ethnography of Communication ? Discursive Psychology ? Political Science We especially welcome papers which re-examine existing theoretical frameworks and/or which highlight and apply new methodologies. Reflecting the diversity of topics and approaches in critical discourse studies, the following distinguished guests have confirmed their participation as plenary speakers: ? PROFESSOR RUTH WODAK (Lancaster University) ? PROFESSOR THEO VAN LEEUWEN (University of Technology Sydney) ? PROFESSOR LILIE CHOULIARAKI (London School of Economics) ? PROFESSOR ANDREAS MUSOLFF (University of East Anglia) ? PROFESSOR CRISPIN THURLOW (University of Washington) All papers will be allocated 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions. The language of the conference is English. Abstracts of 250-350 words excluding references should be sent as MS Word attachment to cadaad2014 at gmail.com before *15 December 2013*. Please include in the body of the email but not in the abstract itself (1) your name, (2) affiliation and (3) email address. Notifications of acceptance will be communicated by 1 March 2014. In addition to individual papers, panel proposals may also be submitted. A list of our new panels are available at http://cadaad2014.elte.hu/ and at http://cadaad.net/cadaad_2014. We are planning to offer a small number of bursaries to be applied for by delegates who come from disadvantaged circumstances. Application information will be provided on our website later this year. Selected papers are planned to be published in a thematically constrained volume to be submitted to an international publisher. Other selected papers will appear in a proceedings issue of the CADAAD journal. For further information please visit our new conference website at http://cadaad2014.elte.hu/ or http://cadaad.net/cadaad_2014 and our new Facebook page at facebook.com/Cadaad2014. Best regards, Christopher Hart, CADAAD, Lancaster University Tam?s Eitler, CADAAD 2014 Local Organising Committee, ELTE University, Budapest From geoffnathan at wayne.edu Fri Nov 22 14:52:49 2013 From: geoffnathan at wayne.edu (Geoffrey Steven Nathan) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:52:49 -0500 Subject: phonological rules (summary) In-Reply-To: <528F5399.7070806@panix.com> Message-ID: While this listserv isn't the place for a full-scale discussion of all the possible issues I can't resist mentioning several publications of mine arguing that phonemes are basic-level prototype categories that are, as Sapir said many years ago, our mode of perception, production and storage. Angus is right that getting naive speakers to hear allophonic variation is as difficult for literate English-speaking adults as it was for his non-literate Southern Paiute consultant (I'm teaching an intro to phonetics this semester that just reinforces this view). I think evidence from speech errors, second-language production and perception effects, the history of writing systems, and casual and careful speech alternants suggest that speech production and perception is an active, embodied problem-solving activity akin to picking a way through a stony path on a hike. Stored prototypes are implemented 'on the fly' as they jostle up against one another, and we choose style and register implementations. Here are some references: Nathan, Geoffrey S, 2007. ?Is the Phoneme Usage-Based? ? Some Issues,? International Journal of English Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2:173-195. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. ______, 2007. ?Phonology,? in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuykens. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 611-631. ______, 2008. Phonology: A Cognitive Grammar Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. ______, 2009. ?Where is the Natural Phonology Phoneme in 2009,? Pozna? Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, Vol. 45, No. 1:141-148. Donegan, Patricia J., and Geoffrey S. Nathan. ?Natural Phonology and Sound Change,? in The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons. Oxford University Press. Geoffrey S. Nathan Faculty Liaison, C&IT and Professor, Linguistics Program http://blogs.wayne.edu/proftech/ +1 (313) 577-1259 (C&IT) Nobody at Wayne State will EVER ask you for your password. Never send it to anyone in an email, no matter how authentic the email looks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Grieve-Smith" To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 7:52:41 AM Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] phonological rules (summary) I thought this message got sent yesterday, but my email program seems to be malfunctioning. I apologize if you get more than one copy. I want to thank Fritz for raising this discussion, and Joan and everyone else for their great contributions to it. This has meshed with some things I've been wondering about in phonology, teaching it to undergrads for the second time. In particular, I'm reading Sapir 1933, which essentially anticipates a cognitive approach by explicitly comparing the categorization of phonemes to categorization of physical objects like "clubs." http://www.ucalgary.com/dflynn/files/dflynn/Sapir33.pdf "To say that a given phoneme is not sufficiently defined in articulatory or acoustic terms but