DOCSLIB.ORG

Letter from Chair Uw Linguistics Department

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Letter from Chair Uw Linguistics Department UW RTMENT STICS DEPA UW LINGUI Volume 1, Issue 1 August 13, 2002 LETTER FROM CHAIR I’m really pleased to aspirations of our department this Inside this issue: initiate the Chair’s column in this year. first number of our newsletter from A major preoccupation Endangered Language 3 the Linguistics Department of the this year has been our Computa- Revitalization University of Washington. I hope tional Linguist search that culmi- that it will serve to inform our nated with the hiring of John Gold- Fundraising review 4 alumni, supporters and community smith. In addition to his excellent associates, and to draw them to stay Alumni Experience in 5 publication record and international in touch with us. The Department Foreign Country reputation, he is very well qualified continues to be recognized for the to create the new specialization, excellence of our undergraduate of America this year. Jurgen Nostrand Professorship 6 since he has already established and graduate programs, the interna- Klausenburger published a single such a program at the University of Visiting Scholar 6 tional reputation of our faculty, and author book, as did Karen Zagona Chicago. We have forged an offi- our service. We are also making who was also keynote speaker of cial department relationship with 40th Anniversary 6 progress towards the goals we laid the Going Romance Conference in Microsoft through University Rela- Information out in our Strategic Plan (to be Amsterdam. She and I edited a tions. These efforts contribute to posted on the new website). We are volume dedicated to Heles the computational linguistics spe- Lectures on Campus 7 thrilled that John Goldsmith, cur- Contreras. Overall the faculty cialization, to ties with other lin- rently at the University of Chicago, produced 17 articles in refereed guists, to the development of a will join our faculty in 2003 to journals and 18 chapters in collec- protocol for faculty-industry inter- devote himself to the creation of a tions. Ellen Kaisse continues her actions and to internship opportuni- first rate Computational program. work as the principal editor of the ties for graduate students. Special points of Four of our faculty were awarded flagship publication in her field, major grants, and our Lead TA, During the past year, Phonology, while Mike Brame interest: Chia-Hui Huang, won the UW Linguistics faculty gave papers in spent his sabbatic year sleuthing Excellence in Teaching Award. Europe, Asia and the Americas (see Shakespeare’s true identity. Toshi • Celebrate 40 years Also, our funding for the Nostrand related story). Fritz Newmeyer—in Ogihara has raised enough money with the Department! Professorship in Language and addition to publishing numerous to sponsor the Semantics and Lin- Cultural Competence increased articles and giving a dozen invited guistic Theory (SALT) conference • Linguistics overseas dramatically. I’ll outline below the talks in six countries—is serving as next May, so now he’s into the • Nostrand Professorship most significant achievements and President of the Linguistic Society logistical planning stage. cont. on page 2... • Send your contact info! FUNDRAISING NEEDS FOR DEPARTMENT • Find out the latest news about professors, In 1970, public funds met 40% cannot maintain excellence with- student to present a paper at a of our budget needs as a univer- out your involvement of time, distant conference; $1,000 brings fellow alumni, and sity—today this figure is down to talent, and financial support. a scholar to Seattle for a lecture current students 14% and the trend seems set to or seminar. You will find an Your gifts make an incredible continue. The Department of envelope in this newsletter invit- difference to us. For example, Linguistics must, like other pro- ing you to renew your support of $25 sponsors one week's faculty- grams at the University of Wash- the Linguistics Department. We student colloquium; $100 pays ington, call on its alumni and hope that you will do so. Your the honorarium for a visiting friends to make a difference. We generosity is deeply appreciated. lecturer; $500 enables a graduate P AGE 2 UW LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT Letter from Chair Continued… Sharon Hargus received a grant of amount of instruction for non-majors, since they lected for the same honor next year. $192,000 from the National Science Foundation constitute about 50% of the population. We cap for a three year research project on the Alaskan our graduate program (which is very selective, The Department has benefitted di- language Deg Xinag’s lexicon and grammar. accepting about 15/80+ applicants), so we never rectly from the tech support that was provided by She’s starting work this summer with a trip to anticipate seeing growth in that area. the Provost this past year. Dan Stiefel, who Alaska. Alicia Wassink, Richard Wright and I works 50%, has served mainly