Abstract Submission....

[LFG List]

Dear all --

I don't think that the matter of the representativeness of
major national conferences, particularly the LSA, with respect
to different theoretical frameworks is as straightforward a
matter as Ivan suggests.  Certainly we cannot know for sure
if there is proportional representation of the submissions
in any given sub-field or theoretical framework unless there
is an audit of the review process whose results are made public.

Moreover, the under-representation of approaches at LSA meetings
extends to sub-fields of inquiry such as sociolinguistics,
psycholinguistics and language acquisition.  You can ascertain
this by comparing the accepted submissions in each area with 
the number of faculty in each area, as indicated in the LSA
program guide (you'll have to count the faculty by hand, though).
By any stretch, formal syntax (principally GB/minimalism) is
seriously over-represented.  

If I were a member of the program committee, I would be quite
concerned by this trend, even if the reason is a lower number
of submissions in non-syntax and non-GB areas.  The fact that
large sub-fields of linguistics might be alienated from what 
should be the national meeting for the field as a whole should
be deeply concerning.  Moreover, the areas excluded are areas
that form important bridges from our field to those outside 
our field, such as educators, policy makers and people in 
industry, connections that are vital to the health of linguistics.

A reason that people may be leaving LSA for other venues is
that the sense of audience for any given paper has gotten
increasingly narrow -- authors do not appear to realize that 
they should appeal to a broader audience than just the small 
group of other linguists who happen to share all their assumptions
and notations.  Such papers are exceedingly hard for members of
other research traditions to appreciate.  At a recent functionalism/
formalism conference I attended in Milwaukee, there was very
little communication across the functionalist/formalist divide,
despite that being the very aim of the conference.  People 
simply could (or perhaps would not) appreciate each other's work.
(And yes, I was the only person presenting an analysis using HPSG,
and I had an audience of perhaps half a dozen people).  

I don't want to discourage anyone from submitting to LSA.  If it
turns out that that is all that is needed then I would be quite
happy (I might even join the LSA again).  But I doubt that it is
all that is needed.  The problem is more widespread than one's 
favorite flavor of syntax; it encompasses the field as a whole,
and I think that serious attention need to be devoted to it at
the organizational level.

John C. Paolillo
Linguistics Program
University of Texas at Arlington