[Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
Östen Dahl
oesten at ling.su.se
Tue Nov 24 11:11:48 UTC 2020
The problem with replacing one term with another is that the new term doesn't always cover exactly the same area. Not all primary data in linguistics arises from what we think of as fieldwork. For instance, data from psycholinguistic experiments would presumably also be primary data. And if you ask a colleague in the coffee room about their intuitions, that is also primary data. How about "community work" and "community data"? These terms are not precise but I think they give the right associations.
Östen
-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> För Sebastian Nordhoff
Skickat: den 24 november 2020 11:38
Till: lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
Ämne: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
On 11/24/20 11:24 AM, David Gil wrote:
> Following up on Martin's latest comment, I share his reservations with
> regard to the term "fieldwork". Having spent a few decades doing
> linguistics in Indonesia, I feel uncomfortable when people refer to my
> activities there as "fieldwork"; it has an undesirable distancing
> effect, as though the objects of my study were like rocks or plants or
> something. Or indeed "Naturvölker", or "indegenous people". The term
> "fieldwork" is unduly exoticizing of distant locations and peoples,
> while downplaying the fact that our own homes, workplaces, and circles
> of friends may also offer rich veins of data for linguistic analysis.
FYI, the term "fieldwork" is also used for linguistic and anthropological data collection in industrialized societies, eg court hearings.
In my view, "fieldwork" contrasts with "lab work" and, possibly, "desk work". It has no particular synchronic relation to crops or agriculture.
Best
Sebastian
PS: Incidentally, I have done a semantic analysis of the largest endangered language archives (AILLA, ELAR, TLA, PARADISEC) and have found a strong agricultural bias. The most common concepts retrieved from the holdings all refer to agriculture. Either those populations talk about agriculture all the time, or the fieldworkers make them talk about agriculture all the time.
>
> Moreover, given that linguistics is an empirical science, it's always
> struck me as rather odd to have a special expression that seems to
> refer simply to the most basic of research activities, namely,
> collecting and studying new data. "Primary-data collection", as
> contrasted with, say, "grammar surveys" and other uses of
> already-published data, seems to me to be a more appropriate term for
> what people often refer to as "fieldwork".
>
> David
>
>
> On 24/11/2020 11:48, Martin Haspelmath wrote:
>> "Bookwork" is nice, but isn't there a serious problem with
>> "fieldwork"? Sorry, this is a bit off topic, but it seems that just
>> as "grammar mining" does not sound very nice (to many people's ears),
>> "fieldwork" is not a suitable term.
>>
>> It seems that "fieldwork" derives from observational natural sciences
>> such as geology or biology, and it was adopted into anthropology in a
>> context when it was still strongly associated with archaeology and
>> "natural history": Populations outside the major (especially
>> European) civilizations were regarded as "Naturvölker" (= indigenous
>> people close to nature), and the term "fieldwork" fits naturally into
>> this earlier context.
>>
>> In a modern context (where this sort of work increasingly happens via
>> Facebook, Zoom, etc), it seems that a term such as "primary-data
>> collection" or "primary linguistics" is much better.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> Am 24.11.20 um 10:31 schrieb Guillaume Segerer:
>>> My vote goes to "bookwork". It contrasts nicely with "fieldwork",
>>> and also suggests that it is not only about grammatical
>>> descriptions, but also dictionaries, etc.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Guillaume
>>>
>>> Le 24/11/2020 à 10:28, Miestamo, Matti M P a écrit :
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> of all the alternatives suggested so far, I would vote for "grammar
>>>> survey(s)" as argued for by Johanna. The term "survey" has similar
>>>> uses in other fields of science as well.
>>>>
>>>> As for "grammar sampling", I would interpret it as building a
>>>> collection of grammars (following certain principles perhaps), but
>>>> not yet opening those grammars to extract data from them.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes,
>>>> Matti
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matti Miestamo
>>>> https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/matmies/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu> kirjoitti 24.11.2020 kello
>>>>> 7.02:
>>>>>
>>>>> What I usually use is "grammar survey(s)". I describe my main
>>>>> sources of information in cross-linguistic work as grammar
>>>>> surveys, dictionary surveys (or dictionary work), elicitation,
>>>>> corpus work (or corpus searches), and consultation with experts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Johanna
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Hartmut Haberland <hartmut at ruc.dk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Has nobody ever considered this here?
