From Anna.Glazier at eup.ed.ac.uk Fri Jan 11 17:12:34 2008 From: Anna.Glazier at eup.ed.ac.uk (GLAZIER Anna) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:12:34 -0000 Subject: New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Message-ID: New Series / Call for Book Proposals Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Series Editors Joseph Salmons (University of Wisconsin) and David Willis (University of Cambridge) Editorial Advisory Board Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (Manchester) Claire Bowern (Rice) Sheila Embleton (York (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State) Patrick Honeybone (Edinburgh) Brian Joseph (Ohio State) April McMahon (Edinburgh) Johanna Nichols (Berkeley) Keren Rice (Toronto) Maggie Tallerman (Newcastle) Sylvia Adamson (Sheffield) James Clackson (Cambridge) Historical Linguistics is a series of advanced textbooks in Historical Linguistics, where individual volumes cover key subfields within Historical Linguistics in depth. As a whole, the series will provide a comprehensive introduction to this broad and increasingly complex field. The series is aimed at advanced undergraduates in Linguistics and students in language departments, as well as beginning postgraduates who are looking for an entry point. Volumes in the series are serious and scholarly university textbooks, theoretically informed and substantive in content. Every volume will contain pedagogical features such as recommendations for further reading, but the tone of each volume is discursive, explanatory and critically engaged, rather than 'activity-based'. Notes should be incorporated into the text. Planned Volumes Sound Change Prosodic Change Analogy and Morphological Change Semantic and Lexical Change Syntactic Change Comparative Linguistics, Linguistic Reconstruction and Language Classification Sociohistorical linguistics Introduction to particular language families Borrowing and Language Contact Pidgins and creoles Quantitative Approaches to Change Language Acquisition and Change Change in and evolution of writing Systems Written Evidence: Philology and historical linguistics Language Variation and Change Length: the typical all-inclusive length of a volume is 60,000-70,000 words. For more information on the series or to submit a book proposal, please contact the Series Editors, Joseph Salmons (jsalmons at wisc.edu) and David Willis (dwew2 at cam.ac.uk) or the EUP Commissioning Editor, Sarah Edwards (sarah.edwards at eup.ed.ac.uk). ____________ Anna Glazier Marketing Manager Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF tel 0131 650 4223 www.eup.ed.ac.uk Edinburgh University Press Journals will be online from 2008! Email journals at eup.ed.ac.uk to receive the latest updates. Edinburgh University Press Ltd Registered Office - 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF Registered at Companies House Edinburgh on 9th day of July 1992 Company Registration No. SC139240. Charities No. SC035813. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch Tue Jan 15 00:24:57 2008 From: remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch (R=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=my Viredaz) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:24:57 +0100 Subject: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans In-Reply-To: <20071216073606.4BDA5DF12B@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, After seeing the various contributions, my guess is rather near that of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. The shortest path from sh to the voiced pharyngeal stop seems to be: - voicing at one stage or the other - sh or zh develops to a retroflex and further to a velar fricative: to the Spanish and Poitou/Vendée parallels one can add Swedish, where the sound spelt as sj, stj, skj or sk (sk only before a stressed front vowl) was taught as a retroflex sh in McClean, Teach Yourself Swedish, but is now a sort of x as far as I can hear it occasionally on TV. (There is also *sh > x in Slavic, but here *sh belongs to an unattested period.) Retroflection of sh (with or without furtehr development to x ) apparently occurs only in systems with three manners of sibilants or the like: e. g. Spanish z (alveolar s , today interdental) :: apical s :: hushing x ; Swedish ç (palatal x, spelt kj, tj ; I don't know if today it's a palatal x or a palatal sh ) :: sh (spelt sj etc. as above, but obviously depalatalized for some time already) :: s. - velar fricatives to pharyngeal fricatives : this is known in the development from (unattested) Proto-Semitic to e. g. Hebrew, and from Arabic to Maltese. - voiced pharyngeal fricative to voiced pharyngeal stop: is this possible ? However, that makes many changes, and all of these would have to have occurred in the recipient language after the loans, rather than as adaptations at the time of the loans. And any of them may be possible or impossible depending on the rest of the consonant system, and, of course, on what is already known of its historical phonology on the basis of comparison with related languages. Best wishes, Rémy Viredaz 1, rue Chandieu CH - 1202 Genève remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:29:10 +0100 > From: Wolfgang Schulze > Subject: [Histling-l] sound replacement in loans > To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4764D3C6.7060207 at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear friends, > Claire Bowern had suggested to post my following question (originally > addressed to the LINGTYP list) to HISTLING, too.: > > Within the context of my research on Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi), I > came across a rather remarkable instance of 'sound replacement' in > loans: A palatal voiceless fricative () is (systematically?) > replaced by a voiced pharyngeal stop. I wonder whether some of you have > come across a parallel process in other languages...To be more concrete: > What I have in mind are cases of replacement within loans (!), not sound > changes within the history of a given language. That is, Language A has > a in a term that is borrowed into Language B with a voiced > pharyngeal (I write <%>) instead, say /asha/ in Language A (donor > language) > /a%a/ in Language B (recipient language). [Unfortunately, > I'm not allowed to give concrete examples from Caucasian Albanian, as > long as the corresponding text (the so-called Caucasian Albanian > Palimpsest) has not been edited. Sorry for this! But I have to respect > the copyright of others....] > Thanks for any suggestions.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Wed Jan 16 15:05:43 2008 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:05:43 +0100 Subject: Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy Message-ID: *************REMINDER, DEADLINE APPROACHING**************** ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** Theme Session Proposal – "What do languages code when they code realisness?" SLE 2008 – Forlì * Call for manifestation of interest * Theme Session Proposal: "What do languages code when they code realisness?" Dear list members, this is a call for manifestation of interest in a theme session that we plan to organize within the next annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), to be held in Forlì, Italy, September 17-20, 2008 (http://sle2008.sitlec.unibo.it). The SLE policy for workshops and theme sessions requires us to prepare a proposal, to be submitted to the SLE program committee no later than February 15, 2008. This proposal should contain a short description of the topic to be dealt with, along with an estimate of the schedule and the overall time required. The working title of our proposal is: "What do languages code when they code realisness?". An extended description of the topic is included at the end of this message. We feel that the theme we are going to propose might raise the interest of typologists (and theoretical linguists) who have been (or are) working on the coding of realisness and related issues. Besides the individual papers, we intend to devote some time to a general discussion of the theoretical and empirical issues arising from the presentations. In detail, the structure of the theme session we intend to submit should include: · three invited contributions; · up to 10/12 selected papers (20 minutes + discussion); · a final slot (up to 60 minutes) for a general, round-table like discussion. What we ask you at this stage is to let us know as soon as possible if you are interested in contributing a paper to the theme session. Feel free to send a quick informal reply to this mail (just stating your willingness to submit a paper and specifying a possible topic for your contribution). Prospective contributors are also expected to send an abstract no later than February 1, 2008 (Friday). This tight schedule will leave us enough time to finalize the proposal to be submitted to the SLE committee. We should emphasize that there will be two stages: in the first stage, we will select papers which will be included in the proposal; in the second stage, the proposal as a whole will be evaluated by the SLE committee. Only upon acceptance of the entire theme session, every selected contribution will be considered officially "accepted" at the SLE conference. Convenors Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia, Italy) Andrea Sansò (Insubria University – Como, Italy) Important dates (first stage): · As soon as possible: informal e-mail with manifestation of interest · 1st February 2008: abstract submission (see format below) · 1st March 2008: notification of acceptance Important dates (second stage; the convenors will be looking after the finalization of the proposal): · 15th February 2008: submission of the abstract for the theme session to the SLE committee · 15th April 2008: submission of the full program (invited speakers + accepted abstracts + discussion time) to the SLE committee · 31st May 2008: notification of acceptance Format of abstracts: The selection of abstracts will be made on the basis of quality and relatedness to the topic and objectives of the theme session. The submitted abstracts (in PDF) should be anonymous, up to 2 pages long (including references), and the authors are expected to provide an overview of the goal, methodology, and data of their research. Abstracts should be sent to both convenors to the following e-mail addresses: Caterina Mauri: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Andrea Sansò: asanso at gmail.com All the abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by the program committee of the theme session (see below) before the finalization of the proposal. More information about the theme session (list of selected papers, invited speakers, etc.) will be circulated amongst the prospective participants right before the submission of the proposal to the SLE committee. Please include the following data in the body of the mail: (i) Author(s); (ii) Title; (iii) Affiliation; (iv) Contacts. Scientific committee (TBC): Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen); Isabelle Bril (LACITO, CNRS, Villejuif); Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University) Anna Giacalone (University of Pavia); Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia); Andrea Sansò (Insubria University, Como); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp). Invited speakers: Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp) Publication: if the theme session is accepted it is our intention to publish a selection of the papers with an international publisher. Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sansò *************************************** Presentation of the theme session Working title: What do languages code when they code realisness? Theme description and topics Since Givón (1984: 285ff.) and Chung and Timberlake (1985: 241ff.), the terms realis and irrealis have gained increasing currency in cross-linguistic studies on modality as flexible cover terms for a number of moods traditionally labelled as 'indicative', 'subjunctive', 'optative', 'counterfactual', 'potential', 'hypothetical', etc. Some authors (e.g. Elliott 2000: 80) have gone a step further, speaking of 'reality status' (or 'realisness') as a grammatical category to full right, realized differently in different languages, with at least two values: realis (or neutral) and irrealis. These two values are characterized in terms of actualization vs. non-actualization of a given state of affairs. According to Elliott, a proposition is realis if it asserts that a state of affairs is an "actualized and certain fact of reality", whereas it is classified as irrealis if "it implies that a SoA belongs to the realm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential or possible event but it is not an observable fact of reality" (Elliott 2000: 66-67). There are languages which obligatorily mark realisness in all finite clauses by means of a comprehensive (morphological or syntactic) system of markers, others where the system is partial and the realisness of a proposition needs to be indicated only in specific syntactic contexts, and finally there are languages in which the marking of realisness is merely optional. In other terms, realisness may be encoded by means of an array of morpho-syntactic strategies (simple affixation, portmanteau affixation, sentence particles, adverbs, etc.). Both the functional characterization and the formal aspects of realisness are controversial (Bybee et al 1994; Bybee 1998). On the one hand, the solidarities between realisness and other functional domains such as, for instance, tense, aspect, and evidentiality make it difficult to decide whether (and to what extent) realisness is an independent functional dimension (see, e.g. Fleischman 1995). On the other hand, there are certain states of affairs (e.g. habitual, directive, and future SoAs, etc.) that are coded by means of either realis or irrealis strategies across languages, in a largely unpredictable way. This variation may reflect the inherently hybrid reality status of these states of affairs: they may have occurred but their reference time is non-specific (e.g. habituals; Givón 1984: 285; Cristofaro 2004), they may have not yet occurred but they are either highly probable or expected with a high degree of certainty (e.g. directives, futures; Roberts 1990; Chafe 1995; Mithun 1995; Ogloblin 2005; Sun 2007), etc. Some of the factors that appear to have an influence on the cross-linguistic coding of realisness have been already hinted at in the typological literature. For instance, in some languages argument structure and referentiality/definiteness of arguments appear to be crucial to the choice of a realis or irrealis strategy (the presence of definite arguments entailing realis marking, whereas indefinite/non-specific arguments require irrealis marking). Furthermore, the deictic anchoring of the proposition to the speaker's here-and-now (in the sense of Fleischman 1989) may determine different realisness values for directives and futures in some languages (e.g. predictions, intentions or scheduled events are marked as realis, whereas other future SoAs are irrealis; second-person directives, which require the presence of the performer, are coded as realis more frequently than third-person directives). Yet, a complete picture of the range of factors affecting realisness is still missing. New insights into these factors and their interactions may come from a wider amount of cross-linguistic data, as well as a better understanding of the diachronic mechanisms leading to the emergence and establishing of realisness systems. This theme session aims to assess our current understanding of the realisness dimension in grammar and to plot the directions for future research. We invite abstracts for papers dealing with foundational/theoretical issues and/or taking an empirical, data-driven stance on the coding of realisness across languages. At the foundational/theoretical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): · the status of realisness in linguistic theory; · interactions between realisness and other functional domains (tense, aspect, evidentiality, etc.); · cross-linguistic variation in the classification of certain states of affairs as either realis or irrealis; · factors affecting the realisness value of a state of affairs: argument structure; referentiality/definiteness of arguments; degree of deictic anchoring to the speaker's here-and-now; etc. At the empirical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): · in-depth investigations of realisness systems in single languages or language families; · the areal dimension of realisness marking; · realisness in languages without dedicated realis/irrealis markers; · realisness as a relevant dimension in interclausal relations: disjunction (see, e.g., Mauri 2008), complementation (Ammann & van der Auwera 2004), switch reference, etc.; · the diachronic origin and the grammaticalization of realis/irrealis markers as a key to understanding their functional properties and distribution. References Ammann, A., and J. van der Auwera. 2004. Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe. A Balkanism? In: O. Tomić (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 293-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. 1998. "Irrealis" as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40 (2): 257-271. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J., and S. Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chafe, W. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 349-365. Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In: Y. A. Lander, V. A. Plungian, A. Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Irrealis and Irreality, 256-272. Moscow: Gnosis. Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55-90. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13 (1): 1-50. Fleischman, S. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 519-551. Givón, T. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mauri, C. 2008. The irreality of alternatives. Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in Language 32 (1): 22-55. Mithun, M. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 367-388. Ogloblin, A. K. 2005. Javanese. In: A. Adelaar, and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 590-624. London-New York: Routledge. Roberts, J. R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26: 363-401. Sun, J. T.-S. 2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8 (3): 797-819. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From dwew2 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jan 21 10:55:35 2008 From: dwew2 at cam.ac.uk (David Willis) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:55:35 +0000 Subject: Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the programme of the international conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, which will take place from 18-20 March 2008 at the University of Cambridge. The focus will be on theoretical and methodological aspects of morphosyntactic change and conservatism. The aim of the conference is to bring together researchers working on different aspects of linguistic transmission in order to enhance our understanding of what makes languages change and what in turn prevents them from changing. Registration is now open for the conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar. Go to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ab667/negproject/ negconf_program.html, download the registration form, and follow the instructions given. Please note that the deadline for early registrations is 22 February 2008 (receipt of payment). College accomodation is unavailable for registrations later than 4 March 2008. The organising committee (David Willis, Anne Breitbarth, Sheila Watts, Chris Lucas). _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Thu Jan 24 16:35:29 2008 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:35:29 +0000 Subject: Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1,item 2 In-Reply-To: <20080121105553.5352BDEE9A@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Dear HistLingers: A parallel to what Wolfgang Schulze has described for Caucasian Albanian occurs in the Haitian Creole word for 'money' (it may occur in other Atlantic French lexifier creoles too), where /lahaN/ is found as a variant of /laZaN/, where Z- is the voiced postalveolar fricative. Compare French 'l'argent' 'the money'. Offhand I don't know of any other words which show this variation, which has always puzzled me. Best Anthony Grant >>> 01/21/08 10:55 am >>> Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to histling-l at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics (GLAZIER Anna) 2. Re: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans (R ? my Viredaz) 3. Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy (Caterina Mauri) 4. Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar (David Willis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:12:34 -0000 From: "GLAZIER Anna" Subject: [Histling-l] New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" New Series / Call for Book Proposals Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Series Editors Joseph Salmons (University of Wisconsin) and David Willis (University of Cambridge) Editorial Advisory Board Ricardo Berm?dez-Otero (Manchester) Claire Bowern (Rice) Sheila Embleton (York (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State) Patrick Honeybone (Edinburgh) Brian Joseph (Ohio State) April McMahon (Edinburgh) Johanna Nichols (Berkeley) Keren Rice (Toronto) Maggie Tallerman (Newcastle) Sylvia Adamson (Sheffield) James Clackson (Cambridge) Historical Linguistics is a series of advanced textbooks in Historical Linguistics, where individual volumes cover key subfields within Historical Linguistics in depth. As a whole, the series will provide a comprehensive introduction to this broad and increasingly complex field. The series is aimed at advanced undergraduates in Linguistics and students in language departments, as well as beginning postgraduates who are looking for an entry point. Volumes in the series are serious and scholarly university textbooks, theoretically informed and substantive in content. Every volume will contain pedagogical features such as recommendations for further reading, but the tone of each volume is discursive, explanatory and critically engaged, rather than 'activity-based'. Notes should be incorporated into the text. Planned Volumes Sound Change Prosodic Change Analogy and Morphological Change Semantic and Lexical Change Syntactic Change Comparative Linguistics, Linguistic Reconstruction and Language Classification Sociohistorical linguistics Introduction to particular language families Borrowing and Language Contact Pidgins and creoles Quantitative Approaches to Change Language Acquisition and Change Change in and evolution of writing Systems Written Evidence: Philology and historical linguistics Language Variation and Change Length: the typical all-inclusive length of a volume is 60,000-70,000 words. For more information on the series or to submit a book proposal, please contact the Series Editors, Joseph Salmons (jsalmons at wisc.edu) and David Willis (dwew2 at cam.ac.uk) or the EUP Commissioning Editor, Sarah Edwards (sarah.edwards at eup.ed.ac.uk). ____________ Anna Glazier Marketing Manager Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF tel 0131 650 4223 www.eup.ed.ac.uk Edinburgh University Press Journals will be online from 2008! Email journals at eup.ed.ac.uk to receive the latest updates. Edinburgh University Press Ltd Registered Office - 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF Registered at Companies House Edinburgh on 9th day of July 1992 Company Registration No. SC139240. Charities No. SC035813. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/private/histling-l/attachments/20080111/127864ab/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:24:57 +0100 From: R ? my Viredaz Subject: [Histling-l] Re: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Dear Wolfgang, After seeing the various contributions, my guess is rather near that of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. The shortest path from sh to the voiced pharyngeal stop seems to be: - voicing at one stage or the other - sh or zh develops to a retroflex and further to a velar fricative: to the Spanish and Poitou/VendTe parallels one can add Swedish, where the sound spelt as sj, stj, skj or sk (sk only before a stressed front vowl) was taught as a retroflex sh in McClean, Teach Yourself Swedish, but is now a sort of x as far as I can hear it occasionally on TV. (There is also *sh > x in Slavic, but here *sh belongs to an unattested period.) Retroflection of sh (with or without furtehr development to x ) apparently occurs only in systems with three manners of sibilants or the like: e. g. Spanish z (alveolar s , today interdental) :: apical s :: hushing x ; Swedish t (palatal x, spelt kj, tj ; I don't know if today it's a palatal x or a palatal sh ) :: sh (spelt sj etc. as above, but obviously depalatalized for some time already) :: s. - velar fricatives to pharyngeal fricatives : this is known in the development from (unattested) Proto-Semitic to e. g. Hebrew, and from Arabic to Maltese. - voiced pharyngeal fricative to voiced pharyngeal stop: is this possible ? However, that makes many changes, and all of these would have to have occurred in the recipient language after the loans, rather than as adaptations at the time of the loans. And any of them may be possible or impossible depending on the rest of the consonant system, and, of course, on what is already known of its historical phonology on the basis of comparison with related languages. Best wishes, RTmy Viredaz 1, rue Chandieu CH - 1202 GenFve remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:29:10 +0100 > From: Wolfgang Schulze > Subject: [Histling-l] sound replacement in loans > To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4764D3C6.7060207 at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear friends, > Claire Bowern had suggested to post my following question (originally > addressed to the LINGTYP list) to HISTLING, too.: > > Within the context of my research on Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi), I > came across a rather remarkable instance of 'sound replacement' in > loans: A palatal voiceless fricative () is (systematically?) > replaced by a voiced pharyngeal stop. I wonder whether some of you have > come across a parallel process in other languages...To be more concrete: > What I have in mind are cases of replacement within loans (!), not sound > changes within the history of a given language. That is, Language A has > a in a term that is borrowed into Language B with a voiced > pharyngeal (I write <%>) instead, say /asha/ in Language A (donor > language) > /a%a/ in Language B (recipient language). [Unfortunately, > I'm not allowed to give concrete examples from Caucasian Albanian, as > long as the corresponding text (the so-called Caucasian Albanian > Palimpsest) has not been edited. Sorry for this! But I have to respect > the copyright of others....] > Thanks for any suggestions.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:05:43 +0100 From: Caterina Mauri Subject: [Histling-l] Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <478E1D47.2030104 at unipv.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed *************REMINDER, DEADLINE APPROACHING**************** ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** Theme Session Proposal GÇô "What do languages code when they code realisness?" SLE 2008 GÇô Forl+¼ * Call for manifestation of interest * Theme Session Proposal: "What do languages code when they code realisness?" Dear list members, this is a call for manifestation of interest in a theme session that we plan to organize within the next annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), to be held in Forl+¼, Italy, September 17-20, 2008 (http://sle2008.sitlec.unibo.it). The SLE policy for workshops and theme sessions requires us to prepare a proposal, to be submitted to the SLE program committee no later than February 15, 2008. This proposal should contain a short description of the topic to be dealt with, along with an estimate of the schedule and the overall time required. The working title of our proposal is: "What do languages code when they code realisness?". An extended description of the topic is included at the end of this message. We feel that the theme we are going to propose might raise the interest of typologists (and theoretical linguists) who have been (or are) working on the coding of realisness and related issues. Besides the individual papers, we intend to devote some time to a general discussion of the theoretical and empirical issues arising from the presentations. In detail, the structure of the theme session we intend to submit should include: -+ three invited contributions; -+ up to 10/12 selected papers (20 minutes + discussion); -+ a final slot (up to 60 minutes) for a general, round-table like discussion. What we ask you at this stage is to let us know as soon as possible if you are interested in contributing a paper to the theme session. Feel free to send a quick informal reply to this mail (just stating your willingness to submit a paper and specifying a possible topic for your contribution). Prospective contributors are also expected to send an abstract no later than February 1, 2008 (Friday). This tight schedule will leave us enough time to finalize the proposal to be submitted to the SLE committee. We should emphasize that there will be two stages: in the first stage, we will select papers which will be included in the proposal; in the second stage, the proposal as a whole will be evaluated by the SLE committee. Only upon acceptance of the entire theme session, every selected contribution will be considered officially "accepted" at the SLE conference. Convenors Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia, Italy) Andrea Sans+| (Insubria University GÇô Como, Italy) Important dates (first stage): -+ As soon as possible: informal e-mail with manifestation of interest -+ 1st February 2008: abstract submission (see format below) -+ 1st March 2008: notification of acceptance Important dates (second stage; the convenors will be looking after the finalization of the proposal): -+ 15th February 2008: submission of the abstract for the theme session to the SLE committee -+ 15th April 2008: submission of the full program (invited speakers + accepted abstracts + discussion time) to the SLE committee -+ 31st May 2008: notification of acceptance Format of abstracts: The selection of abstracts will be made on the basis of quality and relatedness to the topic and objectives of the theme session. The submitted abstracts (in PDF) should be anonymous, up to 2 pages long (including references), and the authors are expected to provide an overview of the goal, methodology, and data of their research. Abstracts should be sent to both convenors to the following e-mail addresses: Caterina Mauri: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Andrea Sans+|: asanso at gmail.com All the abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by the program committee of the theme session (see below) before the finalization of the proposal. More information about the theme session (list of selected papers, invited speakers, etc.) will be circulated amongst the prospective participants right before the submission of the proposal to the SLE committee. Please include the following data in the body of the mail: (i) Author(s); (ii) Title; (iii) Affiliation; (iv) Contacts. Scientific committee (TBC): Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen); Isabelle Bril (LACITO, CNRS, Villejuif); Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University) Anna Giacalone (University of Pavia); Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia); Andrea Sans+| (Insubria University, Como); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp). Invited speakers: Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp) Publication: if the theme session is accepted it is our intention to publish a selection of the papers with an international publisher. Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sans+| *************************************** Presentation of the theme session Working title: What do languages code when they code realisness? Theme description and topics Since Giv+|n (1984: 285ff.) and Chung and Timberlake (1985: 241ff.), the terms realis and irrealis have gained increasing currency in cross-linguistic studies on modality as flexible cover terms for a number of moods traditionally labelled as 'indicative', 'subjunctive', 'optative', 'counterfactual', 'potential', 'hypothetical', etc. Some authors (e.g. Elliott 2000: 80) have gone a step further, speaking of 'reality status' (or 'realisness') as a grammatical category to full right, realized differently in different languages, with at least two values: realis (or neutral) and irrealis. These two values are characterized in terms of actualization vs. non-actualization of a given state of affairs. According to Elliott, a proposition is realis if it asserts that a state of affairs is an "actualized and certain fact of reality", whereas it is classified as irrealis if "it implies that a SoA belongs to the realm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential or possible event but it is not an observable fact of reality" (Elliott 2000: 66-67). There are languages which obligatorily mark realisness in all finite clauses by means of a comprehensive (morphological or syntactic) system of markers, others where the system is partial and the realisness of a proposition needs to be indicated only in specin¼üc syntactic contexts, and n¼ünally there are languages in which the marking of realisness is merely optional. In other terms, realisness may be encoded by means of an array of morpho-syntactic strategies (simple affixation, portmanteau affixation, sentence particles, adverbs, etc.). Both the functional characterization and the formal aspects of realisness are controversial (Bybee et al 1994; Bybee 1998). On the one hand, the solidarities between realisness and other functional domains such as, for instance, tense, aspect, and evidentiality make it difficult to decide whether (and to what extent) realisness is an independent functional dimension (see, e.g. Fleischman 1995). On the other hand, there are certain states of affairs (e.g. habitual, directive, and future SoAs, etc.) that are coded by means of either realis or irrealis strategies across languages, in a largely unpredictable way. This variation may reflect the inherently hybrid reality status of these states of affairs: they may have occurred but their reference time is non-specific (e.g. habituals; Giv+|n 1984: 285; Cristofaro 2004), they may have not yet occurred but they are either highly probable or expected with a high degree of certainty (e.g. directives, futures; Roberts 1990; Chafe 1995; Mithun 1995; Ogloblin 2005; Sun 2007), etc. Some of the factors that appear to have an influence on the cross-linguistic coding of realisness have been already hinted at in the typological literature. For instance, in some languages argument structure and referentiality/definiteness of arguments appear to be crucial to the choice of a realis or irrealis strategy (the presence of definite arguments entailing realis marking, whereas indefinite/non-specific arguments require irrealis marking). Furthermore, the deictic anchoring of the proposition to the speaker's here-and-now (in the sense of Fleischman 1989) may determine different realisness values for directives and futures in some languages (e.g. predictions, intentions or scheduled events are marked as realis, whereas other future SoAs are irrealis; second-person directives, which require the presence of the performer, are coded as realis more frequently than third-person directives). Yet, a complete picture of the range of factors affecting realisness is still missing. New insights into these factors and their interactions may come from a wider amount of cross-linguistic data, as well as a better understanding of the diachronic mechanisms leading to the emergence and establishing of realisness systems. This theme session aims to assess our current understanding of the realisness dimension in grammar and to plot the directions for future research. We invite abstracts for papers dealing with foundational/theoretical issues and/or taking an empirical, data-driven stance on the coding of realisness across languages. At the foundational/theoretical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): -+ the status of realisness in linguistic theory; -+ interactions between realisness and other functional domains (tense, aspect, evidentiality, etc.); -+ cross-linguistic variation in the classification of certain states of affairs as either realis or irrealis; -+ factors affecting the realisness value of a state of affairs: argument structure; referentiality/definiteness of arguments; degree of deictic anchoring to the speaker's here-and-now; etc. At the empirical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): -+ in-depth investigations of realisness systems in single languages or language families; -+ the areal dimension of realisness marking; -+ realisness in languages without dedicated realis/irrealis markers; -+ realisness as a relevant dimension in interclausal relations: disjunction (see, e.g., Mauri 2008), complementation (Ammann & van der Auwera 2004), switch reference, etc.; -+ the diachronic origin and the grammaticalization of realis/irrealis markers as a key to understanding their functional properties and distribution. References Ammann, A., and J. van der Auwera. 2004. Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe. A Balkanism? In: O. Tomi-ç (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 293-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. 1998. "Irrealis" as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40 (2): 257-271. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J., and S. Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chafe, W. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 349-365. Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In: Y. A. Lander, V. A. Plungian, A. Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Irrealis and Irreality, 256-272. Moscow: Gnosis. Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55-90. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13 (1): 1-50. Fleischman, S. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 519-551. Giv+|n, T. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mauri, C. 2008. The irreality of alternatives. Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in Language 32 (1): 22-55. Mithun, M. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 367-388. Ogloblin, A. K. 2005. Javanese. In: A. Adelaar, and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 590-624. London-New York: Routledge. Roberts, J. R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26: 363-401. Sun, J. T.-S. 2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8 (3): 797-819. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:55:35 +0000 From: David Willis Subject: [Histling-l] Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <67058811-7DE3-42AB-B2A3-A0289AB3B034 at cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed We are pleased to announce the programme of the international conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, which will take place from 18-20 March 2008 at the University of Cambridge. The focus will be on theoretical and methodological aspects of morphosyntactic change and conservatism. The aim of the conference is to bring together researchers working on different aspects of linguistic transmission in order to enhance our understanding of what makes languages change and what in turn prevents them from changing. Registration is now open for the conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar. Go to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ab667/negproject/ negconf_program.html, download the registration form, and follow the instructions given. Please note that the deadline for early registrations is 22 February 2008 (receipt of payment). College accomodation is unavailable for registrations later than 4 March 2008. The organising committee (David Willis, Anne Breitbarth, Sheila Watts, Chris Lucas). ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1 ***************************************** ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill University or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill University do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill University to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill University for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ----------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 07:22:32 2008 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:32 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics Message-ID: Dear HistLingers, You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the free reference site for linguists by linguists. Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the term, some key references, and a translation into other languages (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid problems of personality rights.) Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to make a contribution to the field. Martin Haspelmath -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.e.hook at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 15:26:11 2008 From: peter.e.hook at gmail.com (Peter Hook) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:11 -0500 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <47998E38.9070405@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear All, This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Sincerely, Peter Hook On 1/25/08, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 15:44:43 2008 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:44:43 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <8f9c3f9f0801250726t15f9c0fwbe00c5be71c21a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. Martin Haspelmath Peter Hook wrote: > Dear All, > > This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality > and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. > Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a > "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, > logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, > anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language > learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made > to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia > and Wiktionary? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook > > > On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much > more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: > It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin > of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are > articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will > follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, > which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to > avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and > language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the > future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some > of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was > writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de > ) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher > Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From e.leiss at germanistik.uni-muenchen.de Fri Jan 25 18:28:12 2008 From: e.leiss at germanistik.uni-muenchen.de (Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Leiss) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:28:12 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <479A03EB.9050704@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Martin, Glottopedia does not exist yet. You have to admit that. It is less than a project at the very moment. Elisabeth Leiss > The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. > > Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of > biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about > "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have > articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten > speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our > field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show > up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often > they're called "informants"). > > So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is > phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. > Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of > references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given > linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference > program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be > achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. > > Martin Haspelmath > > Peter Hook wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality >> and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. >> Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a >> "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, >> logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, >> anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language >> learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made >> to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia >> and Wiktionary? >> >> Sincerely, Peter Hook >> >> >> On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > > wrote: >> >> Dear HistLingers, >> >> You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), >> the >> free reference site for linguists by linguists. >> >> Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much >> more >> specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as >> "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", >> "loan >> translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit >> articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. >> >> Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than >> survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various >> specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article >> (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: >> It also >> gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin >> of the >> term, some key references, and a translation into other languages >> (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are >> articles in >> English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will >> follow soon). >> >> Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, >> which >> aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia >> potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's >> articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to >> avoid >> problems of personality rights.) >> >> Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and >> language >> families (with detailed references), and articles about things that >> we >> need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, >> institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the >> future. >> >> We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics >> really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some >> of us >> have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was >> writing >> dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that >> especially >> advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of >> publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance >> to >> make a contribution to the field. >> >> Martin Haspelmath >> >> -- >> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de >> ) >> Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher >> Platz 6 >> D-04103 Leipzig >> Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 >> >> Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics >> (http://www.glottopedia.org) >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Histling-l mailing list >> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l >> >> > > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Leiss Lehrstuhl für Germanistische Linguistik Department für Germanistik, Komparatistik und Nordistik, Deutsch als Fremdsprache LMU München Schellingstraße 3/RG 80799 München Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 2339 (Büro) Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 5744 (Sekr.: Frau Burauen) Tel.: +49 (0)89 769 969 23 (priv.) http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~GL/Leiss _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.e.hook at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 18:45:00 2008 From: peter.e.hook at gmail.com (Peter Hook) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:45:00 -0500 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <479A03EB.9050704@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Professor Haspelmath, >> The answer is simple: << I beg to differ: The answer is not simple. >> we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. << Isn't Linglist doing this already? >> Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). << This sounds like another service that Linglist - or SIL - provides - or can provide. > >> Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. << > Discussions by and for specialists of recent issues in a field are the usual province of journals and on-line forums. Are you proposing that Glottopedia be a forum for discussion? Isn't that also part of the mission of Linglist? >> So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. << I agree with the concessive: Wikipedia is phenomenal. And breathtaking. It also represents an enormous investment in the democraticization of knowledge. So assuming that Glottopedia does take birth, in order to reduce duplication of effort why not ask contributors to make sure that their contributions to Glottopedia - where appropriate - also get put into Wikipedia or Wiktionary? And put the other kinds of information that you have specified into Linglist? Sincerely, Peter Hook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmt at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 19:48:27 2008 From: haspelmt at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:48:27 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <8f9c3f9f0801251045s48f4a3e2l5623b015f726cc4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Peter, Yes, it's true that the LINGUIST List is doing some things that Glottopedia is envisaging, such as maintaining a list of current linguists, and providing information about conferences. It is doing this very well, but in a different way than Glottopedia -- in a controlled, less "democratic" way, and based on grant money (whereas Glottopedia has no budget at all). But the LINGUIST List has no complete list of languages, no complete list of past linguists, no list of references published on languages/by linguists, and it is not multilingual. Moreover, the LINGUIST List does not allow easy links the way Glottopedia does (on the Wikipedia model): when you look at a past LINGUIST List message with a conference program, you cannot click on the names of speakers and get more information about them. All this is easily implementable on Glottopedia. Of course, the LINGUIST List, or SIL, could decide to expand in the future and enter Glottopedia's turf. But it will cost money. Glottopedia could do this entirely on the basis of volunteer contributions. Once Glottopedia contributions become substantial, I expect that Wikipedia will increasingly include links to Glottopedia articles, though most Glottopedia content will be too specialized for Wikipedia. In any event, Glottopedia articles should include links to all Wikipedia articles about linguistics topics. There should soon be many times more Glottopedia articles than Wikipedia articles on linguistics. So let's see what happens! Best wishes, Martin Peter Hook wrote: > Dear Professor Haspelmath, > > >> The answer is simple: << > > > I beg to differ: The answer is not simple. > > >> we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of > references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given > linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference > program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be > achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. << > > Isn't Linglist doing this already? > > >> Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of > biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about > "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have > articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten > speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our > field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show > up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often > they're called "informants"). << > This sounds like another service that Linglist - or SIL - provides - > or can provide. > > > >> Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. << > > > Discussions by and for specialists of recent issues in a field are the > usual province of journals and on-line forums. Are you proposing that > Glottopedia be a forum for discussion? Isn't that also part of the > mission of Linglist? > > >> So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is > phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. << > > I agree with the concessive: Wikipedia is phenomenal. And > breathtaking. It also represents an enormous investment in the > democraticization of knowledge. So assuming that Glottopedia does take > birth, in order to reduce duplication of effort why not ask > contributors to make sure that their contributions to Glottopedia - > where appropriate - also get put into Wikipedia or Wiktionary? And > put the other kinds of information that you have specified into Linglist? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au Fri Jan 25 21:21:39 2008 From: Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au (Patrick McConvell) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:21:39 +1100 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing Message-ID: I am looking at the effects of ‘Reversed change’ dialect borrowing in some Australian Indigenous languages. This term refers to cases where conservative forms are borrowed into a dialect or language apparently ‘reversing’ a sound change. This has been described mainly for situations where the donor language is a ‘prestige’ or ‘standard’ dialect and the historical facts are relatively well known (eg in Europe). Neither of these circumstances obtain in Indigenous Australia, so I am looking for work on this which is more directly similar to the Australian situation. In that situation it is quite difficult in some cases to distinguish ‘reversed change’ borrowing from wave-like variation and change which has not become categorical. So I am also looking for other studies which address this question and its implications for comparative/historical linguistics. Patrick McConvell Research Fellow, Language & Society AIATSIS, Canberra patrick.mcconvell at aiatsis.gov.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 01:40:51 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:40:51 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:21:39 +1100." Message-ID: I got a very nice Tibeto-Burman example of "reversed change" from F.K. Lehman back in 1999: it's described in my paper "Language contact and deliberate change", published in the on-line journal Journal of Language Contact 1/1:41-62 (2007). Here's the url to the journal article: http://cgi.server.uni-frankfurt.de/fb09/ifas/JLCCMS/issues/THEMA_1/JLC_THEMA_1_2007_02Thomason.pdf Below is the passage about the change (from a pre-publication version of the paper, but I don't think this bit changed at all) -- and I include the preceding paragraph too, because I see that it is also about "reversed change". -- Sally ************************************************** But there is direct evidence that speakers often---maybe typically---know exactly what they are doing, at least retrospectively but also beforehand, when they apply correspondence rules. Martha Ratliff has observed that `speakers of languages like Arabic and Tamil, who have knowledge of a literary standard that is quite different from the colloquial language..., can retard the process of natural language change in the colloquial quite consciously so that the two do not drift apart past a tolerable limit' (p.c. 2000). An example is a change introduced by Tamil speakers into their colloquial speech: they deliberately reversed an umlaut rule, modeling the change on literary Tamil, when the umlauted vowels became socially stigmatized (Pargman 1998). A somewhat similar reversal, but with a quite different motivation, is found in an example from the Hakha dialect of Lai Chin, a Tibeto-Burman language of the Kuki-Chin-Naga branch (this example comes from F. K. Lehman, p.c. 1999). Lai is very closely related to Laizo (of Falam); both are spoken in the Chin State of Burma (Myanmar). Lai, but not Laizo, had undergone a sound change that turned vowel + liquid sequences in syllable codas into diphthongs---that is, deleting the liquid consonant and diphthongizing the preceding vowel. But by 1957, when Lehman began his fieldwork in Hakha Lai territory, Standard Lai had apparently reversed that sound change: it regularly had simple vowels followed by coda liquids. He later learned why and how this reversal had happened. In the last decade of the 19th century, the Hakha chiefs became indignant because the British authorities had made Falam their headquarters in the region and had adopted Laizo as their official administrative language there. The British action conferred prestige on Laizo. In an effort to regain what they viewed as their proper regional status, the Hakha chiefs decreed that Hakha be pronounced just like Laizo---including the coda monophthongal vowel + liquid sequences, which Laizo retained. (In 1962 Lehman was introduced to some very elderly Lai speakers who still had the coda diphthongs without coda liquids; these were people who had not followed the chiefs' decree. But everyone else had the coda monophthongs and liquids.) Lehman explains that the Lai change was possible because the correspondences were `acutely transparent', and moreover multilingualism was pervasive in the region, so that Lai speakers could easily apply what amounts to a correspondence rule in reverse and replace their native codas with the Laizo phonotactic pattern.\footnotemark{}. This example is one of the clearest I've found that shows (pace Andersen 2005) that groups of speakers can indeed introduce new linguistic structure by deliberate decision. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From scat at cfl.rr.com Sat Jan 26 03:46:35 2008 From: scat at cfl.rr.com (Scott) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:46:35 -0500 Subject: Histling-l Digest:Glottopedia In-Reply-To: <20080125180954.CACE9DED59@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: A source such as Glottopedia will be invaluable so long as additions are reviewed for accuracy of content before posting along with the credentials of the would-be poster. I am not proposing that a poster needs a PhD in linguistics, just that the sources used are cited and are reputable. I would also hope that all viewpoints will be accepted: Saint Noam is not the be-all and end-all of linguistics. Association in the public mind with Wikipedia would severely curtail our effectiveness. Scott Catledge -----Original Message----- From: histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:10 PM To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3 Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to histling-l at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Martin Haspelmath) 2. Re: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Peter Hook) 3. Re: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Martin Haspelmath) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:32 +0100 From: Martin Haspelmath Subject: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <47998E38.9070405 at eva.mpg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dear HistLingers, You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the free reference site for linguists by linguists. Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the term, some key references, and a translation into other languages (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid problems of personality rights.) Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to make a contribution to the field. Martin Haspelmath -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:11 -0500 From: "Peter Hook" Subject: Re: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: "Martin Haspelmath" Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <8f9c3f9f0801250726t15f9c0fwbe00c5be71c21a2d at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear All, This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Sincerely, Peter Hook On 1/25/08, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/private/histling-l/attachments/20080125/daf d9584/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:44:43 +0100 From: Martin Haspelmath Subject: Re: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: Peter Hook Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <479A03EB.9050704 at eva.mpg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. Martin Haspelmath Peter Hook wrote: > Dear All, > > This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality > and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. > Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a > "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, > logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, > anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language > learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made > to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia > and Wiktionary? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook > > > On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much > more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: > It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin > of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are > articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will > follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, > which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to > avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and > language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the > future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some > of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was > writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de > ) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher > Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3 ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au Sat Jan 26 05:20:07 2008 From: Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au (Patrick McConvell) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:20:07 +1100 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing Message-ID: Thanks fot the references, Sally. I am not sure how ‘deliberate’ ‘reversed-change’ is. Obviously it can be, as in your example, but could be at a lower conscious level in some cases too. The example I am dealing with also has an incident of this ‘surfacing’ to consciousness /public attention (to use the Boas/Sapir/Labov metaphorical schema) – but in a different way from what you describe - relayed to me by Felicity Meakins who works with the same groups I do. In the Eastern Ngumpin languages there has been regular intervocalic lenition so for instance *ngapa ‘water’ became ngawa, but many other words have been retained or readopted as unlenited forms. Now recently some children had started to borrow ‘ngapa’ from non-leniting neighbours, but this became a matter of conscious discussion and stigmatisation in the community and it disappeared again. So this is ‘covert prestige’/local pride acting rather than adopting a ‘prestige’ form, and the conscious step is the blocking not so much the adoption. A propos of this, Claire Bowern privately told me she thought ‘prestige’ is/was involved in some language change in Indigenous Australia. I don’t really doubt this although ‘prestige’ is a fuzzy concept that usually needs unpacking and espccially when used inf very different non-Western contexts – apart from there being hierarchies of competing ‘prestiges’ in many cases. That’s what I meant to say, not that ‘prestige’ (whatever it means) is not a factor in Indigenous Australia. In this particular case I don’t know what the ‘prestige’ factors might have been that caused people to do a lot of ‘reversed changes’ (without totally converting the lexicon). It’s not at all obvious and I don’t want to make up a ‘just-so’ story about what happened hundreds of years ago . Another issue which is raised by the text you sent, Sally, is the question of what some people in Australia call ‘correspondence mimicry’ – that is, conscious application of correspondence patterns to create forms which I suppose could be either ‘reversed changes’ or ‘what our language should be if regular changes were followed’. This is quite different from borrowing individual words from conservative or innovating languages. If this were widespread, it would create a problem for the comparative method or at least for the ‘linguistic stratigraphy’ that I like to do, unless these coinages were detectable. Pat McConvell patrick.mcconvell at aiatsis.gov.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.trudgill at unifr.ch Sat Jan 26 10:29:08 2008 From: peter.trudgill at unifr.ch (Peter Trudgill) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:29:08 +0000 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sally's example is very nice, but I think we'd agree that it's not exactly typical of what usually goes on, and that Andersen (2005) is mostly right....... Her example is reminiscent, though, of a development outlined in Ernst Håkon Jahr "Language planning and language change" in L.E. Breivik and E. H. Jahr (eds.) Language change: contributions to the study of its causes (1989), where he describes how a vigorously ongoing Icelandic sound change kown locally as Flámæli "slack-jawed speech" - in fact a merger of /i/ and /e/, /y/ and /ø/ - was successfully reversed between about 1945 and 1960 by what amounted to an official public campaign. Developments which occur much further - I would guess - below the level of conscious awareness are captured by the term developed by the Norwegian dialectologist Amund B. Larsen who coined the label naboopposisjon "neighbour opposition". For example, in the Sogn dialect, items in the lexical set of bjørk changed to bjork etc as a result of the fact ( he hypothesised) that there was an opposition in a different lexical set involving items such as topp in the Sogn dialect which corresponded to tøpp etc in the neighbouring Hallingdal dialect. This is a kind of hyperdialectism which I give several example of in Dialects in Contact (Chapter 2). -- Peter Trudgill FBA Adjunct Prof. of Sociolinguistics, Agder Univ., N Adjunct Prof., RCLT, La Trobe Univ., AU Prof. Emeritus of Eng. Linguistics, Fribourg Univ, CH Hon. Prof. of Sociolinguistics, UEA, Norwich, UK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 11:54:48 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:54:48 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:20:07 +1100." Message-ID: Patrick, Oh, I'd never claim that *all* reversed changes are deliberate; the reason I was focusing on deliberate ones is that that was what my paper was about. Elsewhere in the same paper I talk about correspondence rules (or what Jeff Heath has called borrowing routines) -- Alan Dench's Australian example from his salvage fieldwork in Western Australia is a wonderful instance. In his case the speakers were aware of what they were doing (at least when they were stimulated to think about it); but there too, there are no doubt cases where speakers apply correspondence rules without being aware of what they're doing. -- Sally _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 12:06:14 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:06:14 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:29:08 GMT." Message-ID: About Peter's comment: Well...I actually think we need to consider carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever since I got interested in this whole issue of deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that most changes are non-deliberate throughout their history. We have very little evidence on this point. I first heard about people making their dialects more different from the dialect of the guys next door when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate change, people have come up with new examples for me; one such example was a case of deliberate dialect divergence from Peru -- the people told the fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they retained their differentness from the people just around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately distorted the pronunciation of their own words in a rule-governed way. I do still believe that most linguistic change must be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account for (for instance) regular sound change. But I also think that claims that the vast majority of linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one might go about gathering evidence.) -- Sally Thomason _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu Sat Jan 26 14:51:20 2008 From: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu (Brian Joseph) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: <4577.1201349174@umich.edu> from "Sally Thomason" at Jan 26, 2008 07:06:14 AM Message-ID: Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). --Brian Brian D. Joseph The Ohio State University > About Peter's comment: > > Well...I actually think we need to consider > carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical > of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck > me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever > since I got interested in this whole issue of > deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that > most changes are non-deliberate throughout their > history. We have very little evidence on this point. > I first heard about people making their dialects > more different from the dialect of the guys next door > when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever > since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate > change, people have come up with new examples for me; > one such example was a case of deliberate dialect > divergence from Peru -- the people told the > fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they > retained their differentness from the people just > around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately > distorted the pronunciation of their own words in > a rule-governed way. > > I do still believe that most linguistic change must > be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account > for (for instance) regular sound change. But I > also think that claims that the vast majority of > linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky > ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. > (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one > might go about gathering evidence.) > > -- Sally Thomason _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From garrett at berkeley.edu Sat Jan 26 19:26:40 2008 From: garrett at berkeley.edu (Andrew Garrett) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:26:40 -0800 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <20080126180730.F1ABEDEFF6@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question remains unresolved. The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we don't yet know where the truth lies. -- Andrew Andrew Garrett UC Berkeley > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) > From: Brian Joseph > Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing > To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) > Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I > would like to add just a few observations; even if they are > not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate > forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked > by the recent postings. > > First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a > sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to > the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is > useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". > In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was > a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) > sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or > "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian > sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven > change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would > love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound > change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in > sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often > tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every > change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical > change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of > "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a > word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). > > Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though > they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark > of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection > all the time (Peter's. > > Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past > summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can > trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic > immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there > are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). > > --Brian > > Brian D. Joseph > The Ohio State University _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu Sat Jan 26 20:02:45 2008 From: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu (Brian D. Joseph) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:02:45 -0500 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <479B8970.70007@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Andrew is absolutely right that there is the one remaining issue still to be resolved. At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me say that Rich Janda and I gave an answer to this (at least implicitly) in our 2003 paper on a "'big bang' model of sound change" (published in the Benjamins volume arising out of the 2001 ICHL in Melbourne, edited by Barry Blake and Kate Burridge). We located regularity in the initial onset of a sound change, where phonetic factors are paramount. We envision that as relatively brief (hence the parallel to the "Big Bang" in physics) and after that, extensions along a number of parameters are possible. One is further phonetic generalization (thus giving regularity of broader scope than at the initial "big bang" (and generalization to a broader set of input sounds is also possible), but lexical, grammatical, or social lines of generalization can be followed. To our way of thinking, the crucial thing about sound change proper is the phoneticity -- with conditions that are purely phonetic in nature (which we envision as the essential starting point, the "big bang") regularity follows automatically since that is the most elemental and the most broadly applicable type of conditioning. Once the forces of generalization set in post-big bang (assuming they do -- they need not), phoneticity can disappear, and there is no guarantee of regularity (though it could occur, as noted with regard to hypercorrection and other sorts of rule-governed behavior). --Brian Brian D. Joseph The Ohio State University Quoting Andrew Garrett : > While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's > comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or > sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the > jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the > question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of > unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound > change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' > thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the > regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for > example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation > will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation > on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to > appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological > generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a > changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in > other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity > effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. > as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic > traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide > Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the > President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of > this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) > encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial > home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question > remains unresolved. > > The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, > i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of > sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is > actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change > and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be > "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity > effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules > (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ > in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your > speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I > think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby > non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This > approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't > mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we > don't yet know where the truth lies. > > -- Andrew > > Andrew Garrett > UC Berkeley >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >> From: Brian Joseph >> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >> To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >> Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> >> Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would >> like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly >> on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them >> and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. >> >> First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >> sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >> the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >> useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the >> cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >> a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >> sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >> "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >> sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >> change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love >> it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >> change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >> sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >> tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >> change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >> change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >> "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >> word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). >> >> Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >> they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark >> of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in >> hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. >> >> Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >> summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >> trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic >> immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there >> are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). >> >> --Brian >> >> Brian D. Joseph >> The Ohio State University > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 22:32:26 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:32:26 -0500 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:02:45 EST." <20080126150245.sog0m187qoow0c48@www.ling.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: But I don't think Brian's approach will work to solve the problem Andrew raises. Years ago, when for some reason I read Yakov Malkiel's 1976 Language paper on a minor sound change in Spanish ("for some reason" because I am not a Romance specialist and Malkiel is not easy to read), I realized that the whole question of phonetic triggers of sound change is unanswered, for some or possibly even most changes. Malkiel's example was a case of monophthongization that started in a diminutive suffix, where -ie- was replaced by -i-. He showed that the change happened because of analogy -- ordinary morphological analogy -- to two other diminutive suffixes that had a monophthong -i-; the monophthongization change then spread to a couple of inflectional verb suffixes. Then it stopped: it didn't become a regular sound change. But clearly it *could* have done so: monophthongization of diphthongs is common enough in regular sound change, and the only reason we *know* that this minor Spanish sound change had an analogic trigger is that it never progressed beyond a handful of suffixes. If it had progressed to completion, monophthongizing all -ie- diphthongs to -i-, we would view it as a nice regular Neogrammarian sound change (and probably even Malkiel wouldn't have discovered the analogic source). In other words, even with phonetically reasonable sound changes, I don't think it's safe to assume that "phonetic factors are paramount" at the onset of the change. As we all know, many phonetically natural changes fail to occur; we don't know why the ones that do occur happen. It's possible that nonphonetic factors are frequently part of the trigger -- analogy in Malkiel's example, social factors in some other instances, who knows what in still others. The Rhenish Fan shows that what looks like a coherent set of perfectly regular changes didn't happen all at the same time, or even in chunks in all words at the same time, in the westernmost region of German-speaking territory. Suppose the Rhenish Fan didn't exist, and we had a completely regular (bundle of) isogloss(es) separating the region where the High German Consonant Shift occurred from the region where it didn't: wouldn't we view that as a quite ordinary example of Neogrammarian sound change? I think we would. So I think it's very difficult, and maybe impossible (given that we generally have zero information about the earliest stage of a regular sound change) to draw a sharp line between Neogrammarian sound change and other kinds of sound change. In some cases we can certainly point to non-Neogrammarian change processes in sounds, of course. But excluding those processes doesn't, it seems to me, give us a reliable criterion for identifying Neogrammarian sound changes before they've completed their run and turned out to be regular. -- Sally Thomason Univ. of Michigan _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From andersen at ucla.edu Sun Jan 27 20:26:01 2008 From: andersen at ucla.edu (Henning Andersen) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:26:01 -0800 Subject: 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' In-Reply-To: <20080126180730.F1ABEDEFF6@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding 'reversals'. Brian's suggestion that we distinguish between true sound change and socially driven changes reminds me of Kristin Bakken's (2001) paper "Patterns of restitution of sound change", which I edited a few years ago. In my discussion of the paper (2001: 8-9, 15-16) I went so far as to suggest a terminological distinction: "There are restorations, in which the loss of a constraint (say, through phonological reanalysis) allows underlying representations to resurface. Restorations are typically grammatically conditioned in that 'original' morpheme shapes are restored only in environments where they were subject to alternation. ..." "Distinct from such changes are restitutions, such as those exemplified in Bakken's paper, which ensue from contact with a closely related language variety (dialect or sociolect) with pronunciation norms that happen to be phonologically more conservative in some respect. ... in reality such restitutions ... do not differ from other phoneme substitutions in individual lexemes that may occur through dialect contact .... Such a set of restitutions or substitutions is not a phonological change--or even a single change in the sense of a bounded, internally coherent historical event in the given community's tradition of speaking. It is, properly speaking, just a subset of a series of individual replacements of local word shapes with borrowed ones, part of a smaller or larger relexification, motivated by the individual word shapes' greater utility in interdialectal communication and hence defined in pragmatic and semantic terms. The progression of such a relexification begins as an elaboration of speakers' grammars, as elements of a local tradition of speaking are matched with marked covariants appropriate for specified pragmatic purposes. It runs to completion lexeme by lexeme, as the traditional elements one by one fall into disuse, superseded by the borrowed, more widely used, more viable alternatives. ..." Regarding 'deliberate change' It is mostly valuable to draw the distinction between innovation and change. Evidently individuals can enter deliberately made innovations into usage. But whether deliberate innovations result in change depends on other speakers' adopting them and using them, eventually to the exclusion of other alternatives. Your academy or ministry of culture or big honcho can propose a deliberate innovation. But whether it will ever have any practical effect depends on the wisdom of the crowds. So in cases where the linguist doesn't have positive evidence of all members of a community wittingly and deliberately talking in lock-step, it is probably better to avoid the expression "deliberate change" and talk of 'deliberate innovations' and 'changes initiated by deliberate innovations' instead. --Henning Henning Andersen, UCLA References: Kristin Bakken's paper is in *Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress*, ed. by Henning Andersen, 59-78. I discuss it in the introduction. The full text is available on request >Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to > histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu > >You can reach the person managing the list at > histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Sally Thomason) > 2. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Sally Thomason) > 3. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Brian Joseph) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:54:48 -0500 >From: Sally Thomason >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: "Patrick McConvell" >Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: <4274.1201348488 at umich.edu> > > >Patrick, > > Oh, I'd never claim that *all* reversed changes >are deliberate; the reason I was focusing on deliberate >ones is that that was what my paper was about. > > Elsewhere in the same paper I talk about correspondence >rules (or what Jeff Heath has called borrowing routines) >-- Alan Dench's Australian example from his salvage >fieldwork in Western Australia is a wonderful instance. >In his case the speakers were aware of what they were >doing (at least when they were stimulated to think about >it); but there too, there are no doubt cases where >speakers apply correspondence rules without being >aware of what they're doing. > > -- Sally > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:06:14 -0500 >From: Sally Thomason >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: <4577.1201349174 at umich.edu> > > >About Peter's comment: > >Well...I actually think we need to consider >carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical >of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck >me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever >since I got interested in this whole issue of >deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that >most changes are non-deliberate throughout their >history. We have very little evidence on this point. >I first heard about people making their dialects >more different from the dialect of the guys next door >when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever >since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate >change, people have come up with new examples for me; >one such example was a case of deliberate dialect >divergence from Peru -- the people told the >fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they >retained their differentness from the people just >around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately >distorted the pronunciation of their own words in >a rule-governed way. > >I do still believe that most linguistic change must >be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account >for (for instance) regular sound change. But I >also think that claims that the vast majority of >linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky >ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. >(I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one >might go about gathering evidence.) > > -- Sally Thomason > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >From: Brian Joseph >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I >would like to add just a few observations; even if they are >not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate >forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked >by the recent postings. > >First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". >In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >"sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would >love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >"other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). > >Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark >of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection >all the time (Peter's. > >Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic >immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there >are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). > >--Brian > >Brian D. Joseph >The Ohio State University > > >> About Peter's comment: >> >> Well...I actually think we need to consider >> carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical >> of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck >> me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever >> since I got interested in this whole issue of >> deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that >> most changes are non-deliberate throughout their >> history. We have very little evidence on this point. >> I first heard about people making their dialects >> more different from the dialect of the guys next door >> when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever >> since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate >> change, people have come up with new examples for me; >> one such example was a case of deliberate dialect >> divergence from Peru -- the people told the >> fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they >> retained their differentness from the people just >> around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately >> distorted the pronunciation of their own words in >> a rule-governed way. >> >> I do still believe that most linguistic change must >> be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account >> for (for instance) regular sound change. But I >> also think that claims that the vast majority of >> linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky >> ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. >> (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one >> might go about gathering evidence.) > > >> -- Sally Thomason > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Histling-l mailing list >Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > >End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 6 >***************************************** ||||| Henning Andersen ||||| Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures ||||| University of California, Los Angeles ||||| P.O.Box 951502 ||||| Los Angeles, CA 90095-1502 ||||| Phone: +1-310-837-6743. Fax by appointment ||||| http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/slavic/faculty/andersen_h.