in our Phonetics This year we reaped the benefits of a were awarded grants totaling $170,000 from the Lab, a state of the art teaching and research facil- Curriculum Development Grant from 2000-2001. UW Center for Mind, Brain and Learning headed ity used intensively by faculty and students at The grant permitted us to develop Powerpoint by Pat Kuhl and Andrew Meltzoff. My own every level. The wide variety of tools, the spe- slides and detailed interactive websites for Lin- project—funding one quarter research for me and cialized nature of the software and hardware, and guistics 100 and 200. Because the entire faculty five quarters for an RA—examines the acquisi- the high volume of use mean that the Lab is an rotates in teaching the introductory courses, they tion of Spanish by first graders (in their second important resource for researchers in and outside have been able to modify the curricular materials year of immersion) in the John Stanford Interna- Linguistics. to fit their needs. We were also able to offer a tional School. The Wassink-Wright project— new course on maintenance of endangered lan- funding one research quarter for each of them We have embarked on a major out- guages, taught by one of our graduates, Dr. Alice and five quarters for an RA—is examining per- reach effort to contact alumni, donors and the Taff, who works on Alaskan indigenous lan- ception of vowel length, particularly as it relates general public to make our research and teaching guages. The course—which made the front page to parent input to children. In addition, the Col- in Linguistics better represented in the commu- of the Daily—has proved of interest to Anthro- lege funded Alicia’s travel research trip to Ja- nity. To that aim we have established an Advi- pology and Ethnic Studies, as well as Linguistics. maica where she collected data in the field on sory Board which has met twice and has now embarked on a number of projects such as an Jamaican Creole vowel length. Another interdisciplinary effort— improved website, a newsletter, a Fortieth Anni- including letters of support from Psychology, In our undergraduate program, the versary celebration planned for June 2003, in- Computer Science and Music—helped Linguis- awarding of B.A. degrees has increased four-fold, creased visibility through community outreach, tics to garner a Walker-Ames Lecture position for from 12 in 1992 to 46 in 2000. From 1993 to and improved relations with local industry. Professor Ray Jackendoff (Brandeis University) 2001, we have also increased the number of to take place in May 2003. Linguistics and Eng- undergraduates served in courses for both lower lish supported the Communications Department division and upper division. The lower division nomination of a second Walker-Ames Lecture, courses serve non-majors at about 100%. Our Professor Deborah Cameron, who was also se- upper division courses also provide a significant Faculty NEWS In our first issue we’d like to introduce all of A&M) as editors of “Features and Interfaces in Sharon Hargus has published several articles our department professors and give you a brief Romance”, a festschrift for Heles Contreras. concerning her research in Yakima Sahaptin update from each of them on what they’ve been and BC, Canada Witsuwit’en. She presented at Ellen Kaisse’s research this year includes two doing this year! many conferences including the Athabaskan refereed book chapters and three professional Languages Conference, Native Languages and Frederick Newmeyer has been elected Presi- lectures (one in Spanish in Mexico!). She had Cultures and International Conference on Salish dent of the Linguistics Society of America for the honor of being and Neighboring Languages. 2002. The LSA is the main professional group- nominated a senior Sharon received a Royalty ing of linguistics in the US, with over 5000 scholar in the Simp- Research Fund for one year members! He has also published numerous son Center for the “Professor Frederick Newmeyer has been towards her research in articles and lectured all over the world. Humanities 2001- elected President of the Linguistics Yakima Sahaptin Lexicon 2002 and has three Jurgen Klausenburger has recently published and a three year NSF grant to works in progress on Society of America in 2002.” two single-author books, three refereed book study Deg Xiang Lexicon and laterals, vowel har- chapters and two reviews. Following the publi- Grammar. She also advised mony, and Argentin- cation of “Grammaticalization: Studies in Latin the Heritage College on pri- ian intonation. and Romance morphosyntax” in 2000, his orities for Sahaptin language research as they Coursebook in Romance Linguistics appeared Michael Brame has been working in the areas implement a recent award from the Mellon in 2002. He has made numerous of algebraic syntax and using linguis- foundation. For further details on Sharon’s year presentations at European confer- tic methods to determine authorship.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Is Language Typology Possible?