>>>>>> “Library science (often termed library studies,
>>>>>> bibliothecography, library economy, and informatics) is an
>>>>>> interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary field that applies the
>>>>>> practices, perspectives, and tools of management, information
>>>>>> technology, education, and other areas to libraries.” (English
>>>>>> Wikipedia)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my view, this means that the term ‘library studies’ is already
>>>>>> taken and cannot be redefined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hartmut Haberland
>>>>>> emeritus, Roskilde University, Denmark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Den 24. nov. 2020 kl. 05.27 skrev Bill Palmer
>>>>>> <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I very much like ‘grammar sampling’. The published grammars form
>>>>>> the sample from which we take our data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Professor Bill Palmer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> University of Newcastle
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lead Investigator, OzSpace project
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Landscape, language and culture in Indigenous Australia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vice-President, Australian Linguistics Society
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 3:22 PM
>>>>>> To: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about ‘grammar sampling’ instead of ‘grammar mining’?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, there is always the option of using a more descriptive
>>>>>> phrase. For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘A study based on a compilation of existing (language)
>>>>>> descriptions’, or shorter (if less precise) ‘a grammar
>>>>>> compilation study’.
>>>>>> ‘A study based on a sample of existing (language) descriptions’,
>>>>>> or shorter (if less precise) ‘a grammar sampling study’.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best — Juergen
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2020, at 7:39 PM, Maia Ponsonnet
>>>>>>> <maia.ponsonnet at uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello, I follow Bill and other about armchairs, but I don't mind
>>>>>>> the mining metaphor: one mines what is precious, think gold,
>>>>>>> diamonds... Perhaps my native French is an influence here: "une
>>>>>>> mine d'information".
>>>>>>> Cheers to all, Maïa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr Maïa Ponsonnet
>>>>>>> Senior Lecturer and Chair, Discipline of Linguistics Social
>>>>>>> Sciences Building, Room 2.36 Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and
>>>>>>> Education The University of Western Australia
>>>>>>> 35 Stirling Hwy, Perth, WA (6009), Australia P. +61 (0) 8 6488
>>>>>>> 2870 - M. +61 (0) 468 571 030
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on
>>>>>>> behalf of Bill Palmer <bill.palmer at newcastle.edu.au>
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 6:58 AM
>>>>>>> To: chao.li at aya.yale.edu <chao.li at aya.yale.edu>; Bohnemeyer,
>>>>>>> Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
>>>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For me armchair anything denotes amateurism, dilettantism, and
>>>>>>> claims extrapolated beyond what is empirically supported. An
>>>>>>> armchair expert is someone who makes pronouncements about
>>>>>>> something without any direct experience of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t love the mining metaphor because to me it suggests using
>>>>>>> data without the level of consideration and understanding of the
>>>>>>> empirical facts that careful comparative work based on grammars
>>>>>>> or whatever entails, as might be done by a machine algorithm. It
>>>>>>> suggests to me a degree of blunt force. Grammar mining is a
>>>>>>> really useful and important component, but the term doesn’t do
>>>>>>> justice to the full nature of what typological and comparative
>>>>>>> research involves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said all that, no really ideal term springs to mind
>>>>>>> instead. Library study also doesn’t entirely do justice to the
>>>>>>> work, but seems a bit better to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Associate Professor Bill Palmer
>>>>>>> University of Newcastle
>>>>>>> Lead Investigator, OzSpace project Landscape, language and
>>>>>>> culture in Indigenous Australia.
>>>>>>> Vice-President, Australian Linguistics Society
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Chao Li
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2020 3:35 AM
>>>>>>> To: Bohnemeyer, Juergen <jb77 at buffalo.edu>
>>>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about "grammar perusing" (or "grammar perusal")?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Chao
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 1:54 AM Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> ‘Armchair linguistics’ to me denotes the kind of study that is
>>>>>>> heavy on the theorizing, light on the data. I find it difficult
>>>>>>> to see how that would intersect with anything I would want to
>>>>>>> consider typology. (Perhaps the kind of study in the defunct
>>>>>>> GB/P&P framework that would look at two or three — likely
>>>>>>> related — languages and postulate a parameter would qualify.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get the negative vibe attached to mining (though miners may
>>>>>>> beg to differ), but to me (speaking as someone who’s married to
>>>>>>> a computer scientist), ‘data mining’ doesn’t have a negative
>>>>>>> connotation beyond the vague aura of scariness attached to all
>>>>>>> things IT/AI these days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which adds to the vague aura of scariness and depression (no pun
>>>>>>> intended) attached to mines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Juergen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 2020, at 1:16 AM, Nicholas Evans
>>>>>>>> <nicholas.evans at anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Martin about grammars being inexhaustible and
>>>>>>>> priceless goldmines, but with Johanna about 'grammar-mining'
>>>>>>>> sounding derogatory. I think that 'data-mining' still has
>>>>>>>> connotations of 'strip-mining' and exploitative practices –
>>>>>>>> though happy to be overruled if I am being oversensitive about
>>>>>>>> that. On the other hand for me 'library' remains very positive
>>>>>>>> (and also allows the possibility of thoughtful reading and
>>>>>>>> reflection of the contents of each grammar, rather than just
>>>>>>>> sticking them all in some python script) Best Nick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nicholas (Nick) Evans
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Director, CoEDL (ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of
>>>>>>>> Language)
