[Lingtyp] Innovation of functional categories

[Dan I. SLOBIN]

Exactly, Juergen, I quite agree.  I formulated a similar position in a long
paper about acquisition and grammaticizable notions (Slobin, D. I. (2001).
Form function relations: how do children find out what they are? In M.
Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), *Language acquisition and conceptual
development* (pp. 406-449). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.).  Here
is a portion of that paper that is relevant to the current discussion
(attached).

Appreciating our parallel evolution,
as ever,
Dan



On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:05 PM Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
wrote:

> Dear Dan et al. — A couple of points here:
>
> 1. The view that the meanings of functional elements can also be expressed
> by lexical elements is often at best imprecise. A great example of this is
> the old canard according to which tenseless languages use adverbials that
> express the semantic contributions of tense markers. Having studied
> tenselessness up close and personal for a quarter century, I can assure you
> they do no such thing. If anything, Yucatec speakers use temporal
> adverbials less frequently, not more frequently, than English speakers.
>
> Also, there is no lexical item in English or Yucatec that expresses the
> meaning of the English past tense. Consider the following mini-discourse:
>
> (1) Sally got out of her car. She put on her mask.
>
> Try inserting _in the past_ or _formerly_ in either clause and the meaning
> changes drastically. The same is true for the Yucatec equivalent.
>
> The reason this doesn’t work: lexical items such as _in the past_ and
> _formerly_ express part of the speaker’s intended message, whereas tense
> markers do not, they are just a coherence device.
>
> 2. Which brings me to the question why no language appears to have
> inflections for color. As it happens, I’m currently working on a book that
> tries to answer precisely that question, or more generally, the question
> why the languages of the world have the functional categories they do.
>
> The answer, I argue, is parallel evolution driven by functional selection.
> There are certain kinds of meanings that lend themselves to facilitating
> communication by reducing the hearer’s inference load while in their
> grammaticalized form increasing the speaker’s production effort only
> minimally.
>
> Why does tense lend itself so much more to this kind of thing than color?
> Because with almost every utterance she encounters (every one except for
> generics), the hearer has to decide whether the speaker is talking about
> something that happened in the past, is presently unfolding, or may yet
> happen in the future.
>
> Even the most color-obsessed people in the world do not talk about color
> with any more than a tiny fraction of that frequency.
>
> Best — Juergen
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Dan I. SLOBIN <slobin at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting question, Frans – From the viewpoint of processing (rather
> than definitions of linguistic terms), basic color terms are similar to
> basic path verbs: high frequency, short, broad range within a basic
> category (“blue” and not “turquoise” or “cerulean”, “enter” and not
> “penetrate” or “invade”).  Many semantic domains are characterized by a
> small, fixed class of basic verbs—e.g., basic gait verbs like “walk,” run,”
> “crawl”; basic speech-act verbs like “ask,” “answer”; and many more.  As
> you note, manner verbs do not fit into such closed classes.  From this
> point of view, there is a cline from morphosyntactic to lexical expression
> of the same basic semantic classes (echoing Jan Rijkhoff’s point that
> functions of grammatical elements can also be expressed lexically and by
> other means).
> >
> > A question for a broader discussion might be why it is that some
> domains, like color and gait, do not show up toward the grammatical end of
> the cline (or do they ever?).
> >
> > (Sorry to miss seeing you in Berkeley.  I’m doing well in a sedentary
> state and hope you are too.)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dan
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:58 AM Uni KN <frans.plank at uni-konstanz.de>
> wrote:
> > What about basic colour terms, Dan?  They are a class (if you believe in
> “basicness” as class-delimiting), they are supposedly synchronically closed
> (max 11/12 or so), and they seem to be internally structured.  So, do basic
> colour terms (in any lg) share something — other than being a closed class
> — with case markers (in, let’s say, Turkish) that they don’t share with,
> say, manner-of-speaking verbs (in, say, English: growl, grunt, whisper,
> shriek, yell, moan, tut-tut …)?
> >
> > Good to hear from you.  We were already booked to come to Berkeley a
> couple of months ago, for the Germanic Roundtable of indefatigable
> Irmengard, but then we’ve suddenly had to become sedentary, not a bad state
> to be in, in principle ...
> >
> > Yours
> > Frans
> >
> >> On 19. Jun 2020, at 23:58, Dan I. SLOBIN <slobin at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let me throw another distinction into this discussion: closed class.
> The plural markers in Yucatec, for example, are such a class.  This factor
> is important on the level of processing.  In speech production, a Yucatec
> speaker can quickly and automatically access the plural marker.  Closed
> classes tend to be small, to carry general meanings, and to be of high
> frequency—all indications of their role in automaticity.  This factor, in