    Why is language typology possible? Martin Haspelmath 1 Languages are incomparable Each language has its own system. Each language has its own categories. Each language is a world of its own. 2 Or are all languages like Latin? nominative the book genitive of the book dative to the book accusative the book ablative from the book 3 Or are all languages like English? 4 How could languages be compared? If languages are so different: What could be possible tertia comparationis (= entities that are identical across comparanda and thus permit comparison)? 5 Three approaches • Indeed, language typology is impossible (non- aprioristic structuralism) • Typology is possible based on cross-linguistic categories (aprioristic generativism) • Typology is possible without cross-linguistic categories (non-aprioristic typology) 6 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Franz Boas (1858-1942) The categories chosen for description in the Handbook “depend entirely on the inner form of each language...” Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to The Handbook of American Indian Languages. 7 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) “dans la langue il n’y a que des différences...” (In a language there are only differences) i.e. all categories are determined by the ways in which they differ from other categories, and each language has different ways of cutting up the sound space and the meaning space de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. 8 Example: Datives across languages cf. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison 9 Example: Datives across languages 10 Example: Datives across languages 11 Non-aprioristic structuralism: Peter H. Matthews (University of Cambridge) Matthews 1997:199: "To ask whether a language 'has' some category is...to ask a fairly sophisticated question..
    [Show full text]
  • ED332504.Pdf
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 332 504 FL 018 885 AUTHOR Davison, Alice, Ed.; Eckert, Penelope, Ed. TITLE Women in the Linguistics Profession: The Cornell Lectures. Conference on Women in Linguistics (Ithaca, New York, June 1989). INSTITUTION Linguirtic Society of America, Washington, D.C. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 90 CONTRACT NSF-88-00534 NOTE 268p.; Produced by the Committee on the Status of Women in Linguistics. PUB TYPE Collected Works - General (020) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Administrator Attitudes; *Cultural Isolation; Deans; Doctoral Dissertations; *Employment Patterns; English Departments; *Females; Graduate Study; Higher Education; :,;tellectual Disciplines; *Linguistics; Mentors; Scnolarship; *Sex Bias; F.exual Harassment; Tenure; Trend Analysis; *Women Fulty; Work Environment ABSTRACT Papers on women in linguistics are presented in five groups. An introductory section contains: "Feminist Linguistics:A Whirlwind Tour"; "Women in Linguistics: The Legacy of Institutionalization"; "Reflections on Women in Linguistics";and "The Structure of the Field and Its Consequences forWomen." Papers on trends and data include: "The Status of Women in Linguistics"; "The Representation of Women in Linguistics, 1989"; and"Women in Linguistics: Recent Trends." A section on problems and theirsources includes: "How Dick and Jane Got Tenure: Women and UniversityCulture 1989"; "Success and Failure: Expectations andAttributions"; "Personal and Professional Networks"; "Sexual Harassmentand the University
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes
    Curriculum Vitae: Bruce P. Hayes Address: Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/ Telephone: (310) 825-9507 (office) (310) 825-0634 (Linguistics Dept.) Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976-1980, Ph.D., Linguistics Harvard University, 1973-1976, B.A. cum laude, Linguistics and Applied Mathematics Employment Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 2012- history: Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1989- Associate Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1985-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA, 1981-1985 Lecturer, Dept. of Linguistics, Yale University, 1980-1981 UCLA Linguistics 1 “Introduction to Language” courses Linguistics 20 “Introduction to Linguistics” taught: Linguistics 88B “Linguistics and Verse Structure” Linguistics 103 “Introduction to General Phonetics” Linguistics 120A “Phonology I” Linguistics 191 “Metrics” Linguistics 200A “Phonological Theory I” Linguistics 201 “Phonological Theory II” Linguistics 205 “Morphology” Linguistics 210 “Field Methods” (with Paul Schachter) Linguistics 251 “The Phonology of Syllables and Stress” Linguistics 251 “CV Phonology” Linguistics 251 “The Metrical Theory of Stress” Linguistics 251 “Lexical Phonology” Linguistics 251 “Segment Structure” Linguistics 251 “The Syntax-Phonology Interface” Linguistics 251 “Phonetic Rules” Linguistics 251 “Intonation” Linguistics 251 “Metrics” Linguistics 251 “Phonetically-Driven Optimality-Theoretic Phonology”
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Functionalist Linguistics: Usage-Based Explanations of Language Structure
    MARTIN HASPELMATH, 15 July 1. Functionalist linguistics: usage-based explanations of language structure 1. What is functionalism? prototypical representatives of "functionalism" in my sense: general: Greenberg 1966, Croft 1990, Paul 1880/1920 syntax: Givón 1984-90, Hawkins 1994, Croft 2001 morphology: Bybee 1985 phonology: Lindblom 1986, Bybee 2001 non-prototypical representatives: Foley & Van Valin 1984, Langacker 1987-91, Dik 1997 fundamental question: Why is language structure the way it is? not: How can language be acquired despite the poverty of the stimulus? primary answer: Language structure (= competence) is the way it is because it reflects constraints on language use (= performance). typically this means: because it is adapted to the needs of language users main problem: H ow can language structure "reflect" language use? There must be an evolutionary/adaptive process, perhaps involving variation and selection. 2. Two examples (A) Vowel systems: The great majority of languages have "triangular" vowel systems as in (1a) or (1b). "Horizontal" or "vertical" systems as in (2a-b) are logically perfectly possible, but unattested. (1) a. [i] [u] b. [i] [u] [a] [e] [o] [a] (2) a. [i] [I] [u] b. [I] [´] [a] This reflects a phonetic constraint on language use: Vowels should be easily distinguishable, and phonetic research has shown that [i], [u], and [a] are the three extremes in the available vowel space (e.g. Lindblom 1986). 1 (B) Implicit infinitival subjects: In many languages, the subject of certain types of complement clauses can be left unexpressed only when it is coreferential with a matrix argument: (3) a. Roberti wants [Øi/*j to arrive in time].