>>>>>>>> Distinguished Professor of Linguistics Coombs Building, Fellows
>>>>>>>> Road CHL, CAP, Australian National University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nicholas.evans at anu.edu.au
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as custodians of the land on
>>>>>>>> which I work, and pay my respects to their elders, past,
>>>>>>>> present and emerging. Their custodianship that has never been ceded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on
>>>>>>>> behalf of Martin Haspelmath <haspelmath at shh.mpg.de>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 5:00 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Johanna Nichols <johanna at berkeley.edu>
>>>>>>>> Cc: <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>> <LINGTYP at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lingtyp] A terminological quandary: 'library studies'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every grammar is an inexhaustible goldmine that deserves to be
>>>>>>>> exploited.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> „Armchair linguistics“ sounds derogatory to me, but what‘s the
>>>>>>>> problem with „grammar mining“?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the 20th century, grammar mining studies had to be carried
>>>>>>>> out in libraries. But nowadays all you need is access to the
>>>>>>>> internet and some useful websites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there an alternative that‘s still better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 23.11.2020 um 06:42 schrieb Johanna Nichols
>>>>>>>>> <johanna at berkeley.edu>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know -- to me both "grammar mining" and "armchair
>>>>>>>>> linguistics"
>>>>>>>>> sound derogatory. We all want grammar writing to be taken
>>>>>>>>> seriously in the linguistics reward system, so use of those
>>>>>>>>> grammars is an honorable undertaking and deserves an honorable
>>>>>>>>> label.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Johanna Nichols
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 9:17 PM Ian Maddieson
>>>>>>>>>> <ianm at berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the term ‘armchair linguistics’ would have won the poll.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 2020, at 20:15, Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>>>>>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear all — Many thanks to everyone who participated in my poll!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There were 39 responses. Exactly one third, 13, recognized
>>>>>>>>>> ‘library study’ as an established term. However, nearly half
>>>>>>>>>> of those who did proposed what they considered better
>>>>>>>>>> alternatives. Meanwhile, two thirds of respondents did not
>>>>>>>>>> recognize ‘library study’ as a technical term.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of the suggested alternatives, the one that stood out for me
>>>>>>>>>> is ‘grammar mining’. Setting aside my lack of enthusiasm for
>>>>>>>>>> ‘grammar’ as a term for language descriptions, ‘grammar
>>>>>>>>>> mining’ seems to invoke just the right concept and has the
>>>>>>>>>> edge of pizzaz/sexiness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best — Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 21, 2020, at 7:40 PM, Bohnemeyer, Juergen
>>>>>>>>>> <jb77 at buffalo.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear colleagues — The purpose of this message is not to start
>>>>>>>>>> another debate on terminology. Rather, I’d simply like to
>>>>>>>>>> gather data on how this community views a particular
>>>>>>>>>> terminological choice. I created a survey that people can
>>>>>>>>>> take anonymously, which should take them all of 60 seconds.
>>>>>>>>>> I’ll be happy to report the results on this board. Here is
>>>>>>>>>> the link to the survey:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G953WP7
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The issue concerns the term ‘library study’, when used to
>>>>>>>>>> designate any typological research design that draws
>>>>>>>>>> primarily on existing language descriptions. I have long
>>>>>>>>>> considered ‘library study’ to be a well-established technical
>>>>>>>>>> term for this concept, and I’m unaware of equally
>>>>>>>>>> well-established terminological alternatives.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Within typology, ‘library studies’ in this sense would
>>>>>>>>>> contrast with studies based on
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * typological databases such as WALS and AutoTyp;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * primary data (prevalent in semantic typology; occurs more
>>>>>>>>>> marginally elsewhere);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * expert questionnaires (as opposed to questionnaires
>>>>>>>>>> administered to speakers and designed for primary data
>>>>>>>>>> collection; e.g. Comrie & Smith 1977, as opposed to Dahl
>>>>>>>>>> 1985);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * anything else?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m just trying to find out whether I’m an outlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, this is not about whether one finds the label fitting
>>>>>>>>>> or unfortunate. All I’m trying to determine is whether to an
>>>>>>>>>> audience of typologists it gets the intended meaning across.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! — Juergen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics 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 Zoom. Email me to schedule a
>>>>>>>>>> call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm open
>>>>>>>>>> specifically for remote office hours.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
>>>>>>>>>> (Leonard Cohen)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>>>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics 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 Zoom. Email me to schedule a
>>>>>>>>>> call at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm 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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ian Maddieson
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Department of Linguistics
>>>>>>>>>> University of New Mexico
>>>>>>>>>> MSC03-2130
>>>>>>>>>> Albuquerque NM 87131-0001
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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, Department of Linguistics 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 Zoom. Email me to schedule a call
>>>>>>> at any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
>>>>>> Professor, Department of Linguistics 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 Zoom. Email me to schedule a call at
>>>>>> any time. I will in addition hold Tu/Th 4-5pm 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
More information about the Lingtyp
mailing list