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From epalancar at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 00:41:43 2008 From: epalancar at hotmail.com (Enrique L. Palancar) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:41:43 -0600 Subject: Positions available in Quertaro , Mexico Message-ID: Dear Colleagues,The Department of Languages and Literature (Facultad de Lenguas y Letras) at the Autonomous University of Querétaro (Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro) announces the opening of two positions. The positions are for a one-year full-time renewable contract, which is the Mexican equivalent to an associate professor. Payment is approximately §14,000 Mexican Pesos a month (after taxes). The two positions involve teaching two courses a semester (mainly in the Master and Doctoral programs in Linguistics) and carrying out research in Linguistics. The University offers space and conditions for developing research projects. All applicants must hold a PhD. One position is for Syntax and related theoretical areas. Research in this area could involve theoretical approaches to language or descriptive work on an Mexican indigenous language. The second position is for Second Language Teaching and/or 2nd Language Acquisition. Research can be in any related area. Applications must be sent to docling at uaq.mx addressed to Dr. Ignacio Sánchez before the 15th of April, 2008. An application must include a vitae with a list of publications, academic presentations and teaching experience as well as one exemplar of a publication. Sincerely, Ignacio Rodríguez _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From jhewson at mun.ca Mon Jan 28 04:05:14 2008 From: jhewson at mun.ca (John Hewson) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:35:14 -0330 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <28661.1201386746@umich.edu> Message-ID: I am happy to see this discussion, on problems that many of us have been mulling over for decades. I long ago came to the conclusion that sound change is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and that we need some kind of descriptive machinery that would make it possible to classify the different types. The true Neogrammarian kind of change is change in the system; it is not atomistic. When I learned (half a century ago) the sound changes from Latin to Modern French, we were lucky enough to be taught the early changes as systemic, and the rest then as atomistic. It was only later under the influence of Haudricourt & Juilland (1970) that I began to think about interpreting some of the later changes as systemic changes, and reported on the subsequent research at the 5th ICHL at Galway in Ireland in April 1981 in a paper entitled "Shifting Systems: Evidence for Systemic Change in French Historical Phonology" (Papers of the 5th ICHL:117-122) The early changes from Latin to Romance are very simple: (1) short vowels are laxed, and (2) all length distinctions are lost. Latin had 10 vowels: 5 cardinal positions, short and long. Early Romance had 7 vowels; 7 cardinal positions. All of that can be described atomistically, but it is quite complex, and a huge waste of time: i:>i:>i i>e>e e:>e:>e e>3>3 a:>a>a a>a>a etc, etc Vowels in open syllables then developed phonetic length and later underwent Romance diphthongization, which varies quite considerably from language to language, but can always be described in systemic terms. The next major shift for French was /u/ to /y/, a shift which is also found in Ancient Greek and elsewhere; the usual explanation is the lack of space for back vowels forcing the fronting of the high vowel. In such circumstances, this is a systemic shift, it is not atomistic, as it appears to be. The systemic consequence of this shift, in French, was the creation of two other front rounded vowels, high mid and low mid: more systemic shifting. The next major move is the shift of the diphthong /oi/ to /w3/, and later /wa/. This was taught to us completely atomistically: we were required to learn the sequence oi>oe>o3>u3>w3>, which I discovered is largely nonsense. What really happened was that the two new front rounded vowels were made out of two of the existing diphthongs, and to re-establish balance in the system of diphthongs, /oi/ was shifted from a closing diphthong to an opening diphthong /w3/ (details in my Workbook for Historical Romance Linguistics pp 38-40), the change taking place very rapidly. So it is essential to distinguish systemic change from atomistic change which also exists, in many curious ways, which may in fact require many separate categories It is also important to realize that we are all particularists or generalists by temperament. I am aware that I am a generalist, and Malkiel, for example, was a particularist, who given twenty minutes could talk for an hour on endless detail (which in no way detracts from my admiration for him and his work). I have found it very profitable to work with particularists, who are pleased to get the big picture from me, and and reciprocate by filling it in with pointillistic detail! (Malkiel, by the way was at the Galway conference. His only comment on my paper was to point out that my generalizations on the vowel shifts from Latin to Romance did not apply to the North African dialects of Latin! The Particularist responding to the Generalist: 98-99% yes, 1-2% no; there's always the exception that proves the rule...) Among the atomistic changes there has to be a category of spelling pronunciations. Since Caxton set up his printing press in Westminster Hall in 1472 (?), the way that English has been spelled has had a vast influence on pronunciation. Isn't it true that without our archaic spelling the /h-/ of modern English would have been long gone? And now it's pronounced even where it was never pronounced even in Early MnE: "an humble and contrite heart" from the Prayer Book of 1549. Latin *humile(m)* gave French *humble*, borrowed into English during the great period of bilingualism (1350-1450). Since the h- was not pronounced in Latin it was never pronounced in French, and there are still little pockets of dialects (in the New World at any rate) where it is still not pronounced in English. But for most speakers of English today the word begins with /h-/. Isn't this a classic example of reversed sound change? In that case it is both systemic (pronounce your aitches -- haitches in Ireland), and in the case of *humble*, atomistic: this particular item never had an /h-/ in the older forms of English: it never had an /h-/ that could be reversed. For a simple case of atomistic reversed sound change, consider the popular pronunciation of /t/ in *often* (the /t/ was lost in the 16th century). By contrast, the /t/ in *soften* is NOT pronounced: for this word the 16th century sound change is not reversed. John Hewson Memorial University of Newfoundland On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Sally Thomason wrote: > > But I don't think Brian's approach will work to solve the problem > Andrew raises. Years ago, when for some reason I read Yakov > Malkiel's 1976 Language paper on a minor sound change in Spanish > ("for some reason" because I am not a Romance specialist and Malkiel > is not easy to read), I realized that the whole question of phonetic > triggers of sound change is unanswered, for some or possibly even > most changes. Malkiel's example was a case of monophthongization > that started in a diminutive suffix, where -ie- was replaced by -i-. > He showed that the change happened because of analogy -- ordinary > morphological analogy -- to two other diminutive suffixes that had a > monophthong -i-; the monophthongization change then spread to a > couple of inflectional verb suffixes. Then it stopped: it didn't > become a regular sound change. But clearly it *could* have done so: > monophthongization of diphthongs is common enough in regular sound > change, and the only reason we *know* that this minor Spanish sound > change had an analogic trigger is that it never progressed beyond a > handful of suffixes. If it had progressed to completion, > monophthongizing all -ie- diphthongs to -i-, we would view it as a > nice regular Neogrammarian sound change (and probably even Malkiel > wouldn't have discovered the analogic source). > > In other words, even with phonetically reasonable sound changes, I > don't think it's safe to assume that "phonetic factors are paramount" > at the onset of the change. As we all know, many phonetically > natural changes fail to occur; we don't know why the ones that > do occur happen. It's possible that nonphonetic factors are > frequently part of the trigger -- analogy in Malkiel's example, > social factors in some other instances, who knows what in still > others. > > The Rhenish Fan shows that what looks like a coherent set of > perfectly regular changes didn't happen all at the same time, or even > in chunks in all words at the same time, in the westernmost region of > German-speaking territory. Suppose the Rhenish Fan didn't exist, and > we had a completely regular (bundle of) isogloss(es) separating the > region where the High German Consonant Shift occurred from the region > where it didn't: wouldn't we view that as a quite ordinary example of > Neogrammarian sound change? I think we would. So I think it's very > difficult, and maybe impossible (given that we generally have zero > information about the earliest stage of a regular sound change) to > draw a sharp line between Neogrammarian sound change and other kinds > of sound change. In some cases we can certainly point to > non-Neogrammarian change processes in sounds, of course. But > excluding those processes doesn't, it seems to me, give us a reliable > criterion for identifying Neogrammarian sound changes before they've > completed their run and turned out to be regular. > > -- Sally Thomason > Univ. of Michigan > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.trudgill at unifr.ch Mon Jan 28 14:17:47 2008 From: peter.trudgill at unifr.ch (Peter Trudgill) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:17:47 +0000 Subject: Reversal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isn't one of the most remarkable sound change reversals the reintroduction of rhoticity into fomerly non-rhotic American accents? It is not at all what one would expect on linguistic-internal grounds, overcoming as it does a strong phonotactic constraint, as well as consigning a number of vowels to extinction. -- Peter Trudgill FBA Adjunct Prof. of Sociolinguistics, Agder Univ., N Adjunct Prof., RCLT, La Trobe Univ., AU Prof. Emeritus of Eng. Linguistics, Fribourg Univ, CH Hon. Prof. of Sociolinguistics, UEA, Norwich, UK _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Mon Jan 28 15:45:15 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:45:15 -0500 Subject: 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:26:01 PST." Message-ID: Henning Andersen's distinction is appealing, but the problem I was talking about remains: how can we know, after the fact and without documentary evidence, whether a given change was "true sound change" or "socially driven" change? I am increasingly convinced that the answer to this question is, we *can't* know -- in part because every linguistic change has both linguistic and social components. Part of the difference between me and Henning (and maybe between me and Brian as well) is that I don't think there is a "distinction between innovation and change" -- although Henning's view is certainly shared by at least some others, e.g. Lesley and Jim Milroy. I believe that any linguistic change, by which I mean change in a language (or dialect) has two necessary components: the innovation and the spread of the innovation through the speech community (including through the/an innovator's speech). I have seen assertions to the effect that the innovation is the change, and assertions to the effect that the spread is the change, but I've never seen any actual arguments to support the view that we have to decide which of these two processes should be given pride of place as "the change". To me it seems awfully obvious: no innovation, no spread; no spread, no completed change. You need both; neither, by itself, will get you a linguistic change. And the spread of any innovation has an irreducible social dimension (in some cases many social dimensions). So I believe that any effort to separate out the social aspect(s) of a change, treating only the linguistic aspect(s) OR only the social aspect(s) as "the change", is doomed. Deliberate changes that one can establish because of explicit metalinguistic evidence are the most spectacular cases I know of, but I don't think they are all different in kind from subconscious changes (though a few of them, like the massive gender reversal reported for a non-Austronesian language spoken on Bougainville Island, may be different in kind). And if deliberate changes are sometimes, often, or usually similar or identical, in retrospect, to (presumably) subconscious changes, what exactly justifies our traditional belief that the vast majority of changes, including sound changes, is/are entirely subconscious? Henning's image of all members of a speech community deliberately talking in lock-step is amusing, but -- sorry to complicate things further -- I see no reason why processes of change should be either all deliberate or all subconscious. I bet some of the people in F.K. Lehman's example reintroduced those consonants deliberately, while some of them just imitated others who were pronouncing them, without noticing what they were doing. But I don't buy the idea that the linguist has to have "positive evidence" of deliberate change before suggesting that it might have been a factor. (They used to say that about contact-induced change, as oppposed to internally-motivated change: internal sources of change were considered the default. You don't hear that so much any more.) Maybe the potential impact of social factors on "sound change proper" will eventually turn out to be supported by enough evidence to topple the comfortable assumption that it's awfully rare. -- Sally (Sally Thomason, Univ. of Michigan) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Roger.Wright at liverpool.ac.uk Mon Jan 28 18:52:23 2008 From: Roger.Wright at liverpool.ac.uk (Wright, Roger) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:52:23 -0000 Subject: third component in a "change" Message-ID: A third necessary component (if it really is a "change") is for the previous feature with the same or similar function to drop out of use. This usually happens some time after the arrival of the new feature, and the period when both old and new features coincide can last for a long time, both being used and both being understood; and the variation doesn't need to be resolved necessarily at all. And even if it is, it can be the new feature that drops out, not the old. Maybe we should stop talking about changes at all, and concentrate on the arrival (linguistically explicable innovation and socially explicable spread) of new features; and study the loss of old features also if need be, but as a separate phenomenon - RW ________________________________ From: histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu on behalf of Sally Thomason Sent: Mon 1/28/2008 3:45 PM To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' Henning Andersen's distinction is appealing, but the problem I was talking about remains: how can we know, after the fact and without documentary evidence, whether a given change was "true sound change" or "socially driven" change? I am increasingly convinced that the answer to this question is, we *can't* know -- in part because every linguistic change has both linguistic and social components. Part of the difference between me and Henning (and maybe between me and Brian as well) is that I don't think there is a "distinction between innovation and change" -- although Henning's view is certainly shared by at least some others, e.g. Lesley and Jim Milroy. I believe that any linguistic change, by which I mean change in a language (or dialect) has two necessary components: the innovation and the spread of the innovation through the speech community (including through the/an innovator's speech). I have seen assertions to the effect that the innovation is the change, and assertions to the effect that the spread is the change, but I've never seen any actual arguments to support the view that we have to decide which of these two processes should be given pride of place as "the change". To me it seems awfully obvious: no innovation, no spread; no spread, no completed change. You need both; neither, by itself, will get you a linguistic change. And the spread of any innovation has an irreducible social dimension (in some cases many social dimensions). So I believe that any effort to separate out the social aspect(s) of a change, treating only the linguistic aspect(s) OR only the social aspect(s) as "the change", is doomed. Deliberate changes that one can establish because of explicit metalinguistic evidence are the most spectacular cases I know of, but I don't think they are all different in kind from subconscious changes (though a few of them, like the massive gender reversal reported for a non-Austronesian language spoken on Bougainville Island, may be different in kind). And if deliberate changes are sometimes, often, or usually similar or identical, in retrospect, to (presumably) subconscious changes, what exactly justifies our traditional belief that the vast majority of changes, including sound changes, is/are entirely subconscious? Henning's image of all members of a speech community deliberately talking in lock-step is amusing, but -- sorry to complicate things further -- I see no reason why processes of change should be either all deliberate or all subconscious. I bet some of the people in F.K. Lehman's example reintroduced those consonants deliberately, while some of them just imitated others who were pronouncing them, without noticing what they were doing. But I don't buy the idea that the linguist has to have "positive evidence" of deliberate change before suggesting that it might have been a factor. (They used to say that about contact-induced change, as oppposed to internally-motivated change: internal sources of change were considered the default. You don't hear that so much any more.) Maybe the potential impact of social factors on "sound change proper" will eventually turn out to be supported by enough evidence to topple the comfortable assumption that it's awfully rare. -- Sally (Sally Thomason, Univ. of Michigan) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From ebach at linguist.umass.edu Wed Jan 30 16:37:24 2008 From: ebach at linguist.umass.edu (Emmon Bach) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:37:24 +0000 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <20080126150245.sog0m187qoow0c48@www.ling.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: > Andrew is absolutely right that there is the one remaining issue still > to be resolved. At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me say that > Rich Janda and I gave an answer to this (at least implicitly) in our > 2003 paper on a "'big bang' model of sound change" (published in the > Benjamins volume arising out of the 2001 ICHL in Melbourne, edited by > Barry Blake and Kate Burridge). We located regularity in the initial > onset of a sound change, where phonetic factors are paramount. We > envision that as relatively brief (hence the parallel to the "Big > Bang" in physics) and after that, extensions along a number of > parameters are possible. One is further phonetic generalization (thus > giving regularity of broader scope than at the initial "big bang" (and > generalization to a broader set of input sounds is also possible), but > lexical, grammatical, or social lines of generalization can be > followed. To our way of thinking, the crucial thing about sound > change proper is the phoneticity -- with conditions that are purely > phonetic in nature (which we envision as the essential starting point, > the "big bang") regularity follows automatically since that is the > most elemental and the most broadly applicable type of conditioning. > Once the forces of generalization set in post-big bang (assuming they > do -- they need not), phoneticity can disappear, and there is no > guarantee of regularity (though it could occur, as noted with regard > to hypercorrection and other sorts of rule-governed behavior). > > --Brian > > Brian D. Joseph > The Ohio State University > > Quoting Andrew Garrett : > >> While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's >> comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or >> sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the >> jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the >> question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of >> unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound >> change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' >> thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the >> regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for >> example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation >> will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation >> on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to >> appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological >> generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a >> changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in >> other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity >> effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. >> as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic >> traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide >> Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the >> President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of >> this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) >> encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial >> home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question >> remains unresolved. >> >> The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, >> i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of >> sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is >> actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change >> and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be >> "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity >> effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules >> (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ >> in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your >> speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I >> think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby >> non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This >> approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't >> mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we >> don't yet know where the truth lies. >> >> -- Andrew >> >> Andrew Garrett >> UC Berkeley >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >>> From: Brian Joseph >>> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >>> To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >>> Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >>> >>> Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would >>> like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly >>> on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them >>> and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. >>> >>> First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >>> sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >>> the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >>> useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the >>> cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >>> a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >>> sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >>> "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >>> sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >>> change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love >>> it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >>> change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >>> sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >>> tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >>> change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >>> change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >>> "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >>> word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). >>> >>> Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >>> they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a >>> hallmark >>> of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in >>> hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. >>> >>> Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >>> summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >>> trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most >>> basic >>> immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent >>> there >>> are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). >>> >>> --Brian >>> >>> Brian D. Joseph >>> The Ohio State University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Histling-l mailing list >> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l Dear All, I think the paper Bob Harms and I wrote aeons ago is relevant to some of this discussion. Cheers to all, Emmon -- Professor Emmon Bach 22 Coniston Rd London N10 2BP UK home telephone: (0)20 8444 4647 SOAS telephone: (0)20 7898 4593 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: crazy.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Anna.Glazier at eup.ed.ac.uk Fri Jan 11 17:12:34 2008 From: Anna.Glazier at eup.ed.ac.uk (GLAZIER Anna) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:12:34 -0000 Subject: New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Message-ID: New Series / Call for Book Proposals Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Series Editors Joseph Salmons (University of Wisconsin) and David Willis (University of Cambridge) Editorial Advisory Board Ricardo Berm?dez-Otero (Manchester) Claire Bowern (Rice) Sheila Embleton (York (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State) Patrick Honeybone (Edinburgh) Brian Joseph (Ohio State) April McMahon (Edinburgh) Johanna Nichols (Berkeley) Keren Rice (Toronto) Maggie Tallerman (Newcastle) Sylvia Adamson (Sheffield) James Clackson (Cambridge) Historical Linguistics is a series of advanced textbooks in Historical Linguistics, where individual volumes cover key subfields within Historical Linguistics in depth. As a whole, the series will provide a comprehensive introduction to this broad and increasingly complex field. The series is aimed at advanced undergraduates in Linguistics and students in language departments, as well as beginning postgraduates who are looking for an entry point. Volumes in the series are serious and scholarly university textbooks, theoretically informed and substantive in content. Every volume will contain pedagogical features such as recommendations for further reading, but the tone of each volume is discursive, explanatory and critically engaged, rather than 'activity-based'. Notes should be incorporated into the text. Planned Volumes Sound Change Prosodic Change Analogy and Morphological Change Semantic and Lexical Change Syntactic Change Comparative Linguistics, Linguistic Reconstruction and Language Classification Sociohistorical linguistics Introduction to particular language families Borrowing and Language Contact Pidgins and creoles Quantitative Approaches to Change Language Acquisition and Change Change in and evolution of writing Systems Written Evidence: Philology and historical linguistics Language Variation and Change Length: the typical all-inclusive length of a volume is 60,000-70,000 words. For more information on the series or to submit a book proposal, please contact the Series Editors, Joseph Salmons (jsalmons at wisc.edu) and David Willis (dwew2 at cam.ac.uk) or the EUP Commissioning Editor, Sarah Edwards (sarah.edwards at eup.ed.ac.uk). ____________ Anna Glazier Marketing Manager Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF tel 0131 650 4223 www.eup.ed.ac.uk Edinburgh University Press Journals will be online from 2008! Email journals at eup.ed.ac.uk to receive the latest updates. Edinburgh University Press Ltd Registered Office - 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF Registered at Companies House Edinburgh on 9th day of July 1992 Company Registration No. SC139240. Charities No. SC035813. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch Tue Jan 15 00:24:57 2008 From: remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch (R=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=my Viredaz) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:24:57 +0100 Subject: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans In-Reply-To: <20071216073606.4BDA5DF12B@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, After seeing the various contributions, my guess is rather near that of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. The shortest path from sh to the voiced pharyngeal stop seems to be: - voicing at one stage or the other - sh or zh develops to a retroflex and further to a velar fricative: to the Spanish and Poitou/Vend?e parallels one can add Swedish, where the sound spelt as sj, stj, skj or sk (sk only before a stressed front vowl) was taught as a retroflex sh in McClean, Teach Yourself Swedish, but is now a sort of x as far as I can hear it occasionally on TV. (There is also *sh > x in Slavic, but here *sh belongs to an unattested period.) Retroflection of sh (with or without furtehr development to x ) apparently occurs only in systems with three manners of sibilants or the like: e. g. Spanish z (alveolar s , today interdental) :: apical s :: hushing x ; Swedish ? (palatal x, spelt kj, tj ; I don't know if today it's a palatal x or a palatal sh ) :: sh (spelt sj etc. as above, but obviously depalatalized for some time already) :: s. - velar fricatives to pharyngeal fricatives : this is known in the development from (unattested) Proto-Semitic to e. g. Hebrew, and from Arabic to Maltese. - voiced pharyngeal fricative to voiced pharyngeal stop: is this possible ? However, that makes many changes, and all of these would have to have occurred in the recipient language after the loans, rather than as adaptations at the time of the loans. And any of them may be possible or impossible depending on the rest of the consonant system, and, of course, on what is already known of its historical phonology on the basis of comparison with related languages. Best wishes, R?my Viredaz 1, rue Chandieu CH - 1202 Gen?ve remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:29:10 +0100 > From: Wolfgang Schulze > Subject: [Histling-l] sound replacement in loans > To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4764D3C6.7060207 at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear friends, > Claire Bowern had suggested to post my following question (originally > addressed to the LINGTYP list) to HISTLING, too.: > > Within the context of my research on Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi), I > came across a rather remarkable instance of 'sound replacement' in > loans: A palatal voiceless fricative () is (systematically?) > replaced by a voiced pharyngeal stop. I wonder whether some of you have > come across a parallel process in other languages...To be more concrete: > What I have in mind are cases of replacement within loans (!), not sound > changes within the history of a given language. That is, Language A has > a in a term that is borrowed into Language B with a voiced > pharyngeal (I write <%>) instead, say /asha/ in Language A (donor > language) > /a%a/ in Language B (recipient language). [Unfortunately, > I'm not allowed to give concrete examples from Caucasian Albanian, as > long as the corresponding text (the so-called Caucasian Albanian > Palimpsest) has not been edited. Sorry for this! But I have to respect > the copyright of others....] > Thanks for any suggestions.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From caterina.mauri at unipv.it Wed Jan 16 15:05:43 2008 From: caterina.mauri at unipv.it (Caterina Mauri) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:05:43 +0100 Subject: Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy Message-ID: *************REMINDER, DEADLINE APPROACHING**************** ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** Theme Session Proposal ? "What do languages code when they code realisness?" SLE 2008 ? Forl? * Call for manifestation of interest * Theme Session Proposal: "What do languages code when they code realisness?" Dear list members, this is a call for manifestation of interest in a theme session that we plan to organize within the next annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), to be held in Forl?, Italy, September 17-20, 2008 (http://sle2008.sitlec.unibo.it). The SLE policy for workshops and theme sessions requires us to prepare a proposal, to be submitted to the SLE program committee no later than February 15, 2008. This proposal should contain a short description of the topic to be dealt with, along with an estimate of the schedule and the overall time required. The working title of our proposal is: "What do languages code when they code realisness?". An extended description of the topic is included at the end of this message. We feel that the theme we are going to propose might raise the interest of typologists (and theoretical linguists) who have been (or are) working on the coding of realisness and related issues. Besides the individual papers, we intend to devote some time to a general discussion of the theoretical and empirical issues arising from the presentations. In detail, the structure of the theme session we intend to submit should include: ? three invited contributions; ? up to 10/12 selected papers (20 minutes + discussion); ? a final slot (up to 60 minutes) for a general, round-table like discussion. What we ask you at this stage is to let us know as soon as possible if you are interested in contributing a paper to the theme session. Feel free to send a quick informal reply to this mail (just stating your willingness to submit a paper and specifying a possible topic for your contribution). Prospective contributors are also expected to send an abstract no later than February 1, 2008 (Friday). This tight schedule will leave us enough time to finalize the proposal to be submitted to the SLE committee. We should emphasize that there will be two stages: in the first stage, we will select papers which will be included in the proposal; in the second stage, the proposal as a whole will be evaluated by the SLE committee. Only upon acceptance of the entire theme session, every selected contribution will be considered officially "accepted" at the SLE conference. Convenors Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia, Italy) Andrea Sans? (Insubria University ? Como, Italy) Important dates (first stage): ? As soon as possible: informal e-mail with manifestation of interest ? 1st February 2008: abstract submission (see format below) ? 1st March 2008: notification of acceptance Important dates (second stage; the convenors will be looking after the finalization of the proposal): ? 15th February 2008: submission of the abstract for the theme session to the SLE committee ? 15th April 2008: submission of the full program (invited speakers + accepted abstracts + discussion time) to the SLE committee ? 31st May 2008: notification of acceptance Format of abstracts: The selection of abstracts will be made on the basis of quality and relatedness to the topic and objectives of the theme session. The submitted abstracts (in PDF) should be anonymous, up to 2 pages long (including references), and the authors are expected to provide an overview of the goal, methodology, and data of their research. Abstracts should be sent to both convenors to the following e-mail addresses: Caterina Mauri: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Andrea Sans?: asanso at gmail.com All the abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by the program committee of the theme session (see below) before the finalization of the proposal. More information about the theme session (list of selected papers, invited speakers, etc.) will be circulated amongst the prospective participants right before the submission of the proposal to the SLE committee. Please include the following data in the body of the mail: (i) Author(s); (ii) Title; (iii) Affiliation; (iv) Contacts. Scientific committee (TBC): Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen); Isabelle Bril (LACITO, CNRS, Villejuif); Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University) Anna Giacalone (University of Pavia); Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia); Andrea Sans? (Insubria University, Como); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp). Invited speakers: Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp) Publication: if the theme session is accepted it is our intention to publish a selection of the papers with an international publisher. Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sans? *************************************** Presentation of the theme session Working title: What do languages code when they code realisness? Theme description and topics Since Giv?n (1984: 285ff.) and Chung and Timberlake (1985: 241ff.), the terms realis and irrealis have gained increasing currency in cross-linguistic studies on modality as flexible cover terms for a number of moods traditionally labelled as 'indicative', 'subjunctive', 'optative', 'counterfactual', 'potential', 'hypothetical', etc. Some authors (e.g. Elliott 2000: 80) have gone a step further, speaking of 'reality status' (or 'realisness') as a grammatical category to full right, realized differently in different languages, with at least two values: realis (or neutral) and irrealis. These two values are characterized in terms of actualization vs. non-actualization of a given state of affairs. According to Elliott, a proposition is realis if it asserts that a state of affairs is an "actualized and certain fact of reality", whereas it is classified as irrealis if "it implies that a SoA belongs to the realm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential or possible event but it is not an observable fact of reality" (Elliott 2000: 66-67). There are languages which obligatorily mark realisness in all finite clauses by means of a comprehensive (morphological or syntactic) system of markers, others where the system is partial and the realisness of a proposition needs to be indicated only in speci?c syntactic contexts, and ?nally there are languages in which the marking of realisness is merely optional. In other terms, realisness may be encoded by means of an array of morpho-syntactic strategies (simple affixation, portmanteau affixation, sentence particles, adverbs, etc.). Both the functional characterization and the formal aspects of realisness are controversial (Bybee et al 1994; Bybee 1998). On the one hand, the solidarities between realisness and other functional domains such as, for instance, tense, aspect, and evidentiality make it difficult to decide whether (and to what extent) realisness is an independent functional dimension (see, e.g. Fleischman 1995). On the other hand, there are certain states of affairs (e.g. habitual, directive, and future SoAs, etc.) that are coded by means of either realis or irrealis strategies across languages, in a largely unpredictable way. This variation may reflect the inherently hybrid reality status of these states of affairs: they may have occurred but their reference time is non-specific (e.g. habituals; Giv?n 1984: 285; Cristofaro 2004), they may have not yet occurred but they are either highly probable or expected with a high degree of certainty (e.g. directives, futures; Roberts 1990; Chafe 1995; Mithun 1995; Ogloblin 2005; Sun 2007), etc. Some of the factors that appear to have an influence on the cross-linguistic coding of realisness have been already hinted at in the typological literature. For instance, in some languages argument structure and referentiality/definiteness of arguments appear to be crucial to the choice of a realis or irrealis strategy (the presence of definite arguments entailing realis marking, whereas indefinite/non-specific arguments require irrealis marking). Furthermore, the deictic anchoring of the proposition to the speaker's here-and-now (in the sense of Fleischman 1989) may determine different realisness values for directives and futures in some languages (e.g. predictions, intentions or scheduled events are marked as realis, whereas other future SoAs are irrealis; second-person directives, which require the presence of the performer, are coded as realis more frequently than third-person directives). Yet, a complete picture of the range of factors affecting realisness is still missing. New insights into these factors and their interactions may come from a wider amount of cross-linguistic data, as well as a better understanding of the diachronic mechanisms leading to the emergence and establishing of realisness systems. This theme session aims to assess our current understanding of the realisness dimension in grammar and to plot the directions for future research. We invite abstracts for papers dealing with foundational/theoretical issues and/or taking an empirical, data-driven stance on the coding of realisness across languages. At the foundational/theoretical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): ? the status of realisness in linguistic theory; ? interactions between realisness and other functional domains (tense, aspect, evidentiality, etc.); ? cross-linguistic variation in the classification of certain states of affairs as either realis or irrealis; ? factors affecting the realisness value of a state of affairs: argument structure; referentiality/definiteness of arguments; degree of deictic anchoring to the speaker's here-and-now; etc. At the empirical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): ? in-depth investigations of realisness systems in single languages or language families; ? the areal dimension of realisness marking; ? realisness in languages without dedicated realis/irrealis markers; ? realisness as a relevant dimension in interclausal relations: disjunction (see, e.g., Mauri 2008), complementation (Ammann & van der Auwera 2004), switch reference, etc.; ? the diachronic origin and the grammaticalization of realis/irrealis markers as a key to understanding their functional properties and distribution. References Ammann, A., and J. van der Auwera. 2004. Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe. A Balkanism? In: O. Tomi? (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 293-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. 1998. "Irrealis" as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40 (2): 257-271. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J., and S. Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chafe, W. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 349-365. Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In: Y. A. Lander, V. A. Plungian, A. Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Irrealis and Irreality, 256-272. Moscow: Gnosis. Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55-90. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13 (1): 1-50. Fleischman, S. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 519-551. Giv?n, T. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mauri, C. 2008. The irreality of alternatives. Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in Language 32 (1): 22-55. Mithun, M. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 367-388. Ogloblin, A. K. 2005. Javanese. In: A. Adelaar, and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 590-624. London-New York: Routledge. Roberts, J. R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26: 363-401. Sun, J. T.-S. 2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8 (3): 797-819. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From dwew2 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jan 21 10:55:35 2008 From: dwew2 at cam.ac.uk (David Willis) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:55:35 +0000 Subject: Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar Message-ID: We are pleased to announce the programme of the international conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, which will take place from 18-20 March 2008 at the University of Cambridge. The focus will be on theoretical and methodological aspects of morphosyntactic change and conservatism. The aim of the conference is to bring together researchers working on different aspects of linguistic transmission in order to enhance our understanding of what makes languages change and what in turn prevents them from changing. Registration is now open for the conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar. Go to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ab667/negproject/ negconf_program.html, download the registration form, and follow the instructions given. Please note that the deadline for early registrations is 22 February 2008 (receipt of payment). College accomodation is unavailable for registrations later than 4 March 2008. The organising committee (David Willis, Anne Breitbarth, Sheila Watts, Chris Lucas). _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Granta at edgehill.ac.uk Thu Jan 24 16:35:29 2008 From: Granta at edgehill.ac.uk (Anthony Grant) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:35:29 +0000 Subject: Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1,item 2 In-Reply-To: <20080121105553.5352BDEE9A@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Dear HistLingers: A parallel to what Wolfgang Schulze has described for Caucasian Albanian occurs in the Haitian Creole word for 'money' (it may occur in other Atlantic French lexifier creoles too), where /lahaN/ is found as a variant of /laZaN/, where Z- is the voiced postalveolar fricative. Compare French 'l'argent' 'the money'. Offhand I don't know of any other words which show this variation, which has always puzzled me. Best Anthony Grant >>> 01/21/08 10:55 am >>> Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to histling-l at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics (GLAZIER Anna) 2. Re: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans (R ? my Viredaz) 3. Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy (Caterina Mauri) 4. Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar (David Willis) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:12:34 -0000 From: "GLAZIER Anna" Subject: [Histling-l] New Series / Call for Book Proposals / Edinburgh Historical Linguistics To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" New Series / Call for Book Proposals Edinburgh Historical Linguistics Series Editors Joseph Salmons (University of Wisconsin) and David Willis (University of Cambridge) Editorial Advisory Board Ricardo Berm?dez-Otero (Manchester) Claire Bowern (Rice) Sheila Embleton (York (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Arizona State) Patrick Honeybone (Edinburgh) Brian Joseph (Ohio State) April McMahon (Edinburgh) Johanna Nichols (Berkeley) Keren Rice (Toronto) Maggie Tallerman (Newcastle) Sylvia Adamson (Sheffield) James Clackson (Cambridge) Historical Linguistics is a series of advanced textbooks in Historical Linguistics, where individual volumes cover key subfields within Historical Linguistics in depth. As a whole, the series will provide a comprehensive introduction to this broad and increasingly complex field. The series is aimed at advanced undergraduates in Linguistics and students in language departments, as well as beginning postgraduates who are looking for an entry point. Volumes in the series are serious and scholarly university textbooks, theoretically informed and substantive in content. Every volume will contain pedagogical features such as recommendations for further reading, but the tone of each volume is discursive, explanatory and critically engaged, rather than 'activity-based'. Notes should be incorporated into the text. Planned Volumes Sound Change Prosodic Change Analogy and Morphological Change Semantic and Lexical Change Syntactic Change Comparative Linguistics, Linguistic Reconstruction and Language Classification Sociohistorical linguistics Introduction to particular language families Borrowing and Language Contact Pidgins and creoles Quantitative Approaches to Change Language Acquisition and Change Change in and evolution of writing Systems Written Evidence: Philology and historical linguistics Language Variation and Change Length: the typical all-inclusive length of a volume is 60,000-70,000 words. For more information on the series or to submit a book proposal, please contact the Series Editors, Joseph Salmons (jsalmons at wisc.edu) and David Willis (dwew2 at cam.ac.uk) or the EUP Commissioning Editor, Sarah Edwards (sarah.edwards at eup.ed.ac.uk). ____________ Anna Glazier Marketing Manager Edinburgh University Press 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF tel 0131 650 4223 www.eup.ed.ac.uk Edinburgh University Press Journals will be online from 2008! Email journals at eup.ed.ac.uk to receive the latest updates. Edinburgh University Press Ltd Registered Office - 22 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LF Registered at Companies House Edinburgh on 9th day of July 1992 Company Registration No. SC139240. Charities No. SC035813. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/private/histling-l/attachments/20080111/127864ab/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:24:57 +0100 From: R ? my Viredaz Subject: [Histling-l] Re: vol 12/issue 2 - Sound replacement in loans To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Dear Wolfgang, After seeing the various contributions, my guess is rather near that of Marie-Lucie Tarpent. The shortest path from sh to the voiced pharyngeal stop seems to be: - voicing at one stage or the other - sh or zh develops to a retroflex and further to a velar fricative: to the Spanish and Poitou/VendTe parallels one can add Swedish, where the sound spelt as sj, stj, skj or sk (sk only before a stressed front vowl) was taught as a retroflex sh in McClean, Teach Yourself Swedish, but is now a sort of x as far as I can hear it occasionally on TV. (There is also *sh > x in Slavic, but here *sh belongs to an unattested period.) Retroflection of sh (with or without furtehr development to x ) apparently occurs only in systems with three manners of sibilants or the like: e. g. Spanish z (alveolar s , today interdental) :: apical s :: hushing x ; Swedish t (palatal x, spelt kj, tj ; I don't know if today it's a palatal x or a palatal sh ) :: sh (spelt sj etc. as above, but obviously depalatalized for some time already) :: s. - velar fricatives to pharyngeal fricatives : this is known in the development from (unattested) Proto-Semitic to e. g. Hebrew, and from Arabic to Maltese. - voiced pharyngeal fricative to voiced pharyngeal stop: is this possible ? However, that makes many changes, and all of these would have to have occurred in the recipient language after the loans, rather than as adaptations at the time of the loans. And any of them may be possible or impossible depending on the rest of the consonant system, and, of course, on what is already known of its historical phonology on the basis of comparison with related languages. Best wishes, RTmy Viredaz 1, rue Chandieu CH - 1202 GenFve remy.viredaz at bluewin.ch > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:29:10 +0100 > From: Wolfgang Schulze > Subject: [Histling-l] sound replacement in loans > To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: <4764D3C6.7060207 at lrz.uni-muenchen.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Dear friends, > Claire Bowern had suggested to post my following question (originally > addressed to the LINGTYP list) to HISTLING, too.: > > Within the context of my research on Caucasian Albanian (Old Udi), I > came across a rather remarkable instance of 'sound replacement' in > loans: A palatal voiceless fricative () is (systematically?) > replaced by a voiced pharyngeal stop. I wonder whether some of you have > come across a parallel process in other languages...To be more concrete: > What I have in mind are cases of replacement within loans (!), not sound > changes within the history of a given language. That is, Language A has > a in a term that is borrowed into Language B with a voiced > pharyngeal (I write <%>) instead, say /asha/ in Language A (donor > language) > /a%a/ in Language B (recipient language). [Unfortunately, > I'm not allowed to give concrete examples from Caucasian Albanian, as > long as the corresponding text (the so-called Caucasian Albanian > Palimpsest) has not been edited. Sorry for this! But I have to respect > the copyright of others....] > Thanks for any suggestions.... > Best wishes, > Wolfgang ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:05:43 +0100 From: Caterina Mauri Subject: [Histling-l] Reminder - Call for manifestation of interest - Theme session proposal - SLE 2008, Italy To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <478E1D47.2030104 at unipv.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed *************REMINDER, DEADLINE APPROACHING**************** ** WE APOLOGIZE FOR CROSS-POSTING ** Theme Session Proposal G?? "What do languages code when they code realisness?" SLE 2008 G?? Forl+? * Call for manifestation of interest * Theme Session Proposal: "What do languages code when they code realisness?" Dear list members, this is a call for manifestation of interest in a theme session that we plan to organize within the next annual meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), to be held in Forl+?, Italy, September 17-20, 2008 (http://sle2008.sitlec.unibo.it). The SLE policy for workshops and theme sessions requires us to prepare a proposal, to be submitted to the SLE program committee no later than February 15, 2008. This proposal should contain a short description of the topic to be dealt with, along with an estimate of the schedule and the overall time required. The working title of our proposal is: "What do languages code when they code realisness?". An extended description of the topic is included at the end of this message. We feel that the theme we are going to propose might raise the interest of typologists (and theoretical linguists) who have been (or are) working on the coding of realisness and related issues. Besides the individual papers, we intend to devote some time to a general discussion of the theoretical and empirical issues arising from the presentations. In detail, the structure of the theme session we intend to submit should include: -+ three invited contributions; -+ up to 10/12 selected papers (20 minutes + discussion); -+ a final slot (up to 60 minutes) for a general, round-table like discussion. What we ask you at this stage is to let us know as soon as possible if you are interested in contributing a paper to the theme session. Feel free to send a quick informal reply to this mail (just stating your willingness to submit a paper and specifying a possible topic for your contribution). Prospective contributors are also expected to send an abstract no later than February 1, 2008 (Friday). This tight schedule will leave us enough time to finalize the proposal to be submitted to the SLE committee. We should emphasize that there will be two stages: in the first stage, we will select papers which will be included in the proposal; in the second stage, the proposal as a whole will be evaluated by the SLE committee. Only upon acceptance of the entire theme session, every selected contribution will be considered officially "accepted" at the SLE conference. Convenors Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia, Italy) Andrea Sans+| (Insubria University G?? Como, Italy) Important dates (first stage): -+ As soon as possible: informal e-mail with manifestation of interest -+ 1st February 2008: abstract submission (see format below) -+ 1st March 2008: notification of acceptance Important dates (second stage; the convenors will be looking after the finalization of the proposal): -+ 15th February 2008: submission of the abstract for the theme session to the SLE committee -+ 15th April 2008: submission of the full program (invited speakers + accepted abstracts + discussion time) to the SLE committee -+ 31st May 2008: notification of acceptance Format of abstracts: The selection of abstracts will be made on the basis of quality and relatedness to the topic and objectives of the theme session. The submitted abstracts (in PDF) should be anonymous, up to 2 pages long (including references), and the authors are expected to provide an overview of the goal, methodology, and data of their research. Abstracts should be sent to both convenors to the following e-mail addresses: Caterina Mauri: caterina.mauri at unipv.it Andrea Sans+|: asanso at gmail.com All the abstracts will be anonymously reviewed by the program committee of the theme session (see below) before the finalization of the proposal. More information about the theme session (list of selected papers, invited speakers, etc.) will be circulated amongst the prospective participants right before the submission of the proposal to the SLE committee. Please include the following data in the body of the mail: (i) Author(s); (ii) Title; (iii) Affiliation; (iv) Contacts. Scientific committee (TBC): Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen); Isabelle Bril (LACITO, CNRS, Villejuif); Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University) Anna Giacalone (University of Pavia); Caterina Mauri (University of Pavia); Andrea Sans+| (Insubria University, Como); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp). Invited speakers: Sonia Cristofaro (University of Pavia); Ferdinand de Haan (Arizona University); Johan van der Auwera (University of Antwerp) Publication: if the theme session is accepted it is our intention to publish a selection of the papers with an international publisher. Caterina Mauri, Andrea Sans+| *************************************** Presentation of the theme session Working title: What do languages code when they code realisness? Theme description and topics Since Giv+|n (1984: 285ff.) and Chung and Timberlake (1985: 241ff.), the terms realis and irrealis have gained increasing currency in cross-linguistic studies on modality as flexible cover terms for a number of moods traditionally labelled as 'indicative', 'subjunctive', 'optative', 'counterfactual', 'potential', 'hypothetical', etc. Some authors (e.g. Elliott 2000: 80) have gone a step further, speaking of 'reality status' (or 'realisness') as a grammatical category to full right, realized differently in different languages, with at least two values: realis (or neutral) and irrealis. These two values are characterized in terms of actualization vs. non-actualization of a given state of affairs. According to Elliott, a proposition is realis if it asserts that a state of affairs is an "actualized and certain fact of reality", whereas it is classified as irrealis if "it implies that a SoA belongs to the realm of the imagined or hypothetical, and as such it constitutes a potential or possible event but it is not an observable fact of reality" (Elliott 2000: 66-67). There are languages which obligatorily mark realisness in all finite clauses by means of a comprehensive (morphological or syntactic) system of markers, others where the system is partial and the realisness of a proposition needs to be indicated only in specin??c syntactic contexts, and n??nally there are languages in which the marking of realisness is merely optional. In other terms, realisness may be encoded by means of an array of morpho-syntactic strategies (simple affixation, portmanteau affixation, sentence particles, adverbs, etc.). Both the functional characterization and the formal aspects of realisness are controversial (Bybee et al 1994; Bybee 1998). On the one hand, the solidarities between realisness and other functional domains such as, for instance, tense, aspect, and evidentiality make it difficult to decide whether (and to what extent) realisness is an independent functional dimension (see, e.g. Fleischman 1995). On the other hand, there are certain states of affairs (e.g. habitual, directive, and future SoAs, etc.) that are coded by means of either realis or irrealis strategies across languages, in a largely unpredictable way. This variation may reflect the inherently hybrid reality status of these states of affairs: they may have occurred but their reference time is non-specific (e.g. habituals; Giv+|n 1984: 285; Cristofaro 2004), they may have not yet occurred but they are either highly probable or expected with a high degree of certainty (e.g. directives, futures; Roberts 1990; Chafe 1995; Mithun 1995; Ogloblin 2005; Sun 2007), etc. Some of the factors that appear to have an influence on the cross-linguistic coding of realisness have been already hinted at in the typological literature. For instance, in some languages argument structure and referentiality/definiteness of arguments appear to be crucial to the choice of a realis or irrealis strategy (the presence of definite arguments entailing realis marking, whereas indefinite/non-specific arguments require irrealis marking). Furthermore, the deictic anchoring of the proposition to the speaker's here-and-now (in the sense of Fleischman 1989) may determine different realisness values for directives and futures in some languages (e.g. predictions, intentions or scheduled events are marked as realis, whereas other future SoAs are irrealis; second-person directives, which require the presence of the performer, are coded as realis more frequently than third-person directives). Yet, a complete picture of the range of factors affecting realisness is still missing. New insights into these factors and their interactions may come from a wider amount of cross-linguistic data, as well as a better understanding of the diachronic mechanisms leading to the emergence and establishing of realisness systems. This theme session aims to assess our current understanding of the realisness dimension in grammar and to plot the directions for future research. We invite abstracts for papers dealing with foundational/theoretical issues and/or taking an empirical, data-driven stance on the coding of realisness across languages. At the foundational/theoretical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): -+ the status of realisness in linguistic theory; -+ interactions between realisness and other functional domains (tense, aspect, evidentiality, etc.); -+ cross-linguistic variation in the classification of certain states of affairs as either realis or irrealis; -+ factors affecting the realisness value of a state of affairs: argument structure; referentiality/definiteness of arguments; degree of deictic anchoring to the speaker's here-and-now; etc. At the empirical level, possible topics include (but are not limited to): -+ in-depth investigations of realisness systems in single languages or language families; -+ the areal dimension of realisness marking; -+ realisness in languages without dedicated realis/irrealis markers; -+ realisness as a relevant dimension in interclausal relations: disjunction (see, e.g., Mauri 2008), complementation (Ammann & van der Auwera 2004), switch reference, etc.; -+ the diachronic origin and the grammaticalization of realis/irrealis markers as a key to understanding their functional properties and distribution. References Ammann, A., and J. van der Auwera. 