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion Into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    SANDIA REPORT SAND92–1382 ● UC–721 Unlimited Release Printed November 1993 Expert Judgment on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Kathleen M. Trauth, Stephen C. Hera, Robert V. Guzowsti Prepared by Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550 for the United Statea Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACO&94AL85000 ______ . ., ,, ,, Issuedby SandiaNationalLaboratories,operatedfortheUnitedStates DepartmentofEnergyby SandiaCorporation. NOTICE Thisreportwaspreparedasanaccountofworksponsoredbyan agencyoftheUnitedStatesGovernment.NeithertheUnitedStatesGovern- ment noranyagencythereof,noranyoftheiremployees,noranyoftheir contractors,subcontractors,ortheiremployees,makesanywarranty,express orimplied,orassumesanylegalliabilityorresponsibilityfortheaccuracy, completeness,or usefulnessof any information,apparatusproduct,or processdisclosed,orrepresentsthatitsusewouldnotinfringeprivately ownedrights.Referencehereintoanyspecificcommercialproduct,process,or serviceby tradename,trademark,manufacturer,or otherwise,doesnot necessarilyconstituteorimplyitaendorsement,recommendation,orfavoring by the UnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereofor any of their contractorsorsubcontractors.The viewsand opinionsexpressedhereindo notnecessarilystateorreflectthoseoftheUnitedStatesGovernment,any agencythereoforanyoftheircontractors. PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thisreporthasbeenreproduced directlyfromthebestavailablecopy. AvailabletoDOE andDOE contractorsfrom OfficeofScientificandTechnicalInformation
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction1
    1. Introduction1 Jeff Good University at Buffalo 1 Diachrony, synchrony, explanation, and universals Certain grammatical patterns are found again and again in the languages of the world. Some of these patterns recur so frequently that they are given the label “universal”. Explaining the source of such patterns is clearly an important goal of linguistics, but how to go about doing this is not obvious. Problems range from the terminological (what sort of patterns should we consider universal?) to the methodological (what kind of explanation will we accept as sufficient?) to the theoretical (what role does a universal grammar have in shaping recurrent patterns? what role do functional considerations play?). How one answers one of these questions will affect how one answers the others. Can probabilistic generalizations be considered universals? If so, then we need explanations predicting probabilistic patterns. Are we looking for proximate explanations (for example, “language A shows pattern X because it inherited it from its parent language”) or ultimate ones (for example, “language A shows pattern X because only this pattern is permitted by Universal Grammar”)? Will we assume there is no such thing as Universal Grammar? Then, of course, we cannot appeal to it for any sort of explanation. Will we assume there is such a thing? Then, what is its precise structure?2 The papers in this volume are concerned, in one way or another, with both the general problem of explaining recurrent grammatical patterns and the more particular problem of trying to understand what the relationship is between these patterns and language change. Since languages are simultaneously products of history and entities existing at particular times, it seems clear that both diachrony and synchrony have a role to play in explaining the existence of 1 “universals”, but where the division of labor lies between the two is contentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University Of
    Bibliography: Optimality Theory and Language Change Randall Gess, University of Utah The bibliography below is a compilation in progress. Please notify the author of any additions, at [email protected]. Anttila, Arto and Young-mee Yu Cho. 1998. Variation and Change in Optimality Theory. Lingua 104: 31-56. Baerman, Matthew. 1998. The Evolution of Prosodic Constraints in Macedonian. Lingua 104: 57-78. Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo. 1996. Stress and quantity in Old and early Middle English: Evidence for an optimality-theoretic model of language change. Rutgers Optimality Archive, 136-0996. -----. 1998. Prosodic optimization: the Middle English length adjustment. English Language and Linguistics 2: 169-197. -----. 1999. Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester. Bethin, Christina. 1998. Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Billings, Loren A. 1996. Sandhi phenomena and language change. Interfaces in Phonology (Studia Grammatica 41), Ursula Kleinhenz (ed.), 60-82. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Billings, Loren A. 2000. Review of Bethin (1998). Journal of Linguistics 36: 405-411. Blevins, Juliette. 1997. Rules in Optimality Theory: Two Case Studies. Derivations and Constraints in Optimality Theory, Iggy Roca (ed.), 227-260. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Sound change in Functional Phonology. Chapter 17 of Functional Phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Gess, Randall. 1996. Optimality Theory in the Historical Phonology of French. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. -----. 1998a. Alignment and sonority in the syllable structure of Late Latin and Gallo-Romance. Theoretical Analyses on Romance Languages, José Lema and Esthela Treviño (eds.), 193-204.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Ruette Looks at the Linguistic War from Fifty Years Ago, and the Situation Now a Battle Not the War