> my opinion, goes beyond what are traditionally treated as “grammatical”
> elements.  For example, the Germanic and Slavic directional particles are a
> small, closed class.  But the same can be said of directional verbs in the
> Romance and Turkic languages, among others.  A Spanish speaker does not
> innovate such verbs any more than a Russian speaker innovates verb
> prefixes.  The Spanish speaker quickly and automatically selects the
> relevant verb—entrar, salir, etc., just as the Russian speaker selects v-
> or u- as the relevant verb prefix.
> >>
> >> Regards from an engaged psycholinguist,
> >> Dan
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:51 PM Idiatov Dmitry <honohiiri at yandex.ru>
> wrote:
> >> Dear Juergen,
> >>
> >> I am aware of such concerns that some linguists may have. There are two
> issues here. Well, actually three, since you brought in inflection at the
> end of your message.
> >>
> >> The first issue is whether optionality is an accurate description of
> the distribution of a given morpheme in each particular case where it may
> appear to be optional at first sight. There are many gradations of
> “optionality” possible. I mentioned some such cases (discussed in detail by
> others) in my (2008) paper.
> >>
> >> However interesting the study of these various gradations of
> optionality may be, this issue is not really fundamental here. What is
> fundamental is that being a grammatical meaning is a property of the system
> of a specific language. A certain meaning is not grammatical a priori,
> universally. Admittedly, cross-linguistically some meanings turn out to be
> grammatical much more frequently than others (such as plural) and can thus
> be described as prototypical grammatical meanings, but still prototypical
> is not the same as universal. So, yes, if the Yucatec plural suffix is
> completely optional, plural is not a grammatical meaning in Yucatec,
> despite the fact it is a grammatical meaning in English and many other
> languages. Similarly, as you would probably agree that evidentiality is a
> grammatical meaning in many South American languages, probably you would
> not wish to say the same about English.
> >>
> >> The third issue is the frequent conflation of being grammatical with
> being morphologically bound. Grammatical pertains above all to meanings,
> not to the way these meanings are expressed. The fact that I said that
> derivational meanings are not grammatical, if you use obligatoriness as the
> defining criterion, does not mean that grammatical is the same as
> inflectional, as I briefly explain in that paper of mine (2008:155-156). By
> the way, I do agree with you that the concept of inflection is rather
> flawed and I try to avoid using it in my own work as much as possible.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Dmitry
> >>
> >>
> >> 19.06.2020, 19:57, "Bohnemeyer, Juergen" <jb77 at buffalo.edu>:
> >> Dear Dmitry — I think the typological literature on functional
> expressions has been warped by the obligatoriness criterion in unfortunate
> ways. To give you a simple illustration: Yucatec has optional plural
> marking on both nouns and in verbal agreement. The Yucatec plural suffix
> bears no obvious semantic differences to the English _-s_ suffix - it only
> differs from it in that it is optional (and in its phonological form,
> obviously). Should I not treat the Yucatec plural marker as expressing a
> functional category just because it is optional? That seems a rather
> suboptimal move to me.
> >>
> >> A similar problem arises in the literature on tense and tenselessness:
> if a language has a marker with exactly the same semantics as the English
> past tense, except that its use is optional, should we therefore consider
> the language tenseless? That would seem a mistake to me.
> >>
> >> My sense is that what we are dealing with here is just one aspect of a
> larger problem: theorists and even typologists continue to operate with a
> notion of ‘inflection’ that was developed on the basis and for the
> treatment of Indo-European languages. It’s a concept that seems
> unproblematic as long as you restrict your attention to languages that
> package inflectional information in fusional desinences that are part of
> strictly obligatory templates. Step outside this type of languages, and you
> begin to run into all kinds of problems.
> >>
> >> So what I’m saying is this: (i) optional functional categories are very
> real; (ii) they are at present brutally under-theorized; (iii) this is just
> one symptom of a larger malaise: a theorizing of the concept of inflection
> that is typologically woefully inadequate.
> >>
> >> (As a sidenote to Jan Rijkhoff and others: I like the term ‘functional
> expressions’ (irrespective of its provenance) as an updated label
> expressing pretty much the same concept as the traditional
> ‘syncategoremata’. But, I also believe that we should worry about the
> concepts of our terms first and the labels maybe second or third. I realize
> that that view is arguably a little ironic for a (moderate) Whorfian :-))
> >>
> >> Best — Juergen
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Jun 19, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Idiatov Dmitry <honohiiri at yandex.ru>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I would like to react to Kasper Boye’s summary of the “solutions to
> the problem of defining ‘grammatical’ on the market”.
> >>
> >>  There is also the good old solution of using obligatoriness for these
> purposes. It goes back to at least Jakobson and Boas, as expressed in the