2004. Complementizer-headed main clauses for volitional moods in the languages of South-Eastern Europe. A Balkanism? In: O. Tomi-? (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 293-314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. 1998. "Irrealis" as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40 (2): 257-271. Bybee, J., R. Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Bybee, J., and S. Fleischman (eds.). 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Chafe, W. 1995. The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages, and English. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 349-365. Chung, S., and A. Timberlake. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 202-258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cristofaro, S. 2004. Past habituals and irrealis. In: Y. A. Lander, V. A. Plungian, A. Yu. Urmanchieva (eds.), Irrealis and Irreality, 256-272. Moscow: Gnosis. Elliott, J. R. 2000. Realis and irrealis: Forms and concepts of the grammaticalisation of reality. Linguistic Typology 4: 55-90. Fleischman, S. 1989. Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language 13 (1): 1-50. Fleischman, S. 1995. Imperfective and irrealis. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 519-551. Giv+|n, T. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mauri, C. 2008. The irreality of alternatives. Towards a typology of disjunction. Studies in Language 32 (1): 22-55. Mithun, M. 1995. On the relativity of irreality. In: Bybee & Fleischman (eds.) 1995, 367-388. Ogloblin, A. K. 2005. Javanese. In: A. Adelaar, and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar, 590-624. London-New York: Routledge. Roberts, J. R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26: 363-401. Sun, J. T.-S. 2007. The irrealis category in rGyalrong. Language and Linguistics 8 (3): 797-819. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:55:35 +0000 From: David Willis Subject: [Histling-l] Conference programme: Continuity and Change in Grammar To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <67058811-7DE3-42AB-B2A3-A0289AB3B034 at cam.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed We are pleased to announce the programme of the international conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar, which will take place from 18-20 March 2008 at the University of Cambridge. The focus will be on theoretical and methodological aspects of morphosyntactic change and conservatism. The aim of the conference is to bring together researchers working on different aspects of linguistic transmission in order to enhance our understanding of what makes languages change and what in turn prevents them from changing. Registration is now open for the conference on Continuity and Change in Grammar. Go to http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ab667/negproject/ negconf_program.html, download the registration form, and follow the instructions given. Please note that the deadline for early registrations is 22 February 2008 (receipt of payment). College accomodation is unavailable for registrations later than 4 March 2008. The organising committee (David Willis, Anne Breitbarth, Sheila Watts, Chris Lucas). ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 1 ***************************************** ----------------------------------------------------- This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Edge Hill University or associated companies. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete it and all copies of it. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. The message content of in-coming emails is automatically scanned to identify Spam and viruses otherwise Edge Hill University do not actively monitor content. However, sometimes it will be necessary for Edge Hill University to access business communications during staff absence. Edge Hill University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free. However, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Edge Hill University for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ----------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 07:22:32 2008 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:32 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics Message-ID: Dear HistLingers, You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the free reference site for linguists by linguists. Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the term, some key references, and a translation into other languages (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid problems of personality rights.) Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to make a contribution to the field. Martin Haspelmath -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.e.hook at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 15:26:11 2008 From: peter.e.hook at gmail.com (Peter Hook) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:11 -0500 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <47998E38.9070405@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear All, This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Sincerely, Peter Hook On 1/25/08, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmath at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 15:44:43 2008 From: haspelmath at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:44:43 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <8f9c3f9f0801250726t15f9c0fwbe00c5be71c21a2d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. Martin Haspelmath Peter Hook wrote: > Dear All, > > This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality > and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. > Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a > "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, > logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, > anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language > learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made > to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia > and Wiktionary? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook > > > On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much > more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: > It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin > of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are > articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will > follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, > which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to > avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and > language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the > future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some > of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was > writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de > ) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher > Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From e.leiss at germanistik.uni-muenchen.de Fri Jan 25 18:28:12 2008 From: e.leiss at germanistik.uni-muenchen.de (Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Leiss) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:28:12 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <479A03EB.9050704@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Martin, Glottopedia does not exist yet. You have to admit that. It is less than a project at the very moment. Elisabeth Leiss > The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. > > Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of > biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about > "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have > articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten > speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our > field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show > up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often > they're called "informants"). > > So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is > phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. > Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of > references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given > linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference > program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be > achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. > > Martin Haspelmath > > Peter Hook wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality >> and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. >> Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a >> "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, >> logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, >> anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language >> learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made >> to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia >> and Wiktionary? >> >> Sincerely, Peter Hook >> >> >> On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > > wrote: >> >> Dear HistLingers, >> >> You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), >> the >> free reference site for linguists by linguists. >> >> Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much >> more >> specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as >> "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", >> "loan >> translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit >> articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. >> >> Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than >> survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various >> specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article >> (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: >> It also >> gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin >> of the >> term, some key references, and a translation into other languages >> (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are >> articles in >> English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will >> follow soon). >> >> Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, >> which >> aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia >> potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's >> articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to >> avoid >> problems of personality rights.) >> >> Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and >> language >> families (with detailed references), and articles about things that >> we >> need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, >> institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the >> future. >> >> We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics >> really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some >> of us >> have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was >> writing >> dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that >> especially >> advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of >> publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance >> to >> make a contribution to the field. >> >> Martin Haspelmath >> >> -- >> Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de >> ) >> Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher >> Platz 6 >> D-04103 Leipzig >> Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 >> >> Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics >> (http://www.glottopedia.org) >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Histling-l mailing list >> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l >> >> > > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Leiss Lehrstuhl f?r Germanistische Linguistik Department f?r Germanistik, Komparatistik und Nordistik, Deutsch als Fremdsprache LMU M?nchen Schellingstra?e 3/RG 80799 M?nchen Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 2339 (B?ro) Tel.: +49 (0)89 2180 5744 (Sekr.: Frau Burauen) Tel.: +49 (0)89 769 969 23 (priv.) http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~GL/Leiss _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.e.hook at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 18:45:00 2008 From: peter.e.hook at gmail.com (Peter Hook) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:45:00 -0500 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <479A03EB.9050704@eva.mpg.de> Message-ID: Dear Professor Haspelmath, >> The answer is simple: << I beg to differ: The answer is not simple. >> we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. << Isn't Linglist doing this already? >> Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). << This sounds like another service that Linglist - or SIL - provides - or can provide. > >> Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. << > Discussions by and for specialists of recent issues in a field are the usual province of journals and on-line forums. Are you proposing that Glottopedia be a forum for discussion? Isn't that also part of the mission of Linglist? >> So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. << I agree with the concessive: Wikipedia is phenomenal. And breathtaking. It also represents an enormous investment in the democraticization of knowledge. So assuming that Glottopedia does take birth, in order to reduce duplication of effort why not ask contributors to make sure that their contributions to Glottopedia - where appropriate - also get put into Wikipedia or Wiktionary? And put the other kinds of information that you have specified into Linglist? Sincerely, Peter Hook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From haspelmt at eva.mpg.de Fri Jan 25 19:48:27 2008 From: haspelmt at eva.mpg.de (Martin Haspelmath) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:48:27 +0100 Subject: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics In-Reply-To: <8f9c3f9f0801251045s48f4a3e2l5623b015f726cc4b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Peter, Yes, it's true that the LINGUIST List is doing some things that Glottopedia is envisaging, such as maintaining a list of current linguists, and providing information about conferences. It is doing this very well, but in a different way than Glottopedia -- in a controlled, less "democratic" way, and based on grant money (whereas Glottopedia has no budget at all). But the LINGUIST List has no complete list of languages, no complete list of past linguists, no list of references published on languages/by linguists, and it is not multilingual. Moreover, the LINGUIST List does not allow easy links the way Glottopedia does (on the Wikipedia model): when you look at a past LINGUIST List message with a conference program, you cannot click on the names of speakers and get more information about them. All this is easily implementable on Glottopedia. Of course, the LINGUIST List, or SIL, could decide to expand in the future and enter Glottopedia's turf. But it will cost money. Glottopedia could do this entirely on the basis of volunteer contributions. Once Glottopedia contributions become substantial, I expect that Wikipedia will increasingly include links to Glottopedia articles, though most Glottopedia content will be too specialized for Wikipedia. In any event, Glottopedia articles should include links to all Wikipedia articles about linguistics topics. There should soon be many times more Glottopedia articles than Wikipedia articles on linguistics. So let's see what happens! Best wishes, Martin Peter Hook wrote: > Dear Professor Haspelmath, > > >> The answer is simple: << > > > I beg to differ: The answer is not simple. > > >> we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of > references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given > linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference > program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be > achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. << > > Isn't Linglist doing this already? > > >> Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of > biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about > "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have > articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten > speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our > field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show > up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often > they're called "informants"). << > This sounds like another service that Linglist - or SIL - provides - > or can provide. > > > >> Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference > works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference > work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different > needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by > physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm > glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. << > > > Discussions by and for specialists of recent issues in a field are the > usual province of journals and on-line forums. Are you proposing that > Glottopedia be a forum for discussion? Isn't that also part of the > mission of Linglist? > > >> So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is > phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. << > > I agree with the concessive: Wikipedia is phenomenal. And > breathtaking. It also represents an enormous investment in the > democraticization of knowledge. So assuming that Glottopedia does take > birth, in order to reduce duplication of effort why not ask > contributors to make sure that their contributions to Glottopedia - > where appropriate - also get put into Wikipedia or Wiktionary? And > put the other kinds of information that you have specified into Linglist? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au Fri Jan 25 21:21:39 2008 From: Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au (Patrick McConvell) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:21:39 +1100 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing Message-ID: I am looking at the effects of ?Reversed change? dialect borrowing in some Australian Indigenous languages. This term refers to cases where conservative forms are borrowed into a dialect or language apparently ?reversing? a sound change. This has been described mainly for situations where the donor language is a ?prestige? or ?standard? dialect and the historical facts are relatively well known (eg in Europe). Neither of these circumstances obtain in Indigenous Australia, so I am looking for work on this which is more directly similar to the Australian situation. In that situation it is quite difficult in some cases to distinguish ?reversed change? borrowing from wave-like variation and change which has not become categorical. So I am also looking for other studies which address this question and its implications for comparative/historical linguistics. Patrick McConvell Research Fellow, Language & Society AIATSIS, Canberra patrick.mcconvell at aiatsis.gov.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 01:40:51 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:40:51 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:21:39 +1100." Message-ID: I got a very nice Tibeto-Burman example of "reversed change" from F.K. Lehman back in 1999: it's described in my paper "Language contact and deliberate change", published in the on-line journal Journal of Language Contact 1/1:41-62 (2007). Here's the url to the journal article: http://cgi.server.uni-frankfurt.de/fb09/ifas/JLCCMS/issues/THEMA_1/JLC_THEMA_1_2007_02Thomason.pdf Below is the passage about the change (from a pre-publication version of the paper, but I don't think this bit changed at all) -- and I include the preceding paragraph too, because I see that it is also about "reversed change". -- Sally ************************************************** But there is direct evidence that speakers often---maybe typically---know exactly what they are doing, at least retrospectively but also beforehand, when they apply correspondence rules. Martha Ratliff has observed that `speakers of languages like Arabic and Tamil, who have knowledge of a literary standard that is quite different from the colloquial language..., can retard the process of natural language change in the colloquial quite consciously so that the two do not drift apart past a tolerable limit' (p.c. 2000). An example is a change introduced by Tamil speakers into their colloquial speech: they deliberately reversed an umlaut rule, modeling the change on literary Tamil, when the umlauted vowels became socially stigmatized (Pargman 1998). A somewhat similar reversal, but with a quite different motivation, is found in an example from the Hakha dialect of Lai Chin, a Tibeto-Burman language of the Kuki-Chin-Naga branch (this example comes from F. K. Lehman, p.c. 1999). Lai is very closely related to Laizo (of Falam); both are spoken in the Chin State of Burma (Myanmar). Lai, but not Laizo, had undergone a sound change that turned vowel + liquid sequences in syllable codas into diphthongs---that is, deleting the liquid consonant and diphthongizing the preceding vowel. But by 1957, when Lehman began his fieldwork in Hakha Lai territory, Standard Lai had apparently reversed that sound change: it regularly had simple vowels followed by coda liquids. He later learned why and how this reversal had happened. In the last decade of the 19th century, the Hakha chiefs became indignant because the British authorities had made Falam their headquarters in the region and had adopted Laizo as their official administrative language there. The British action conferred prestige on Laizo. In an effort to regain what they viewed as their proper regional status, the Hakha chiefs decreed that Hakha be pronounced just like Laizo---including the coda monophthongal vowel + liquid sequences, which Laizo retained. (In 1962 Lehman was introduced to some very elderly Lai speakers who still had the coda diphthongs without coda liquids; these were people who had not followed the chiefs' decree. But everyone else had the coda monophthongs and liquids.) Lehman explains that the Lai change was possible because the correspondences were `acutely transparent', and moreover multilingualism was pervasive in the region, so that Lai speakers could easily apply what amounts to a correspondence rule in reverse and replace their native codas with the Laizo phonotactic pattern.\footnotemark{}. This example is one of the clearest I've found that shows (pace Andersen 2005) that groups of speakers can indeed introduce new linguistic structure by deliberate decision. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From scat at cfl.rr.com Sat Jan 26 03:46:35 2008 From: scat at cfl.rr.com (Scott) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:46:35 -0500 Subject: Histling-l Digest:Glottopedia In-Reply-To: <20080125180954.CACE9DED59@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: A source such as Glottopedia will be invaluable so long as additions are reviewed for accuracy of content before posting along with the credentials of the would-be poster. I am not proposing that a poster needs a PhD in linguistics, just that the sources used are cited and are reputable. I would also hope that all viewpoints will be accepted: Saint Noam is not the be-all and end-all of linguistics. Association in the public mind with Wikipedia would severely curtail our effectiveness. Scott Catledge -----Original Message----- From: histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 1:10 PM To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3 Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to histling-l at mailman.rice.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu You can reach the person managing the list at histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Martin Haspelmath) 2. Re: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Peter Hook) 3. Re: Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics (Martin Haspelmath) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 08:22:32 +0100 From: Martin Haspelmath Subject: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <47998E38.9070405 at eva.mpg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Dear HistLingers, You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the free reference site for linguists by linguists. Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the term, some key references, and a translation into other languages (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid problems of personality rights.) Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to make a contribution to the field. Martin Haspelmath -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:11 -0500 From: "Peter Hook" Subject: Re: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: "Martin Haspelmath" Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <8f9c3f9f0801250726t15f9c0fwbe00c5be71c21a2d at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dear All, This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia and Wiktionary? Sincerely, Peter Hook On 1/25/08, Martin Haspelmath wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/private/histling-l/attachments/20080125/daf d9584/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:44:43 +0100 From: Martin Haspelmath Subject: Re: [Histling-l] Glottopedia, the free online encyclopedia of linguistics To: Peter Hook Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Message-ID: <479A03EB.9050704 at eva.mpg.