needs to be fitted into the total system of sound relations particular to the language is, at bottom, no more mysterious than to say that a club is not defined for us when it is said to be made of wood and to have such and such a shape and such and such dimensions. We must understand why a roughly similar object, not so different to the eye, is no club at all, and why a third object, very different of color and much longer and heavier than the first, is for all that very much of a club." Another observation that fits in with Sapir's: my students are mostly speech pathology majors and very well-trained in basic phonetics. They can hear aspiration, flapping and sometimes nasalization because they've been trained to, but at the beginning of the semester they were completely incapable of hearing things in their own dialect of English and other familiar ones that were glaringly obvious to me, like affrication, glide-fronting and creaky voice. I've been able to train most of them, but it was striking to see them at first transcribe [?????] as [d?????]. The /d/ seems to have a definite psychological reality there. I'm interested in what you all think. -- -Angus B. Grieve-Smith grvsmth at panix.com From kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Fri Nov 22 19:25:40 2013 From: kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be (Kristel Van Goethem) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:25:40 +0100 Subject: CfP WS Category change from a constructional perspective (ICCG8) Message-ID: Call for papers: Workshop ?Category change from a constructional perspective? Call deadline: December 9, 2013 Workshop convenors: * Muriel Norde (Humboldt Universit?t zu Berlin) : muriel.norde at hu-berlin.de * Kristel Van Goethem (F.R.S.-FNRS, Universit? catholique de Louvain) : kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be Workshop discussant: Graeme Trousdale (University of Edinburgh) Call for papers This is a workshop proposal to be submitted to the 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8), which will be held at the University of Osnabrueck, 3-6 September, 2014. If you are interested in participating in this workshop, please send both of us a title by December 9, 2013, so we can submit our proposal (including a provisional list of participants and titles) to the ICCG8 conference organizers. If our proposal is accepted, participants will be invited to submit a full abstract (400 words) by February 1, 2014. Conference website: http://www.blogs.uni-osnabrueck.de/iccg8/ Workshop description Category change, i.e. the shift from one word class to another or from free categories to bound categories, is inherent to many different types of change, yet it is usually not given much consideration. The aim of this workshop, therefore, will be to bring category change itself to the fore, as a phenomenon worthy of study in its own right. Adopting a rather broad definition of ?category?, which includes both single words and multi-word units, we will explore how categories change and why some shifts are more frequent than others. In particular, we want to examine whether a constructional perspective enhances our understanding of category change. In our workshop, focus will be on three topics: (i) types of category change, (ii) degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity, and (iii) directionality. Types of category change Category change may result from different processes. The first process is commonly termed ?non-affixal derivation? or ?conversion?, as in the following examples from French (Kerleroux 1996) and English (Denison 2010). (1) calmeA ?calm? > calmeN ?calmness? (2) dailyA newspaper > dailyN The second process is category change determined by a specific syntactic context, or ?distorsion cat?gorielle? (Kerleroux 1996), as in (3), likewise from French: (3) Elle est d?un courageux! ?(lit. She is of a brave) She is very brave? However, there is no strict boundary between the processes exemplified in (1-2) and (3), as suggested by cases such as Elle est d?un calme! ?lit. She is of a calm; She is very calm?. In this example, the nominal use of calme can be accounted for both as conversion and as context-internal category change. Third, category change can be linked to processes of univerbation with structural change (Denison 2010), e.g. the use of English far from as an adverbial downtoner in (4) (De Smet 2012), or the development of the German pronoun neizwer out of a Middle High German sentence (5) (Haspelmath 1997: 131). (4) The life of a ?beauty queen? is far from beautiful. (web) (5) ne weiz wer ?I don?t know who? > neizwer ?somebody? A fourth type is one in which an item shifts category in the wake of the category shift of another item, e.g. the shift of Swedish adverbs in ?vis to adjectives when the head of a VP is nominalized: (6) Samh?llet f?randras gradvisADV. ?Society changes gradually? (7) Den gradvisaADJ f?r?ndringen av samh?llet. ?The gradual change of society? Finally, category change may be part of a grammaticalization change, i.e. ?the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions? (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18), such as the grammaticalization of English to be going to from main verb to future auxiliary in (8-9). Such gradual grammaticalization