> well-known quote by Jakobson “Languages differ essentially in what they
> _must_ convey and not in what they _may_ convey” (see
> https://linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-411.html). The criterion of
> obligatoriness results in a more restricted set of meanings being
> categorized as grammatical, as compared to Boye & Harder (2012)’s criterion
> of conventionalized secondary discourse prominence. Notably, it excludes
> the meanings of derivational morphemes. Boye & Harder (2012) do discuss
> obligatoriness as one of the possible way of defining “grammatical”, but
> dismiss it for a number of reasons, for example precisely because it would
> exclude derivational morphemes. As this kind of objections had been around
> long before Boye & Harder (2012)’s paper, it so happened that I discussed
> why I do not find these objections valid in my (2008) paper on the concepts
> of grammaticalization and antigrammaticalization.
> >>
> >>  Obviously, there is no absolute truth here and the term, in this case
> “grammatical meaning”, will mean what we decide it to mean. However, using
> one criterion or another will have different implications. In practical
> terms, I personally find it useful to have a more restrictive definition of
> “grammatical meaning”, for example because it’s easier to apply
> consistently.
> >>
> >>  Best wishes,
> >>  Dmitry
> >>
> >>  --------
> >>  Idiatov, Dmitry. 2008. Antigrammaticalization, antimorphologization
> and the case of Tura. In Elena Seoane, María José López-Couso & (in
> collaboration with) Teresa Fanego (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues
> in grammaticalization, 151–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:
> 10.1075/tsl.77.09idi.
> >>  (accessible at:
> https://filesender.renater.fr/?s=download&token=24ecb7f0-3d5f-48ad-8da0-bd739bd16d95
> ; it’s also available from my website, but the server has been down for
> some time, hence this temporary link)
> >>
> >>
> >>  17.06.2020, 20:11, "Kasper Boye" <boye at hum.ku.dk>:
> >>  Dear all,
> >>
> >>  I would like to first respond to David Gil’s comment on the problems
> of defining grammatical, then to follow up on Jürgen Bohnemeyer’s ideas
> about the job grammatical items do.
> >>
> >>  There are a couple of solutions to the problem of defining
> ”grammatical” on the market. One is Christian Lehmann’s (2015) structural
> definition in terms of autonomy; another one is Peter Harder’s and my own
> functional and usage-based definition (to which I think Bohnemeyer was
> referring in his initial message) in terms of conventionalized secondary
> discourse prominence (or backgroundedness) (Boye & Harder 2012; references
> below). Both definitions bring together morphosyntactic and semantic
> properties of being grammatical. For instance, being by convention
> backgrounded (that is, being conventionally associated with background
> meaning only) entails being dependent on a host expression: a background
> requires a foreground.
> >>
> >>  Based on our 2012 definition, Peter and I are currently working in the
> same direction (book in prep.) as Bohnemeyer. As we see it, the raison
> d’être for grammatical items is that they offer a shortcut to meaning,
> which may be inferable from the context: knowing by conventions is faster
> than inferring from context, even if inferencing is guided by expectations
> (cf. Lehmann’s remark earlier in this thread). In fact, they offer a cheap
> shortcut: representing background information they can be processed rather
> superficially and thus quickly by the hearer.
> >>
> >>  Looking now at grammatical items from the speaker perspective, it is
> clear that the production of grammatical items requires an extra effort.
> Not only does it require something extra to produce a grammatical item than
> not to produce anything, recent studies suggest that grammatical items are
> in fact a little harder to produce than lexical ones (e.g. Michel Lange et
> al. 2015; Nielsen et al. 2019). This may be seen as a consequence of their
> dependency: when you produce a grammatical item, you also have to consider
> which host expression to attach it to.
> >>
> >>  If we now look at grammatical items from the speaker and hearer
> perspective at the same time, a rather sympathetic picture of human
> communication emerges, a picture that can be characterized in terms of the
> notion of ‘audience design’: the speaker invests a little extra production
> resources so that the hearer can save a little processing resources.
> >>
> >>  Why then do languages differ when it comes to the amount of
> grammatical morphemes? Well, firstly evolution is not optimizing, but
> satisficing, and we can easily live without grammatical morphemes (our
> forefathers probably did; cf. Hurford 2012) – it puts an extra burden on
> inferencing, but we are quite good at inferencing. Secondly, phonologically
> concrete morphemes are not the only kind of grammatical items we have. Also
> construction grammar’s schematic constructions qualify as grammatical
> items: they are conventionalized as carriers of background info.
> >>
> >>  With best wishes,
> >>  Kasper
> >>
> >>  References
> >>  Boye, K. & P. Harder. (2012). A usage-based theory of grammatical
> status and grammaticalization. Language 88.1. 1-44.
> >>  Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41348882.pdf
> >>
> >>  Hurford, J.R. (2012). The origins of grammar: Language in the light of
> evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
> >>
> >>  Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on grammaticalization, 3rd ed.
> Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