    Feature Linguistic wars Noam Chomsky in the 1960s Tom Ruette looks at The Linguistic War from fifty years ago, and the situation now A battle not the war Babel The Language Magazine | May 2014 29 Feature Linguistic wars uring the sixties “Chomsky proposed noun the shooting. Now, a quick and seventies, a reader will have noticed that fierce linguistic a psychologically the shooting of the hunters could war was fought much richer and also be a transformation of the in the United hunters are being shot. In that States over more attractive sentence, it is, quite unnervingly, Dthe position of ‘meaning’ in perspective on somebody else who is shooting at the linguistic system. Names the hunters! The shooting of the were called, voices were raised, linguistic behavior. hunters thus has two meanings: it indecent example sentences were He stated that is ambiguous. Chomsky elegantly given, and linguists assumed explained how language users invective pseudonyms and phrases can be can disambiguate the shooting of affiliations. This is the story of a elegantly derived the hunters by applying different not-so-typical academic dispute, transformations that result in the a linguistic dogfight that lasted from each other unambiguous phrases the hunters for more than ten years, fought by means of shoot and the hunters are being high up in the ivory towers of shot. The University. ‘transformations’, Relating transformations We start our story with with meaning was a central Noam Chomsky shaking and that these topic of Chomsky’s 1965 book up the linguistic field with transformations Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Slavic Generative Syntax*
    John Frederick Bailyn SUNY at Stony Brook Slavic Generative Syntax* "Language and its use have been studied from varied points of view. One approach, assumed here, takes language to be part of the natural world."1 1. Introduction The emphasis and consequences of research in generative syntax has changed dramatically in the recent past with the advent of Chomsky's 1993 "Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory", and the implications for the future of Slavic syntax are significant. Under Minimalism, perhaps for the first time in the almost 50 year history of generative syntax, the primary issue of theoretical importance concerns the motivation rather than simply the mechanics of linguistic computational processes. On this view, linguistic expressions are determined by cognitive output conditions involving the interfaces with the conceptual portion of the mind (the Logical Form interface) and the acoustic/perceptual portion (the Phonetic Form interface), and, in strongest form, nothing else. That is, all expressions result in a PF, LF representational pair, whose derivational history meets simplicity ("economy") conditions, indicating that human language may be a highly non-redundant system. If true, this would be a startling result for a biological system, and therefore a highly important hypothesis to examine critically, using careful empirical testing and analysis. The Slavic languages are thus thrust into the spotlight *This article is a revised version of the original 2000 article that appeared as part of the SlavLing 2000 project. The additional 15 pages is almost entirely a result of having tried to provide a somewhat complete bibliography of relevant work, especially outside what formal Slavists might normally be exposed to.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Generativists' Multipronged
    DISCUSSION NOTE Getting the word out: The early generativists’ multipronged efforts to diffuse their ideas Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington , University of British Columbia , and Simon Fraser University This discussion note revolves around the early days of generative grammar, that is to say the late 1950s and the 1960s. A number of commentators have claimed that MIT linguists in this pe - riod formed an elitist in-group, talking only to each other by means of inaccessible ‘underground’ publications and thereby erecting a barrier between themselves and the outside world of linguis - tics. I attempt to refute such claims. We see that the early generativists used every means at their disposal at the time to diffuse their ideas: publishing single-authored books, journal articles, an - thology chapters, and technical reports; aiding the writing of textbooks; giving conference talks; teaching at LSA (Linguistic Society of America) Institutes; and hosting numerous visitors to MIT. And in particular, there was no significant ‘underground’ literature to obstruct the acceptance of the new theory.