processes may account for synchronic gradience (Traugott & Trousdale 2010). (8) I [am going to]MAIN V the train station. (9) I [am going to]AUX be a star. Degrees of gradualness and context-sensitivity The different types of category shift mentioned above can be arranged on a continuum, from abrupt to gradual and from context-independent to context-sensitive. While the A > N conversions in (1-2) are abrupt and context-independent processes, shifts from N > A are often gradual and determined by the syntactic environment, as in the case of keyN > keyA in English (10a) and French (10b) (Amiot & Van Goethem 2012; Denison 2001, 2010; De Smet 2012; Van Goethem & De Smet (forthc.)). (10)a. This is a really key point. b. Ceci est un point vraiment cl?. However, similar developments in related languages may be characterized differently, as suggested by a contrastive case study on the adjectival uses of Dutch top and German spitze ?top? (Van Goethem & H?ning 2013). The category change in Dutch (11) seems abrupt, but the German (12) spelling of S/spitze and inflection of the preceding adjective/adverb is suggestive of a gradual development. (11) het was (de) absolute topN / het was absoluut topA ?lit. it was absolute(ly) top? (12) das war absolute SpitzeN / das war absolute spitzeN/A / das war absolut SpitzeN/A / das war absolut spitzeA ?lit. it was absolute(ly) top? Directionality Whereas in earlier work (e.g. Lehmann 1995 [1982], Haspelmath 2004) the view prevailed that only changes from major to minor categories are possible, research on degrammaticalization (Norde 2009) has shown that changes from minor to major word classes, albeit less frequently attested, are possible as well. In addition, specific items have been shown to change categories more than once in the course of their histories, in alternating stages of grammaticalization and degrammaticalization. One example is degrammaticalization of the Dutch numeral suffix -tig ?-ty? into an indefinite quantifier meaning ?dozens?, followed by grammaticalization into an intensifier meaning ?very? (Norde 2006). Another example is the autonomous (adjectival/adverbial) use of Dutch intensifying prefixoids (Booij 2010: 60-61), such as Dutch reuze ?giant?, which underwent multiple category changes (Van Goethem & Hiligsmann, forthc.; Norde & Van Goethem, in prep.), first from noun to intensifying affixoid (13) (grammaticalization) and later on into an adjective/adverb (14-15) (degrammaticalization): (13) Verder kunnen we reuzegoed met elkaar opschieten ?Besides we get along very well (lit. giant-well)? (COW2012) (14) Ik zou het gewoon weg reuze vinden als je eens langs kwam. ?I really think it would be great (lit. giant) if you came by once.? (COW 2012) (15) Reuze bedankt! ?Thanks a lot? Finally, category shift may be ?non-directional?, in the sense that the input and output categories are of the same level, e.g. in shifts from one major word class to the other (examples (1-2)), or the transference of nominal case markers to verbal tense ? aspect markers, such as the shift, in Kala Lagau Ya, from dative marker ?pa to (verbal) completive marker (Blake 2001; examples (16-17)). (16) Nuy ay-pa amal-pa he food-dat mother-dat ?He [went] for food for mother? (17)Ngoeba uzar-am-pa 1dual.inclusive go-dual.incompletive ?We two will go (are endeavouring to go)? The constructional perspective The central aim of the workshop will be to investigate whether category change can be explained more accurately by analyzing it as an instance of ?constructionalization? (Bergs & Diewald 2008; Traugott & Trousdale 2013 (forthc.)), which involves ?a sequence of changes in the form and meaning poles of a construction, whereby new formal configurations come to serve particular functions, and to encode new meanings? (Trousdale & Norde 2013: 36). In this workshop, we welcome both theoretically and empirically oriented papers that account for category change from a constructional perspective. Research questions include, but are not limited to, the following: 1: What is the status of category change in a diachronic construction grammar framework (e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2013) and how can the different types outlined above be accounted for? Are categories grammatical primitives, or the epiphenomenal result of constructions in the sense of Croft 2001? 2: How can the notions of gradualness and context-sensitivity be modelled in a constructional framework? Does the gradualness of some category shifts imply that categories synchronically form a ?continuous spectrum? (Langacker 1987: 18) or does it merely mean that a given item may belong to two or more categories whereas ?the categories in question can nevertheless be clearly delimited? (Aarts 2007: 242)? 3: Is category change a change in form which together with a change in meaning constitutes a constructionalization change and if so, is it the shift itself or changes in morphosyntactic properties (e.g. decategorialization) that are associated with it? 4: How does the distinction between lexical and grammatical constructionalization link in to the different types of category change (abrupt vs gradual, morphological vs syntactic, context-independent vs context-sensitive, word-level vs construction-level)? 