> >>
> >>  Michel Lange, V., M. Messerschmidt, P. Harder, H.R. Siebner & K. Boye.
> (2017). Planning and production of grammatical and lexical verbs in
> multi-word messages. PLoS ONE 12.11. e0186685.
> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186685
> >>
> >>  Nielsen, S.R., K. Boye, R. Bastiaanse & V. Michel Lange. 2019. The
> production of grammatical and lexical determiners in Broca’s aphasia.
> Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1616104.
> >>  Link: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1616104
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Fra: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> På vegne af
> David Gil
> >>  Sendt: 17. juni 2020 14:14
> >>  Til: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>  Emne: Re: [Lingtyp] Innovation of functional categories
> >>
> >>  Dear Juergen and all,
> >>
> >>  My favourite example of an innovation of functional categories comes
> from some Malayic dialects of central Sumatra — see references below. For
> the most part, Malayic languages are completely devoid of functional
> categories; however, in some parts of central Sumatra, culminating in
> Kerinci, a system has developed whereby almost every word in the language
> has two forms, absolute and oblique, formally distinguished by complex
> rules of ablaut. The functions of the absolute/oblique alternation are also
> complex, but I'll mention just one of them, since it ties in to earlier
> discussion in this thread about the development of articles: in phrase
> final position, a noun will typically occur in the absolute, however, if it
> takes the oblique form it is interpreted as definite. McKinnon et al trace
> the historical development of the absolute/oblique alternation in terms of
> a coalescence of two separate developments: (a) the grammaticalization of
> erstwhile phrase-final phonological alternations; and (b) the phonological
> attraction of an erstwhile free form (cognate to Standard Malay nya).
> Comparative evidence suggests that these developments are very recent, and
> since there are no non-Malayic languages in the vicinity that would form
> the basis for a contact explanation, it seems pretty clear that the
> absolute/oblique alternation constitutes an internally-motivated
> development of a functional category.
> >>
> >>  Best,
> >>
> >>  David
> >>
> >>
> >>  McKinnon, Timothy (2011) The morphophonology and morphosyntax of
> Kerinci Word-shape alternations, PhD Dissertation, University of Delaware,
> Newark.
> >>  McKinnon, Timothy, Peter Cole and Gabriella Hermon (2011) Object
> agreement and ‘pro-drop’ in Kerinci Malay, Language 87.4:715–750.
> >>  McKinnon, Timothy, Gabriella Hermon, Yanti and Peter Cole (2018) "From
> Phonology to Syntax: Insights from Malay", in H. Bartos, M. den Dikken, Z.
> Bánreti and T. Varadi eds., Boundaries Crossed, at the Interfaces of
> Morphosyntax, Phonology, Pragmatics and Semantics, Studies in Natural
> Language and Linguistic Theory 94, Springer, Berlin, 349-371. DOI:
> 10.1007/978-3-319-90710-9_22
> >>  McKinnon, Timothy, Yanti, Peter Cole and Gabriella Hermon (2015)
> "Infixation and Apophony in Malay: Description and Developmental Stages",
> Linguistik Indonesia 33.1:1-19.
> >>
> >>
> >>  On 16/06/2020 04:48, Bohnemeyer, Juergen wrote:
> >>  Dear colleagues — I’m looking for examples of innovations of
> functional categories. By ‘functional categories’, I mean the ‘grammatical
> categories’ of traditional grammar, such as tense, mood, person, gender,
> case, etc. I propose a more technical definition below.
> >>
> >>  Here is what I mean by ‘innovation’: language families or genera in
> which the functional expression in question is (i) grammaticalized in one
> or more members or branches while (ii) being absent in others, with (iii)
> the balance of evidence pointing to acquisition in the former
> languages/branches rather than loss in the latter, and (iv) there being no
> obvious contact-based explanation for the emergence of the expression in
> question. (Of course one could define innovation to include contact-based
> innovation, but I happen to be specifically interested in innovation of
> functional categories in the absence of contact models.)
> >>
> >>  I realize of course that certainty about (iii) and (iv) is in many if
> not most cases not to be had. Consider for illustration the emergence of
> definite articles in Western Europe (Celtic, Romance, Germanic) during the
> “Dark Ages”. In this case, we can be certain that this was an innovation
> event due to the presence of historical records both from ancestors of some
> of the Indo-European languages that developed articles and from ancestors
> of those that didn’t. But when and where this innovation started, and what
> role (if any) contact with languages from outside Western Europe, such as
> Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, may have played, appears to continue to
> be unclear.
> >>
> >>  It is possible if not likely that some of the clearest examples of
> innovations of functional categories arise in creole languages. Of interest
> here would be creoles that have grammaticalized a functional category not
> present in either the lexifier or any substrate or adstrate language.
> >>
> >>  As a working definition, functional expressions in general (a
> superordinate category of functional categories in the narrow sense) might
> be defined as (i) morphemes that (ii) do not belong to any major lexical
> category, but (iii) enter into fully productive and compositional
> combinations with (projections of) members of lexical categories. This very