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed The answer is simple: Wikipedia and Wiktionary are intended as reference works for lay people, whereas Glottopedia is intended as a reference work for specialists. The two groups of people clearly have different needs. I certainly wouldn't profit from Wikipedia articles written by physicists that discuss recent issues in solid-state physics, so I'm glad that Wikipedia articles are written for people like me. Given its goals, Wikipedia has to limit its scope: In the category of biographical articles, for instance, it admits only articles about "notable" people. Glottopedia has no such constraints: It can have articles about all linguists, including e.g. all those forgotten speaker-linguists that have made such an enormous contribution to our field but are not even known to most linguists because they don't show up at conferences and rarely get their names on publications (often they're called "informants"). So although Wikipedia's scope is breathtaking and its success is phenomenal, there is a need for reference information beyond Wikipedia. Ideally, we'd have a resource where I can get a complete list of references published on a given (smaller) language, or by a given linguist, or a complete list of all BLS conferences with the conference program, etc., and it is quite possible that such a resource can be achieved by the combined efforts of linguists. Martin Haspelmath Peter Hook wrote: > Dear All, > > This proposal seems to turn its back on the universality > and interdependency of human knowledge. No discipline is an island. > Linguistics (or at least some linguists) prides itself on being a > "window on the mind" and a bridge to a dozen other fields (philosophy, > logic, psychology, rhetoric, communication, sociology, cryptology, > anthropology, cultural studies, semiotics, education, language > learning...) Why can't the intellectual investments requested be made > to Wikipedia? Or Wiktionary? Or at least be shared with Wikipedia > and Wiktionary? > > Sincerely, Peter Hook > > > On 1/25/08, *Martin Haspelmath* > wrote: > > Dear HistLingers, > > You may be interested in Glottopedia (http://www.glottopedia.org), the > free reference site for linguists by linguists. > > Glottopedia differs from Wikipedia in that (i) its content is much > more > specialized (e.g. you'll be able to find articles on items such as > "cryptanalysis", "syntacticization", "xenism", "rich agreement", "loan > translation", "adfix"), and (ii) users must have an account to edit > articles, and they must be linguists with an academic background. > > Moreover, Glottopedia focuses on *dictionary articles* rather than > survey articles of the sort that are found in Wikipedia (and various > specialized linguistics handbooks). But each dictionary article > (protentially) provides more information than just a definition: > It also > gives examples, synonyms, other meanings of the term, the origin > of the > term, some key references, and a translation into other languages > (Glottopedia is a multilingual enterprise; so far there are > articles in > English and German, but it is hoped that more languages will > follow soon). > > Glottopedia also has articles on linguists, but unlike Wikipedia, > which > aims to restrict its articles to "notable people", Glottopedia > potentially has articles on all linguists. (However, Glottopedia's > articles on living linguists are restricted to links, in order to > avoid > problems of personality rights.) > > Eventually we also want to add articles about all languages and > language > families (with detailed references), and articles about things that we > need for our everyday work (such as journals, conferences, > institutions), but at the moment this is mainly an idea for the > future. > > We feel that Glottopedia is a resource that the field of linguistics > really needs, and we hope that you will all contribute to it. Some > of us > have taught courses in which the assignment to the students was > writing > dictionary articles on some technical terms. We think that especially > advanced students, who do not have easy access to other forms of > publications, will find that Glottopedia gives them a great chance to > make a contribution to the field. > > Martin Haspelmath > > -- > Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de > ) > Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher > Platz 6 > D-04103 Leipzig > Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 > > Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics > (http://www.glottopedia.org) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > -- Martin Haspelmath (haspelmath at eva.mpg.de) Max-Planck-Institut fuer evolutionaere Anthropologie, Deutscher Platz 6 D-04103 Leipzig Tel. (MPI) +49-341-3550 307, (priv.) +49-341-980 1616 Glottopedia - the free encyclopedia of linguistics (http://www.glottopedia.org) ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 3 ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au Sat Jan 26 05:20:07 2008 From: Patrick.McConvell at aiatsis.gov.au (Patrick McConvell) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:20:07 +1100 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing Message-ID: Thanks fot the references, Sally. I am not sure how ?deliberate? ?reversed-change? is. Obviously it can be, as in your example, but could be at a lower conscious level in some cases too. The example I am dealing with also has an incident of this ?surfacing? to consciousness /public attention (to use the Boas/Sapir/Labov metaphorical schema) ? but in a different way from what you describe - relayed to me by Felicity Meakins who works with the same groups I do. In the Eastern Ngumpin languages there has been regular intervocalic lenition so for instance *ngapa ?water? became ngawa, but many other words have been retained or readopted as unlenited forms. Now recently some children had started to borrow ?ngapa? from non-leniting neighbours, but this became a matter of conscious discussion and stigmatisation in the community and it disappeared again. So this is ?covert prestige?/local pride acting rather than adopting a ?prestige? form, and the conscious step is the blocking not so much the adoption. A propos of this, Claire Bowern privately told me she thought ?prestige? is/was involved in some language change in Indigenous Australia. I don?t really doubt this although ?prestige? is a fuzzy concept that usually needs unpacking and espccially when used inf very different non-Western contexts ? apart from there being hierarchies of competing ?prestiges? in many cases. That?s what I meant to say, not that ?prestige? (whatever it means) is not a factor in Indigenous Australia. In this particular case I don?t know what the ?prestige? factors might have been that caused people to do a lot of ?reversed changes? (without totally converting the lexicon). It?s not at all obvious and I don?t want to make up a ?just-so? story about what happened hundreds of years ago . Another issue which is raised by the text you sent, Sally, is the question of what some people in Australia call ?correspondence mimicry? ? that is, conscious application of correspondence patterns to create forms which I suppose could be either ?reversed changes? or ?what our language should be if regular changes were followed?. This is quite different from borrowing individual words from conservative or innovating languages. If this were widespread, it would create a problem for the comparative method or at least for the ?linguistic stratigraphy? that I like to do, unless these coinages were detectable. Pat McConvell patrick.mcconvell at aiatsis.gov.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.trudgill at unifr.ch Sat Jan 26 10:29:08 2008 From: peter.trudgill at unifr.ch (Peter Trudgill) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:29:08 +0000 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sally's example is very nice, but I think we'd agree that it's not exactly typical of what usually goes on, and that Andersen (2005) is mostly right....... Her example is reminiscent, though, of a development outlined in Ernst H?kon Jahr "Language planning and language change" in L.E. Breivik and E. H. Jahr (eds.) Language change: contributions to the study of its causes (1989), where he describes how a vigorously ongoing Icelandic sound change kown locally as Fl?m?li "slack-jawed speech" - in fact a merger of /i/ and /e/, /y/ and /?/ - was successfully reversed between about 1945 and 1960 by what amounted to an official public campaign. Developments which occur much further - I would guess - below the level of conscious awareness are captured by the term developed by the Norwegian dialectologist Amund B. Larsen who coined the label naboopposisjon "neighbour opposition". For example, in the Sogn dialect, items in the lexical set of bj?rk changed to bjork etc as a result of the fact ( he hypothesised) that there was an opposition in a different lexical set involving items such as topp in the Sogn dialect which corresponded to t?pp etc in the neighbouring Hallingdal dialect. This is a kind of hyperdialectism which I give several example of in Dialects in Contact (Chapter 2). -- Peter Trudgill FBA Adjunct Prof. of Sociolinguistics, Agder Univ., N Adjunct Prof., RCLT, La Trobe Univ., AU Prof. Emeritus of Eng. Linguistics, Fribourg Univ, CH Hon. Prof. of Sociolinguistics, UEA, Norwich, UK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 11:54:48 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:54:48 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:20:07 +1100." Message-ID: Patrick, Oh, I'd never claim that *all* reversed changes are deliberate; the reason I was focusing on deliberate ones is that that was what my paper was about. Elsewhere in the same paper I talk about correspondence rules (or what Jeff Heath has called borrowing routines) -- Alan Dench's Australian example from his salvage fieldwork in Western Australia is a wonderful instance. In his case the speakers were aware of what they were doing (at least when they were stimulated to think about it); but there too, there are no doubt cases where speakers apply correspondence rules without being aware of what they're doing. -- Sally _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 12:06:14 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:06:14 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:29:08 GMT." Message-ID: About Peter's comment: Well...I actually think we need to consider carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever since I got interested in this whole issue of deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that most changes are non-deliberate throughout their history. We have very little evidence on this point. I first heard about people making their dialects more different from the dialect of the guys next door when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate change, people have come up with new examples for me; one such example was a case of deliberate dialect divergence from Peru -- the people told the fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they retained their differentness from the people just around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately distorted the pronunciation of their own words in a rule-governed way. I do still believe that most linguistic change must be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account for (for instance) regular sound change. But I also think that claims that the vast majority of linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one might go about gathering evidence.) -- Sally Thomason _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu Sat Jan 26 14:51:20 2008 From: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu (Brian Joseph) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 Subject: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing In-Reply-To: <4577.1201349174@umich.edu> from "Sally Thomason" at Jan 26, 2008 07:06:14 AM Message-ID: Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). --Brian Brian D. Joseph The Ohio State University > About Peter's comment: > > Well...I actually think we need to consider > carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical > of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck > me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever > since I got interested in this whole issue of > deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that > most changes are non-deliberate throughout their > history. We have very little evidence on this point. > I first heard about people making their dialects > more different from the dialect of the guys next door > when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever > since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate > change, people have come up with new examples for me; > one such example was a case of deliberate dialect > divergence from Peru -- the people told the > fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they > retained their differentness from the people just > around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately > distorted the pronunciation of their own words in > a rule-governed way. > > I do still believe that most linguistic change must > be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account > for (for instance) regular sound change. But I > also think that claims that the vast majority of > linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky > ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. > (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one > might go about gathering evidence.) > > -- Sally Thomason _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From garrett at berkeley.edu Sat Jan 26 19:26:40 2008 From: garrett at berkeley.edu (Andrew Garrett) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:26:40 -0800 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <20080126180730.F1ABEDEFF6@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question remains unresolved. The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we don't yet know where the truth lies. -- Andrew Andrew Garrett UC Berkeley > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) > From: Brian Joseph > Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing > To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) > Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I > would like to add just a few observations; even if they are > not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate > forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked > by the recent postings. > > First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a > sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to > the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is > useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". > In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was > a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) > sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or > "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian > sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven > change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would > love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound > change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in > sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often > tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every > change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical > change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of > "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a > word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). > > Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though > they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark > of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection > all the time (Peter's. > > Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past > summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can > trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic > immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there > are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). > > --Brian > > Brian D. Joseph > The Ohio State University _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu Sat Jan 26 20:02:45 2008 From: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu (Brian D. Joseph) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:02:45 -0500 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <479B8970.70007@berkeley.edu> Message-ID: Andrew is absolutely right that there is the one remaining issue still to be resolved. At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me say that Rich Janda and I gave an answer to this (at least implicitly) in our 2003 paper on a "'big bang' model of sound change" (published in the Benjamins volume arising out of the 2001 ICHL in Melbourne, edited by Barry Blake and Kate Burridge). We located regularity in the initial onset of a sound change, where phonetic factors are paramount. We envision that as relatively brief (hence the parallel to the "Big Bang" in physics) and after that, extensions along a number of parameters are possible. One is further phonetic generalization (thus giving regularity of broader scope than at the initial "big bang" (and generalization to a broader set of input sounds is also possible), but lexical, grammatical, or social lines of generalization can be followed. To our way of thinking, the crucial thing about sound change proper is the phoneticity -- with conditions that are purely phonetic in nature (which we envision as the essential starting point, the "big bang") regularity follows automatically since that is the most elemental and the most broadly applicable type of conditioning. Once the forces of generalization set in post-big bang (assuming they do -- they need not), phoneticity can disappear, and there is no guarantee of regularity (though it could occur, as noted with regard to hypercorrection and other sorts of rule-governed behavior). --Brian Brian D. Joseph The Ohio State University Quoting Andrew Garrett : > While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's > comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or > sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the > jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the > question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of > unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound > change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' > thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the > regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for > example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation > will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation > on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to > appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological > generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a > changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in > other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity > effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. > as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic > traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide > Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the > President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of > this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) > encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial > home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question > remains unresolved. > > The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, > i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of > sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is > actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change > and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be > "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity > effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules > (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ > in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your > speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I > think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby > non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This > approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't > mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we > don't yet know where the truth lies. > > -- Andrew > > Andrew Garrett > UC Berkeley >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >> From: Brian Joseph >> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >> To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >> Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> >> Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would >> like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly >> on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them >> and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. >> >> First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >> sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >> the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >> useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the >> cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >> a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >> sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >> "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >> sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >> change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love >> it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >> change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >> sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >> tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >> change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >> change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >> "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >> word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). >> >> Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >> they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark >> of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in >> hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. >> >> Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >> summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >> trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic >> immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there >> are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). >> >> --Brian >> >> Brian D. Joseph >> The Ohio State University > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Sat Jan 26 22:32:26 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:32:26 -0500 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:02:45 EST." <20080126150245.sog0m187qoow0c48@www.ling.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: But I don't think Brian's approach will work to solve the problem Andrew raises. Years ago, when for some reason I read Yakov Malkiel's 1976 Language paper on a minor sound change in Spanish ("for some reason" because I am not a Romance specialist and Malkiel is not easy to read), I realized that the whole question of phonetic triggers of sound change is unanswered, for some or possibly even most changes. Malkiel's example was a case of monophthongization that started in a diminutive suffix, where -ie- was replaced by -i-. He showed that the change happened because of analogy -- ordinary morphological analogy -- to two other diminutive suffixes that had a monophthong -i-; the monophthongization change then spread to a couple of inflectional verb suffixes. Then it stopped: it didn't become a regular sound change. But clearly it *could* have done so: monophthongization of diphthongs is common enough in regular sound change, and the only reason we *know* that this minor Spanish sound change had an analogic trigger is that it never progressed beyond a handful of suffixes. If it had progressed to completion, monophthongizing all -ie- diphthongs to -i-, we would view it as a nice regular Neogrammarian sound change (and probably even Malkiel wouldn't have discovered the analogic source). In other words, even with phonetically reasonable sound changes, I don't think it's safe to assume that "phonetic factors are paramount" at the onset of the change. As we all know, many phonetically natural changes fail to occur; we don't know why the ones that do occur happen. It's possible that nonphonetic factors are frequently part of the trigger -- analogy in Malkiel's example, social factors in some other instances, who knows what in still others. The Rhenish Fan shows that what looks like a coherent set of perfectly regular changes didn't happen all at the same time, or even in chunks in all words at the same time, in the westernmost region of German-speaking territory. Suppose the Rhenish Fan didn't exist, and we had a completely regular (bundle of) isogloss(es) separating the region where the High German Consonant Shift occurred from the region where it didn't: wouldn't we view that as a quite ordinary example of Neogrammarian sound change? I think we would. So I think it's very difficult, and maybe impossible (given that we generally have zero information about the earliest stage of a regular sound change) to draw a sharp line between Neogrammarian sound change and other kinds of sound change. In some cases we can certainly point to non-Neogrammarian change processes in sounds, of course. But excluding those processes doesn't, it seems to me, give us a reliable criterion for identifying Neogrammarian sound changes before they've completed their run and turned out to be regular. -- Sally Thomason Univ. of Michigan _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From andersen at ucla.edu Sun Jan 27 20:26:01 2008 From: andersen at ucla.edu (Henning Andersen) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:26:01 -0800 Subject: 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' In-Reply-To: <20080126180730.F1ABEDEFF6@amanita.mail.rice.edu> Message-ID: Hi all, Regarding 'reversals'. Brian's suggestion that we distinguish between true sound change and socially driven changes reminds me of Kristin Bakken's (2001) paper "Patterns of restitution of sound change", which I edited a few years ago. In my discussion of the paper (2001: 8-9, 15-16) I went so far as to suggest a terminological distinction: "There are restorations, in which the loss of a constraint (say, through phonological reanalysis) allows underlying representations to resurface. Restorations are typically grammatically conditioned in that 'original' morpheme shapes are restored only in environments where they were subject to alternation. ..." "Distinct from such changes are restitutions, such as those exemplified in Bakken's paper, which ensue from contact with a closely related language variety (dialect or sociolect) with pronunciation norms that happen to be phonologically more conservative in some respect. ... in reality such restitutions ... do not differ from other phoneme substitutions in individual lexemes that may occur through dialect contact .... Such a set of restitutions or substitutions is not a phonological change--or even a single change in the sense of a bounded, internally coherent historical event in the given community's tradition of speaking. It is, properly speaking, just a subset of a series of individual replacements of local word shapes with borrowed ones, part of a smaller or larger relexification, motivated by the individual word shapes' greater utility in interdialectal communication and hence defined in pragmatic and semantic terms. The progression of such a relexification begins as an elaboration of speakers' grammars, as elements of a local tradition of speaking are matched with marked covariants appropriate for specified pragmatic purposes. It runs to completion lexeme by lexeme, as the traditional elements one by one fall into disuse, superseded by the borrowed, more widely used, more viable alternatives. ..." Regarding 'deliberate change' It is mostly valuable to draw the distinction between innovation and change. Evidently individuals can enter deliberately made innovations into usage. But whether deliberate innovations result in change depends on other speakers' adopting them and using them, eventually to the exclusion of other alternatives. Your academy or ministry of culture or big honcho can propose a deliberate innovation. But whether it will ever have any practical effect depends on the wisdom of the crowds. So in cases where the linguist doesn't have positive evidence of all members of a community wittingly and deliberately talking in lock-step, it is probably better to avoid the expression "deliberate change" and talk of 'deliberate innovations' and 'changes initiated by deliberate innovations' instead. --Henning Henning Andersen, UCLA References: Kristin Bakken's paper is in *Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress*, ed. by Henning Andersen, 59-78. I discuss it in the introduction. The full text is available on request >Send Histling-l mailing list submissions to > histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > histling-l-request at mailman.rice.edu > >You can reach the person managing the list at > histling-l-owner at mailman.rice.edu > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of Histling-l digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Sally Thomason) > 2. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Sally Thomason) > 3. Re: 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing (Brian Joseph) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:54:48 -0500 >From: Sally Thomason >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: "Patrick McConvell" >Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: <4274.1201348488 at umich.edu> > > >Patrick, > > Oh, I'd never claim that *all* reversed changes >are deliberate; the reason I was focusing on deliberate >ones is that that was what my paper was about. > > Elsewhere in the same paper I talk about correspondence >rules (or what Jeff Heath has called borrowing routines) >-- Alan Dench's Australian example from his salvage >fieldwork in Western Australia is a wonderful instance. >In his case the speakers were aware of what they were >doing (at least when they were stimulated to think about >it); but there too, there are no doubt cases where >speakers apply correspondence rules without being >aware of what they're doing. > > -- Sally > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:06:14 -0500 >From: Sally Thomason >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: <4577.1201349174 at umich.edu> > > >About Peter's comment: > >Well...I actually think we need to consider >carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical >of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck >me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever >since I got interested in this whole issue of >deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that >most changes are non-deliberate throughout their >history. We have very little evidence on this point. >I first heard about people making their dialects >more different from the dialect of the guys next door >when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever >since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate >change, people have come up with new examples for me; >one such example was a case of deliberate dialect >divergence from Peru -- the people told the >fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they >retained their differentness from the people just >around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately >distorted the pronunciation of their own words in >a rule-governed way. > >I do still believe that most linguistic change must >be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account >for (for instance) regular sound change. But I >also think that claims that the vast majority of >linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky >ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. >(I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one >might go about gathering evidence.) > > -- Sally Thomason > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >From: Brian Joseph >Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I >would like to add just a few observations; even if they are >not directly on target, I think this is an appropriate >forum to mention them and they are in any case provoked >by the recent postings. > >First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". >In the cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >"sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would >love it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >"other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). > >Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a hallmark >of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in hypercorrection >all the time (Peter's. > >Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most basic >immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent there >are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). > >--Brian > >Brian D. Joseph >The Ohio State University > > >> About Peter's comment: >> >> Well...I actually think we need to consider >> carefully whether we "agree that it's not exactly typical >> of what usually goes on". One thing that has struck >> me again and again over the past ten years or so, ever >> since I got interested in this whole issue of >> deliberate change, is that we merely *assume* that >> most changes are non-deliberate throughout their >> history. We have very little evidence on this point. >> I first heard about people making their dialects >> more different from the dialect of the guys next door >> when I read Peter's Dialects in Contact. But ever >> since I started giving talks here & there on deliberate >> change, people have come up with new examples for me; >> one such example was a case of deliberate dialect >> divergence from Peru -- the people told the >> fieldworker that they wanted to make sure they >> retained their differentness from the people just >> around the mountain from them, and so they deliberately >> distorted the pronunciation of their own words in >> a rule-governed way. >> >> I do still believe that most linguistic change must >> be non-deliberate. That's the easiest way to account >> for (for instance) regular sound change. But I >> also think that claims that the vast majority of >> linguistic change is subconscious are on shaky >> ground, as long as they lack evidence of any kind. >> (I admit that I haven't the faintest idea how one >> might go about gathering evidence.) > > >> -- Sally Thomason > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Histling-l mailing list >Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > >End of Histling-l Digest, Vol 13, Issue 6 >***************************************** ||||| Henning Andersen ||||| Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures ||||| University of California, Los Angeles ||||| P.O.Box 951502 ||||| Los Angeles, CA 90095-1502 ||||| Phone: +1-310-837-6743. Fax by appointment ||||| http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/slavic/faculty/andersen_h.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From epalancar at hotmail.com Mon Jan 28 00:41:43 2008 From: epalancar at hotmail.com (Enrique L. Palancar) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:41:43 -0600 Subject: Positions available in Quertaro , Mexico Message-ID: Dear Colleagues,The Department of Languages and Literature (Facultad de Lenguas y Letras) at the Autonomous University of Quer?taro (Universidad Aut?noma de Quer?taro) announces the opening of two positions. The positions are for a one-year full-time renewable contract, which is the Mexican equivalent to an associate professor. Payment is approximately ?14,000 Mexican Pesos a month (after taxes). The two positions involve teaching two courses a semester (mainly in the Master and Doctoral programs in Linguistics) and carrying out research in Linguistics. The University offers space and conditions for developing research projects. All applicants must hold a PhD. One position is for Syntax and related theoretical areas. Research in this area could involve theoretical approaches to language or descriptive work on an Mexican indigenous language. The second position is for Second Language Teaching and/or 2nd Language Acquisition. Research can be in any related area. Applications must be sent to docling at uaq.mx addressed to Dr. Ignacio S?nchez before the 15th of April, 2008. An application must include a vitae with a list of publications, academic presentations and teaching experience as well as one exemplar of a publication. Sincerely, Ignacio Rodr?guez _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From jhewson at mun.ca Mon Jan 28 04:05:14 2008 From: jhewson at mun.ca (John Hewson) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:35:14 -0330 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <28661.1201386746@umich.edu> Message-ID: I am happy to see this discussion, on problems that many of us have been mulling over for decades. I long ago came to the conclusion that sound change is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and that we need some kind of descriptive machinery that would make it possible to classify the different types. The true Neogrammarian kind of change is change in the system; it is not atomistic. When I learned (half a century ago) the sound changes from Latin to Modern French, we were lucky enough to be taught the early changes as systemic, and the rest then as atomistic. It was only later under the influence of Haudricourt & Juilland (1970) that I began to think about interpreting some of the later changes as systemic changes, and reported on the subsequent research at the 5th ICHL at Galway in Ireland in April 1981 in a paper entitled "Shifting Systems: Evidence for Systemic Change in French Historical Phonology" (Papers of the 5th ICHL:117-122) The early changes from Latin to Romance are very simple: (1) short vowels are laxed, and (2) all length distinctions are lost. Latin had 10 vowels: 5 cardinal positions, short and long. Early Romance had 7 vowels; 7 cardinal positions. All of that can be described atomistically, but it is quite complex, and a huge waste of time: i:>i:>i i>e>e e:>e:>e e>3>3 a:>a>a a>a>a etc, etc Vowels in open syllables then developed phonetic length and later underwent Romance diphthongization, which varies quite considerably from language to language, but can always be described in systemic terms. The next major shift for French was /u/ to /y/, a shift which is also found in Ancient Greek and elsewhere; the usual explanation is the lack of space for back vowels forcing the fronting of the high vowel. In such circumstances, this is a systemic shift, it is not atomistic, as it appears to be. The systemic consequence of this shift, in French, was the creation of two other front rounded vowels, high mid and low mid: more systemic shifting. The next major move is the shift of the diphthong /oi/ to /w3/, and later /wa/. This was taught to us completely atomistically: we were required to learn the sequence oi>oe>o3>u3>w3>, which I discovered is largely nonsense. What really happened was that the two new front rounded vowels were made out of two of the existing diphthongs, and to re-establish balance in the system of diphthongs, /oi/ was shifted from a closing diphthong to an opening diphthong /w3/ (details in my Workbook for Historical Romance Linguistics pp 38-40), the change taking place very rapidly. So it is essential to distinguish systemic change from atomistic change which also exists, in many curious ways, which may in fact require many separate categories It is also important to realize that we are all particularists or generalists by temperament. I am aware that I am a generalist, and Malkiel, for example, was a particularist, who given twenty minutes could talk for an hour on endless detail (which in no way detracts from my admiration for him and his work). I have found it very profitable to work with particularists, who are pleased to get the big picture from me, and and reciprocate by filling it in with pointillistic detail! (Malkiel, by the way was at the Galway conference. His only comment on my paper was to point out that my generalizations on the vowel shifts from Latin to Romance did not apply to the North African dialects of Latin! The Particularist responding to the Generalist: 98-99% yes, 1-2% no; there's always the exception that proves the rule...) Among the atomistic changes there has to be a category of spelling pronunciations. Since Caxton set up his printing press in Westminster Hall in 1472 (?), the way that English has been spelled has had a vast influence on pronunciation. Isn't it true that without our archaic spelling the /h-/ of modern English would have been long gone? And now it's pronounced even where it was never pronounced even in Early MnE: "an humble and contrite heart" from the Prayer Book of 1549. Latin *humile(m)* gave French *humble*, borrowed into English during the great period of bilingualism (1350-1450). Since the h- was not pronounced in Latin it was never pronounced in French, and there are still little pockets of dialects (in the New World at any rate) where it is still not pronounced in English. But for most speakers of English today the word begins with /h-/. Isn't this a classic example of reversed sound change? In that case it is both systemic (pronounce your aitches -- haitches in Ireland), and in the case of *humble*, atomistic: this particular item never had an /h-/ in the older forms of English: it never had an /h-/ that could be reversed. For a simple case of atomistic reversed sound change, consider the popular pronunciation of /t/ in *often* (the /t/ was lost in the 16th century). By contrast, the /t/ in *soften* is NOT pronounced: for this word the 16th century sound change is not reversed. John Hewson Memorial University of Newfoundland On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Sally Thomason wrote: > > But I don't think Brian's approach will work to solve the problem > Andrew raises. Years ago, when for some reason I read Yakov > Malkiel's 1976 Language paper on a minor sound change in Spanish > ("for some reason" because I am not a Romance specialist and Malkiel > is not easy to read), I realized that the whole question of phonetic > triggers of sound change is unanswered, for some or possibly even > most changes. Malkiel's example was a case of monophthongization > that started in a diminutive suffix, where -ie- was replaced by -i-. > He showed that the change happened because of analogy -- ordinary > morphological analogy -- to two other diminutive suffixes that had a > monophthong -i-; the monophthongization change then spread to a > couple of inflectional verb suffixes. Then it stopped: it didn't > become a regular sound change. But clearly it *could* have done so: > monophthongization of diphthongs is common enough in regular sound > change, and the only reason we *know* that this minor Spanish sound > change had an analogic trigger is that it never progressed beyond a > handful of suffixes. If it had progressed to completion, > monophthongizing all -ie- diphthongs to -i-, we would view it as a > nice regular Neogrammarian sound change (and probably even Malkiel > wouldn't have discovered the analogic source). > > In other words, even with phonetically reasonable sound changes, I > don't think it's safe to assume that "phonetic factors are paramount" > at the onset of the change. As we all know, many phonetically > natural changes fail to occur; we don't know why the ones that > do occur happen. It's possible that nonphonetic factors are > frequently part of the trigger -- analogy in Malkiel's example, > social factors in some other instances, who knows what in still > others. > > The Rhenish Fan shows that what looks like a coherent set of > perfectly regular changes didn't happen all at the same time, or even > in chunks in all words at the same time, in the westernmost region of > German-speaking territory. Suppose the Rhenish Fan didn't exist, and > we had a completely regular (bundle of) isogloss(es) separating the > region where the High German Consonant Shift occurred from the region > where it didn't: wouldn't we view that as a quite ordinary example of > Neogrammarian sound change? I think we would. So I think it's very > difficult, and maybe impossible (given that we generally have zero > information about the earliest stage of a regular sound change) to > draw a sharp line between Neogrammarian sound change and other kinds > of sound change. In some cases we can certainly point to > non-Neogrammarian change processes in sounds, of course. But > excluding those processes doesn't, it seems to me, give us a reliable > criterion for identifying Neogrammarian sound changes before they've > completed their run and turned out to be regular. > > -- Sally Thomason > Univ. of Michigan > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From peter.trudgill at unifr.ch Mon Jan 28 14:17:47 2008 From: peter.trudgill at unifr.ch (Peter Trudgill) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:17:47 +0000 Subject: Reversal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Isn't one of the most remarkable sound change reversals the reintroduction of rhoticity into fomerly non-rhotic American accents? It is not at all what one would expect on linguistic-internal grounds, overcoming as it does a strong phonotactic constraint, as well as consigning a number of vowels to extinction. -- Peter Trudgill FBA Adjunct Prof. of Sociolinguistics, Agder Univ., N Adjunct Prof., RCLT, La Trobe Univ., AU Prof. Emeritus of Eng. Linguistics, Fribourg Univ, CH Hon. Prof. of Sociolinguistics, UEA, Norwich, UK _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From thomason at umich.edu Mon Jan 28 15:45:15 2008 From: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:45:15 -0500 Subject: 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:26:01 PST." Message-ID: Henning Andersen's distinction is appealing, but the problem I was talking about remains: how can we know, after the fact and without documentary evidence, whether a given change was "true sound change" or "socially driven" change? I am increasingly convinced that the answer to this question is, we *can't* know -- in part because every linguistic change has both linguistic and social components. Part of the difference between me and Henning (and maybe between me and Brian as well) is that I don't think there is a "distinction between innovation and change" -- although Henning's view is certainly shared by at least some others, e.g. Lesley and Jim Milroy. I believe that any linguistic change, by which I mean change in a language (or dialect) has two necessary components: the innovation and the spread of the innovation through the speech community (including through the/an innovator's speech). I have seen assertions to the effect that the innovation is the change, and assertions to the effect that the spread is the change, but I've never seen any actual arguments to support the view that we have to decide which of these two processes should be given pride of place as "the change". To me it seems awfully obvious: no innovation, no spread; no spread, no completed change. You need both; neither, by itself, will get you a linguistic change. And the spread of any innovation has an irreducible social dimension (in some cases many social dimensions). So I believe that any effort to separate out the social aspect(s) of a change, treating only the linguistic aspect(s) OR only the social aspect(s) as "the change", is doomed. Deliberate changes that one can establish because of explicit metalinguistic evidence are the most spectacular cases I know of, but I don't think they are all different in kind from subconscious changes (though a few of them, like the massive gender reversal reported for a non-Austronesian language spoken on Bougainville Island, may be different in kind). And if deliberate changes are sometimes, often, or usually similar or identical, in retrospect, to (presumably) subconscious changes, what exactly justifies our traditional belief that the vast majority of changes, including sound changes, is/are entirely subconscious? Henning's image of all members of a speech community deliberately talking in lock-step is amusing, but -- sorry to complicate things further -- I see no reason why processes of change should be either all deliberate or all subconscious. I bet some of the people in F.K. Lehman's example reintroduced those consonants deliberately, while some of them just imitated others who were pronouncing them, without noticing what they were doing. But I don't buy the idea that the linguist has to have "positive evidence" of deliberate change before suggesting that it might have been a factor. (They used to say that about contact-induced change, as oppposed to internally-motivated change: internal sources of change were considered the default. You don't hear that so much any more.) Maybe the potential impact of social factors on "sound change proper" will eventually turn out to be supported by enough evidence to topple the comfortable assumption that it's awfully rare. -- Sally (Sally Thomason, Univ. of Michigan) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From Roger.Wright at liverpool.ac.uk Mon Jan 28 18:52:23 2008 From: Roger.Wright at liverpool.ac.uk (Wright, Roger) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:52:23 -0000 Subject: third component in a "change" Message-ID: A third necessary component (if it really is a "change") is for the previous feature with the same or similar function to drop out of use. This usually happens some time after the arrival of the new feature, and the period when both old and new features coincide can last for a long time, both being used and both being understood; and the variation doesn't need to be resolved necessarily at all. And even if it is, it can be the new feature that drops out, not the old. Maybe we should stop talking about changes at all, and concentrate on the arrival (linguistically explicable innovation and socially explicable spread) of new features; and study the loss of old features also if need be, but as a separate phenomenon - RW ________________________________ From: histling-l-bounces at mailman.rice.edu on behalf of Sally Thomason Sent: Mon 1/28/2008 3:45 PM To: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'reversed change' and 'deliberate change' Henning Andersen's distinction is appealing, but the problem I was talking about remains: how can we know, after the fact and without documentary evidence, whether a given change was "true sound change" or "socially driven" change? I am increasingly convinced that the answer to this question is, we *can't* know -- in part because every linguistic change has both linguistic and social components. Part of the difference between me and Henning (and maybe between me and Brian as well) is that I don't think there is a "distinction between innovation and change" -- although Henning's view is certainly shared by at least some others, e.g. Lesley and Jim Milroy. I believe that any linguistic change, by which I mean change in a language (or dialect) has two necessary components: the innovation and the spread of the innovation through the speech community (including through the/an innovator's speech). I have seen assertions to the effect that the innovation is the change, and assertions to the effect that the spread is the change, but I've never seen any actual arguments to support the view that we have to decide which of these two processes should be given pride of place as "the change". To me it seems awfully obvious: no innovation, no spread; no spread, no completed change. You need both; neither, by itself, will get you a linguistic change. And the spread of any innovation has an irreducible social dimension (in some cases many social dimensions). So I believe that any effort to separate out the social aspect(s) of a change, treating only the linguistic aspect(s) OR only the social aspect(s) as "the change", is doomed. Deliberate changes that one can establish because of explicit metalinguistic evidence are the most spectacular cases I know of, but I don't think they are all different in kind from subconscious changes (though a few of them, like the massive gender reversal reported for a non-Austronesian language spoken on Bougainville Island, may be different in kind). And if deliberate changes are sometimes, often, or usually similar or identical, in retrospect, to (presumably) subconscious changes, what exactly justifies our traditional belief that the vast majority of changes, including sound changes, is/are entirely subconscious? Henning's image of all members of a speech community deliberately talking in lock-step is amusing, but -- sorry to complicate things further -- I see no reason why processes of change should be either all deliberate or all subconscious. I bet some of the people in F.K. Lehman's example reintroduced those consonants deliberately, while some of them just imitated others who were pronouncing them, without noticing what they were doing. But I don't buy the idea that the linguist has to have "positive evidence" of deliberate change before suggesting that it might have been a factor. (They used to say that about contact-induced change, as oppposed to internally-motivated change: internal sources of change were considered the default. You don't hear that so much any more.) Maybe the potential impact of social factors on "sound change proper" will eventually turn out to be supported by enough evidence to topple the comfortable assumption that it's awfully rare. -- Sally (Sally Thomason, Univ. of Michigan) _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l From ebach at linguist.umass.edu Wed Jan 30 16:37:24 2008 From: ebach at linguist.umass.edu (Emmon Bach) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:37:24 +0000 Subject: Neogrammarian vs. other sound change In-Reply-To: <20080126150245.sog0m187qoow0c48@www.ling.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu wrote: > Andrew is absolutely right that there is the one remaining issue still > to be resolved. At the risk of sounding self-serving, let me say that > Rich Janda and I gave an answer to this (at least implicitly) in our > 2003 paper on a "'big bang' model of sound change" (published in the > Benjamins volume arising out of the 2001 ICHL in Melbourne, edited by > Barry Blake and Kate Burridge). We located regularity in the initial > onset of a sound change, where phonetic factors are paramount. We > envision that as relatively brief (hence the parallel to the "Big > Bang" in physics) and after that, extensions along a number of > parameters are possible. One is further phonetic generalization (thus > giving regularity of broader scope than at the initial "big bang" (and > generalization to a broader set of input sounds is also possible), but > lexical, grammatical, or social lines of generalization can be > followed. To our way of thinking, the crucial thing about sound > change proper is the phoneticity -- with conditions that are purely > phonetic in nature (which we envision as the essential starting point, > the "big bang") regularity follows automatically since that is the > most elemental and the most broadly applicable type of conditioning. > Once the forces of generalization set in post-big bang (assuming they > do -- they need not), phoneticity can disappear, and there is no > guarantee of regularity (though it could occur, as noted with regard > to hypercorrection and other sorts of rule-governed behavior). > > --Brian > > Brian D. Joseph > The Ohio State University > > Quoting Andrew Garrett : > >> While I am disposed by training and impulse to agree fully with Brian's >> comments, about the distinction between Neogrammarian sound change (or >> sound change proper) and other types of changes in sounds, I think the >> jury is actually still out on one crucial question. This is the >> question of precisely when regularity actually emerges in the series of >> unfolding events that we retrospectively see as Neogrammarian sound >> change. The view that was maybe implicit in some Neogrammarians' >> thinking, and that I have taught from time to time, is that the >> regularity effect arises in innovation and not in diffusion -- for >> example, that the very first person to have a changed pronunciation >> will (presumably) vary in whether s/he uses the changed pronunciation >> on any particular occasion, but that it will be just as likely to >> appear in all words that conform to the relevant phonological >> generalization. An alternative view is that the first person to have a >> changed pronunciation really does use it only in one word but not in >> other words that are phonologically equivalent, and that the regularity >> effect arises somehow in the process of sociolinguistic diffusion, i.e. >> as the phonetic effect (sound change) acquires some sociolinguistic >> traction. This view was propounded as early as 1901 by Benjamin Ide >> Wheeler (a Neogrammarian student and incidentally at the time the >> President of the University of California); the obvious disadvantage of >> this view is that it becomes unclear why we should (at least usually) >> encounter the regularity effect, but it's a view that finds a congenial >> home in much present-day sociophonetics. To my mind, the question >> remains unresolved. >> >> The relevance of the question is that if Neogrammarian sound change, >> i.e. the regularity effect, only arises in the course of >> sociolinguistic diffusion, then it is not so clear that there is >> actually a meaningful distinction between Neogrammarian sound change >> and socially driven change (assuming that we allow the latter to be >> "unconscious"). Indeed, Wheeler's own explanation of the regularity >> effect invoked precisely what Sally referred to as correspondence rules >> (borrowing routines): his idea was that (say) you produce a fronted /u/ >> in just one word, for example "cool", I hear that fronted /u/ in your >> speech and I know it corresponds to a non-fronted /u/ in my speech, I >> think you're worth imitating, and I generalize a pattern whereby >> non-fronted /u/ corresponds to fronted /u/ more generally. This >> approach also has obvious analogs in more recent Labovian work. I don't >> mean to say that I agree with this analysis, but it strikes me that we >> don't yet know where the truth lies. >> >> -- Andrew >> >> Andrew Garrett >> UC Berkeley >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 3 >>> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:51:20 -0500 (EST) >>> From: Brian Joseph >>> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] 'Reversed change' dialect borrowing >>> To: thomason at umich.edu (Sally Thomason) >>> Cc: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >>> >>> Greetings -- this discussion is most interesting, and I would >>> like to add just a few observations; even if they are not directly >>> on target, I think this is an appropriate forum to mention them >>> and they are in any case provoked by the recent postings. >>> >>> First, even though no one has actually said this, so in a >>> sense I am either responding to a straw man or preaching to >>> the choir, let me note that this discussion shows why it is >>> useful to be precise about what we mean by "sound change". In the >>> cases brought out here, the event that was reversed was >>> a Neogrammarian-style (i.e. regular and phonetically driven) >>> sound change, what I like to call "sound change proper" or >>> "sound change in the strict sense" (or even simply "Neogrammarian >>> sound change") whereas the reversing event is a socially-driven >>> change. Terminology is always tricky to be sure, but I would love >>> it if the term "sound change" were restricted to "sound >>> change proper" and some other term were invented for "changes in >>> sounds that are not sound change (in the strict sense)". I often >>> tell my classes that as paradoxically as it might seem, not every >>> change in the sounds of a word is a matter of sound change (analogical >>> change, clippings, tabu deformation, and so on are all the sorts of >>> "other events" that can lead to changes in the pronunciation of a >>> word that are not Neogrammarian sound change in the strict sense). >>> >>> Second, socially-driven events of change *can* show regularity (though >>> they need not), but typically lack the phonetic basis that is a >>> hallmark >>> of Neogrammarian sound change. We see this sort of thing in >>> hypercorrection all the time (Peter's. >>> >>> Finally, it reminds me of what I said at my ICHL presentation this past >>> summer, namely that when we get right down to it, social factors can >>> trump everything else in change (or everything except for the most >>> basic >>> immutable universal foundational aspects of language, to the extent >>> there >>> are any and if there are to the extent we can identify them). >>> >>> --Brian >>> >>> Brian D. Joseph >>> The Ohio State University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Histling-l mailing list >> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu >> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. > > _______________________________________________ > Histling-l mailing list > Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu > https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l Dear All, I think the paper Bob Harms and I wrote aeons ago is relevant to some of this discussion. Cheers to all, Emmon -- Professor Emmon Bach 22 Coniston Rd London N10 2BP UK home telephone: (0)20 8444 4647 SOAS telephone: (0)20 7898 4593 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: crazy.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Histling-l mailing list Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l