5: Which role can be assigned to the notion of ?category? in constructional networks? References Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic Gradience. The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amiot, D. & K. Van Goethem 2012. A constructional account of French -cl? 'key' and Dutch sleutel- 'key' as in mot-cl? / sleutelwoord 'keyword'. Morphology 22. 347-364. Bergs, A. & G. Diewald (Eds). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blake, B. J. 2001. Case. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. COW (Corpora from the web) http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/cow/colibri/ [ Sch?fer, R. & F. Bildhauer. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new effcient tool chain. In N. Calzolari et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Istanbul, ELRA, 486?493.] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Smet, H. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88.3. 601-633. Denison, D. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In L. J. Brinton (ed.), Historical linguistics 1999: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9-13 August 1999 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 215), 119-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, D. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 90), 105-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford : Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, M. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In O. Fischer, M. Norde & H. Perridon (eds) Up and down the cline ? the nature of grammaticalization, 17-44. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kerleroux, F. 1996. La coupure invisible. ?tudes de syntaxe et de morphologie. Villeneuve d?Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion. Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I : Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA : Stanford University Press. Lehmann, Chr. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Norde, M. 2006. Van suffix tot telwoord tot bijwoord: degrammaticalisering en (re)grammaticalisering van tig. Tabu 35. 33-60. Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norde, M. & K. Van Goethem. in prep. Emancipatie van affixen en affixo?den: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Submitted. Traugott, E.C. & G. Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. 2013 (Forthc.). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trousdale G. & M. Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. Language Sciences 36. 32-46. Van Goethem, K. & H. De Smet. Forthc. How nouns turn into adjectives. The emergence of new adjectives in French, English and Dutch through debonding processes. Languages in Contrast. Van Goethem, K. & Ph. Hiligsmann. Forthc. When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze ?giant; great?. Journal of Germanic Linguistics. Van Goethem, K. & M. H?ning. 2013. Debonding of Dutch and German compounds. Paper presented at the Germanic Sandwich Conference, Leuven, Jan. 2013. Kristel Van Goethem Chercheuse qualifi?e F.R.S.-FNRS Universit? catholique de Louvain Institut Langage et Communication/P?le Linguistique Coll?ge Erasme Place Blaise Pascal 1, bte L3.03.33 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve bureau c.383 T?l. (0032) 10 47 48 42 kristel.vangoethem at uclouvain.be http://uclouvain.academia.edu/KVanGoethem From fg-fgw at uva.nl Sat Nov 23 12:10:44 2013 From: fg-fgw at uva.nl (fg-fgw) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:10:44 +0000 Subject: Call for papers for the Third International Conference on Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG2014) - Jaen, Spain, September 2014 Message-ID: Call for papers for the Third International Conference on Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG2014) to be held in Ja?n, Spain, from 17-20 September 2014. This conference will be preceded by a Preconference Course on FDG on 15 and 16 September 2014. Objectives The aim of FDG2014 is to further elaborate the model of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) as proposed by Kees Hengeveld and J. Lachlan Mackenzie. A full treatment of FDG may be found in: Hengeveld, Kees and Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2008), Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The conference All sessions at the conference will be plenary, so as to enhance discussion between participants. A poster session will be part of the programme. The language of the conference will be English. The venue FDG2014 will take place in Spain, in the city of Ja?n, located in Andaluc?a. The conference will be hosted by the University of Ja?n at their main campus, the Campus de Las Lagunillas, which is located to the north of the city. Ja?n is a small city for Spanish standards (120.000 inhabitants) and is beautifully located. Details on travel and accomodation will be published in the near future at www.functionaldiscoursegrammar.info. Abstracts Each abstract should contain at least the following items: a clearly defined and well-motivated research question; the crucial examples illustrating the relevance of the research question; and the main conclusions of the paper. Abstracts should be approximately 1,000 words long, i.e. roughly 3 pages, and should not contain the