> broad and general characterization would encompass a host of subtypes. Of
> great interest to me is the observation that these subtypes are not uniform
> in how commonly they are grammaticalized vs. missing in the languages of
> the world. Some functional expressions, such as negation, occur in every
> single human language. Some, such as adnominal or adverbial expressions of
> quantification, apparently are present in all languages except for
> languages that rely on complex predicative workarounds (existential
> predication for existential quantification, conditional-like structures for
> universal quantification).
> >>
> >>  Contrast this with the subtype of functional expressions I’m
> particularly interested in here, such as tense, viewpoint aspect,
> definiteness, number, and gender, which are typically present in only
> between a third and two thirds of the samples of the WALS chapters that
> report on them. My hypothesis is that this difference in variability
> correlates with the communicative function of the expressions: expressions
> such as tense, number, and gender are typically (in the great majority of
> utterances in which they occur) not needed to express part of the speaker’s
> communicative intention, as the information they contribute is predictable
> in context. The grammaticalization of such largely redundant expressions
> apparently serves to reduce the hearer’s inference load.
> >>
> >>  This gradual pragmatic redundancy is from my perspective a defining
> feature of the class of expressions in question. Obviously, this doesn’t
> translate into a simple diagnostic. However, it aligns with relatively
> advanced degrees of grammaticalization (compared to things such as
> negation, demonstratives, or modals), and advanced grammaticalization in
> turn jibes with the primarily metalinguistic function of the expressions in
> question: they are always backgrounded, never express “at issue” content,
> and as a result can never be focalized except metalinguistically.
> >>
> >>  I hope that wasn’t too convoluted ;-)
> >>
> >>  Thank you in advance for your help! I will post a summary if I receive
> a sufficient number of responses. — Best — Juergen
> >>
> >>  --
> >>  David Gil
> >>
> >>  Senior Scientist (Associate)
> >>  Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
> >>  Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
> >>  Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
> >>
> >>  Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
> >>  Mobile Phone (Israel): +972-556825895
> >>  Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81344082091
> >>  ,
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Lingtyp mailing list
> >>  Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>  http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> >>  _______________________________________________
> >>  Lingtyp mailing list
> >>  Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >>  http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> >> Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
> >> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science
> >> University at Buffalo
> >>
> >> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> >> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> >> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> >> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> >> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> >> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
> >>
> >> Office hours will be held by Skype, WebEx, or phone until further
> notice. Email me to schedule a call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu
> 12:30-1:30 and Th 2:30-3:20 open specifically for remote office hours.
> >>
> >> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> >> (Leonard Cohen)
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> >> Dan I. Slobin
> >> Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
> >> University of California, Berkeley
> >> email: slobin at berkeley.edu
> >> address: 2323 Rose St., Berkeley, CA 94708
> >> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lingtyp mailing list
> >> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> >> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > Dan I. Slobin
> > Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics
> > University of California, Berkeley
> > email: slobin at berkeley.edu
> > address: 2323 Rose St., Berkeley, CA 94708
> > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lingtyp mailing list
> > Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
> > http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
> --
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
> Department of Linguistics and Center for Cognitive Science
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/
>
> Office hours will be held by Skype, WebEx, or phone until further notice.
> Email me to schedule a call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu
> 12:30-1:30 and Th 2:30-3:20 open specifically for remote office hours.
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
>

-- 

*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *

*Dan I. Slobin *

*Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Linguistics*

*University of California, Berkeley*

*email: slobin at berkeley.edu <slobin at berkeley.edu>*

*address: 2323 Rose St., Berkeley, CA 94708*

*<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200620/e4fc62f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Doc2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20200620/e4fc62f9/attachment.pdf>