* Keywords : history of linguistics, generative grammar, MIT, Noam Chomsky, underground literature 1. Introduction . As early as 1964 a commentator had written: ‘[T]ransformational grammar has established itself as the reference point for discussion of linguistic theory … it remains the case that it has been Chomsky who has effectively opened the Ameri - can linguistic scene to its present free and fruitful discussion’ ( Hymes 1964 :25). A year later, there was talk of a ‘Chomskyan revolution’ in the field ( Bach 1965b :111–12, Levin 1965 :92, Thorne 1965 :74). 1 How did the theory of transformational-generative grammar succeed so rapidly, that is, in seven or eight years after the publication of Syn - tactic structures (Chomsky 1957 )? The most important reason by far is that a wide spectrum of the linguistic community found the theory to be either correct or on the right track (for extensive discussion, see Newmeyer 1986 :Ch.
    [Show full text]
  • Where, If Anywhere, Are Parameters? a Critical Historical Overview of Parametric Theory Frederick J
    Chapter 25 Where, if anywhere, are parameters? A critical historical overview of parametric theory Frederick J. Newmeyer University of Washington, University of British Columbia, and Simon Fraser University Since the late 1970s, crosslinguistic variation has generally been handled by means of UG- specified parameters. On the positive side, thinking of variation in terms of parameterized principles unleashed an unprecedented amount of work in comparative syntax, leading to the discovery of heretofore unknown morphosyntactic phenomena and crosslinguistic gen- eralizations pertaining to them. On the negative side, however, both macroparameters and microparameters have proven themselves to be empirically inadequate and conceptually nonminimalist. Alternatives to parameters are grounded approaches, epigenetic approaches, and reductionist approaches, the last two of which seem both empirically and conceptually quite promising. 1 Introduction The existence of crosslinguistic variation has always been problematic for syntacticians. If there is a universal grammar, one might ask, then why aren’t all languages exactly the same? In the earliest work in generative syntax, characterizing the space in which languages could differ, whether at the surface or at a deep level, was not a priority. At the time, surface differences between languages and dialects were generally attributed to language-particular rules or filters. In the late 1970s, however, a strategy was developed that allowed the simultaneous development of a rich theory of Universal Grammar (UG) along with a detailed account of the limits of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic variation. In this view, syntactic com- plexity results from the interaction of grammatical subsystems, each characterizable in terms of its own set of general principles. The central goal of syntactic theory now be- came to identify such systems and to characterize the degree to which they might vary (be “parameterized”) from language to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Knowledge, Public Tensions
    PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS by Janet Nielsen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto © Copyright by Janet Nielsen () Abstract PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE, PUBLIC TENSIONS: THEORY COMMITMENT IN POSTWAR AMERICAN LINGUISTICS Doctor of Philosophy () Janet Nielsen Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology University of Toronto Propelled by a desire to understand natural language, American linguists of the post- war period brought the tools of the era to bear on the study of syntax: computer science, mathematical graph theory, and even Cold War strategy. Three syntactic theories were enunciated, each trying to untangle the mysteries of our ability to form and use sentences. These theories interacted on a nearly daily basis, influencing and challenging each other through the s. By the end of the decade, one had established clear dominance: Noam Chomsky’s theory, developed at . Combining contemporary history of science tools with linguistics-specific concepts, this study explores the dynamics of the syntactic theory- choice debates from to . I argue that these debates can only be fully understood through a confluence of four themes: explanation, pedagogy, knowledge transmission, and lay linguistics. Together, these themes explain how linguists selected and evaluated theories, how students were trained to think about and use syntax,
    [Show full text]