name of the author. References to literature cited should be provided in addition to the 1,000 words. References containing the name of the author may also be given but will be suppressed before the abstract is sent to the programme committee. Please indicate in the accompanying message whether you want to present a paper or a poster. The deadline for the submission of abstracts for papers and posters is February 15, 2014. Abstracts should be submitted electronically to fg-fgw at uva.nl. Organizing Committee The members of the Organizing Committee are Ventura Salazar Garc?a (Chair, University of Ja?n), Carmen Conti Jim?nez (University of Ja?n), Mar?a Bel?n D?ez-Bedmar (Secretary, University of Ja?n), Elena Fel?u Arquiola (University of Ja?n), Francisco Fern?ndez-Garc?a (University of Ja?n), and Paula Garc?a-Ram?rez (University of Ja?n). Programme Committee The board of the Functional Grammar Foundation (FGF) has appointed a Programme Committee that consists of the following members: Gudrun Rawoens (Chair, Ghent University), Evelien Keizer (University of Vienna), and Ventura Salazar Garc?a (University of Ja?n). The Programme Committee will evaluate anonymized abstracts and decide on their inclusion in the conference programme. Abstracts submitted by members of the Programme Committee will be evaluated by an independent member of the board of the FGF. Preconference course The preconference course on FDG is aimed at graduates and postgraduates and will be taught by Evelien Keizer (University of Vienna), using her forthcoming new textbook on Functional Discourse Grammar. Further information Further information on accomodation, fees, and registration will be provided in the second circular. How you can reach us The email address for all enquiries related to the course and conference is fg-fgw at uva.nl ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Functional Grammar Foundation Universiteit van Amsterdam Department of Theoretical Linguistics Spuistraat 210 NL-1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: fg-fgw at uva.nl ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From OGradyGN at cardiff.ac.uk Wed Nov 27 22:18:00 2013 From: OGradyGN at cardiff.ac.uk (Gerard O'Grady) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:18:00 +0000 Subject: PhD opportunity at Cardiff University Message-ID: Dear all, If you know of anyone interested in applying for a fully funded PhD at Cardiff with a one year MA training year please pass on the message below. We ?invite applications in areas of Functional Linguistics, Evolutionary Linguistics and Language Variation.? Please note that full funding is only available to UK citizens or EU nationals?who have lived in the UK for the past three years. The award can be given as a fees only award to EU nationals?who do not meet the residency requirements. Unfortunately other nationals are not eligible to apply. Dr. Gerard O'Grady Centre for Language and Communication Research Cardiff School of English Communication and Philosophy Cardiff University Humanities Building, Colum Road, Cardiff. CF10 3EU UK ESRC Studentship in Language and Communication at Cardiff? The Centre for Language and Communication Research (CLCR) is able to support applications by UK/EU students for one Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) 1+ 3 studentship in 2014/15, covering tuition fees plus a generous stipend, on a competitive basis within the ESRC Doctoral Training Centre (DTC) Wales Consortium, led by Cardiff University?http://www.cf.ac.uk/encap/degreeprogrammes/postgraduatetaught/languagecommunicationresearch/index.html The?ESRC website?has a very helpful section on frequently asked questions about the award scheme. In order to be considered for a studentship, you firstly need to apply for a place on the MA Language Communication Research with progression to Doctor of Philosophy (1+3) ?in the Centre for Language and Communication Research at Cardiff University via the University's?Direct Application Service. ?As well as your application, you will need to supply the following supporting documents: 2 academic references, a detailed research proposal, personal statement, copies of your degree certificates and a transcript of the marksmailto:encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk. In the research proposal (around 1,000 words, 3-4 pages) please outline your rationale, proposed methodology, and research objectives, including a short bibliography. ?In your personal statement, we would like you to tell us about why you are applying for a PhD – what your current situation is, whether you need a PhD for your own personal development, or for professional reasons, what your experience has been to date as a student/researcher/teacher in the area of English Language and Communication, and why you have chosen Cardiff as an appropriate research environment for your particular area of interest. ?Once you have an offer of a place on the PhD (Language and Communication Research) programme you will be eligible to apply for ESRC funding. ?Please submit your MA (1+3) application in good time to allow you to meet the 31 January 2014 ESRC application form deadline. ?The ESRC application form can be obtained from encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk and should be submitted by 5 p.m. on Friday 31 January 2014. ? Deadline: The deadline for submission of the ESRC application form is 5 p.m. on Friday 31 January 2014. ?In order to meet this deadline you will need to ensure that you submit your PhD application by Friday 24 January 2014 at the latest. ?You may be called for interview during the week commencing 10 February 2014. For further details, please contact: Rhian Rattray, Postgraduate Manager for the School of English, Communication and Philosophy. Email:?encap-pg at cardiff.ac.uk? For informal advice please Contact: Dr. Gerard O'Grady, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Centre for Language and Communication Research: OGradyGN at cf.ac.uk? From jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se Fri Nov 29 16:34:52 2013 From: jordan.zlatev at ling.lu.se (Jordan Zlatev) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:34:52 +0000 Subject: Second CfP: IACS-2014 Establishing Cognitive Semiotics Message-ID: Second Call for Papers First International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS) Conference, September 25-27, 2014, Lund, Sweden http://conference.ht.lu.se/iacs-2014/ The First International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS) Conference (IACS-2014) will be held in September 25-27, at Lund University, Sweden. Founded in Aarhus, Denmark, on May 29, 2013, The International Association for Cognitive Semiotics aims at the further establishment of Cognitive Semiotics as the trans-disciplinary study of meaning, combining concepts, theories and methods from the humanities and the social and natural sciences. Central topics are the evolution, development of, and interaction between different semiotic resources such as language, gestures and pictorial representations. Plenary speakers * S?ren Brier, Copenhagen Business School * Merlin Donald, Queens University * Brian MacWhinney, Carnegie Mellon University * Cornelia M?ller, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) * Raymond Tallis, University of Manchester Theme of the conference: Establishing Cognitive Semiotics Over the past two decades or so, a number of researchers from semiotics, linguistics, cognitive science and related fields, from several European and North American research centres, have experienced the needs to combine theoretical knowledge and methodological expertise in order to be able to tackle challenging questions concerning the nature of meaning, the role of consciousness, the unique cognitive features of mankind, the interaction of nature and nurture in development, and the interplay of biological and cultural evolution in phylogeny. The product of these collaborations has been the emergence of the field of Cognitive Semiotics, with its own journal (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cogsem) and academic association. The conference aims both to celebrate this, and to look forward into possibilities for further development. We invite the submission of 400 word abstracts (excluding title and references) for one of the three following categories : 1. Oral presentations (20 min presentation + 5 minute discussion), to be submitted at the site of the conference. 2. Posters (at a dedicated poster session), to be submitted at the site of the conference. 3. Theme sessions (3 to 6 thematically linked oral presentations.) Such proposals are to include: (a) Title of proposed session, (b) name(s) of convener(s), (c) max 400 word motivation of the session, (d) abstracts for 3 to 6 individual papers, (e) name of discussant - if such is involved. All this information should be sent TOGETHER to the conference organizers at iacs-2014 at semiotik.lu.se The individual abstracts should be preceded by an abstract for the theme session as a whole. In case the theme session is not accepted, individual abstracts will be reviewed as submissions for oral presentations.). Note that all abstracts should be submitted to the conference web site at http://www.sol.lu.se/conferenceRegistration/conferenceRegistration.php?conferenceId=26 - posters and oral presentations directly, those of theme sessions after that session has been accepted. No individual abstract should be sent to the e-mail adress above. The abstracts can be related, though need not be restricted, to the following topics: * Biological and cultural evolution of human cognitive specificity * Cognitive linguistics and phenomenology * Communication across cultural barriers * Cross-species comparative semiotics * Evolutionary perspectives on altruism * Experimental semiotics * Iconicity in language and other semiotic resources * Intersubjectivity and mimesis in evolution and development * Multimodality * Narrativity across different media * Semantic typology and linguistic relativity * Semiosis (sense-making) in social interaction * Semiotic and cognitive development in children * Sign use and cognition * Signs, affordances, and other meanings * Speech and gesture * The comparative semiotics of iconicity and indexicality * The evolution of language Important dates * Deadline for submission of theme sessions: 31 Dec 2013 (by email) * Deadline for abstract submission - by registration at the conference web site (oral presentations, posters): 1 Feb 2014 (by website) * Notification of acceptance (theme sessions): 15 Feb 2014 * Notification of acceptance (oral presentations, posters): 1 April 2014 * Last date for early registration: 1 July 2014 Scientific committee http://conference.ht.lu.se/iacs-2014/organizing-committee-scientific-committee/ Local organizing committee * Mats Andr?n * Johan Blomberg * Anna Cabak Redei * Sara Lenninger * Joel Parthemore * G?ran Sonesson * Jordan Zlatev Jordan Zlatev, Professor Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature Box 201, 221 00 Lund, Sweden Centre for Cognitive Semiotics (CCS), Deputy research director http://project.sol.lu.se/en/ccs/ The Public Journal of Semiotics (PJOS), Editor-in-Chief http://pjos.org International Association for Cognitive Semiotics (IACS), President From d.trenkic.96 at cantab.net Fri Nov 29 18:27:48 2013 From: d.trenkic.96 at cantab.net (Danijela Trenkic) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:27:48 -0000 Subject: EUROSLA 24: call for papers Message-ID: EUROSLA 24 ? Call for papers The Centre for Language Learning Research in the Department of Education, University of York, is pleased to announce that it will host EUROSLA 24, the 24th Annual Conference of the European Second Language Association. You are kindly invited to submit abstracts for papers, posters, thematic colloquia and doctoral workshops on any domain and subdomain of second language research. The Conference will start in the morning of 4 September 2014 and close at lunchtime on 6 September 2014. Preceding the Conference, there will be a doctoral workshop and a Language Learning roundtable, both on 3 September. The theme of this year?s roundtable is ?Language learning theory and practice: Bridging the gap?. Plenary speakers Fran?ois Grosjean, University of Neuch?tel Leah Roberts, University of York Natasha Tokowicz, University of Pittsburgh Sharon Unsworth, Radboud University Nijmegen Key dates 28 February 2014: abstract submission deadline 25 April 2014: notification of acceptance 28 April 2014: early bird registration starts 15 June 2014: registration closes for presenters 25 June 2014: early bird registration closes 26 June 2014: full fee registration starts 3 September 2014: doctoral workshop and roundtable 4-6 September 2014: conference Abstract submission policy Each author may submit no more than one single-authored and one co-authored (i.e. not first-authored) abstract to be considered for oral presentations, including colloquia and doctoral workshops. More than one abstract can be submitted for poster presentations. Paper and poster proposals should not have been previously published. All submissions will be reviewed anonymously by the scientific committee and evaluated in terms of rigour, clarity and significance of the contribution, as well as its relevance to second language research. Abstracts should not exceed 450 words (excluding the title, but including optional references). Individual papers and posters Papers will be allocated 20 minutes for presentation plus 5 minutes for discussion. Poster sessions will be held in two 90-minute slots. In order to foster interaction, all other sessions will be suspended during the poster sessions. Thematic colloquia The Thematic colloquia will be organised in two-hour slots running in parallel with other sessions. Each colloquium will focus on one specific topic, and will bring together key contributions to the topic. Colloquium convenors should allocate time for opening and closing remarks, individual papers, discussants (if included) and general discussion. Doctoral student workshop The doctoral student workshop is intended to serve as a platform for discussion of ongoing PhD research within any aspect of second language research. PhD students are invited to submit an abstract for a 10-15-minute presentation. The abstract and the presentation should include one or two questions on which the student would like to receive audience feedback (e.g. data collection, analysis, theoretical or methodological issues), and sufficient background information for framing the questions. These sessions are not intended as opportunities to present research results, but to discuss future directions. Students whose abstracts are accepted will then be required to send their paper to a discussant (a senior researcher). The discussant will lead a 10-15-minute feedback/discussion session on their work. Student stipends As in previous years, several student stipends will be available for doctoral students. If you wish to apply, please send the following information to eurosla24 at york.ac.uk before 28 February 2014: 1. Name, institution, and address of institution; 2. Curriculum vitae (attached); 3. Official confirmation of a PhD student status; 4. Statement (email) from supervisor or head of Department that the applicant?s institution cannot (fully) cover the conference-related expenses. Publication of papers A selection of papers presented at EUROSLA 2014 will be published in the EUROSLA 24 Yearbook following a peer-review process. There is an annual prize for the best EUROSLA Yearbook article. This includes a framed certificate presented at the EUROSLA General Assembly, a fee waiver for the following EUROSLA conference and conference dinner, and free EUROSLA membership for a year. To submit an abstract please visit http://www.york.ac.uk/eurosla24