* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 19.2329

Wed Jul 23 2008

Calls: Cog Sci,Lang Acq,Psycholing/USA; General Ling/USA

Editor for this issue: F. Okki Kurniawan <okkilinguistlist.org>


As a matter of policy, LINGUIST discourages the use of abbreviations or acronyms in conference announcements unless they are explained in the text. To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Stefan Th. Gries, Frequency Effects in Language
        2.    Sylvie Hancil, Sentence-final Adverbials


Message 1: Frequency Effects in Language
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Stefan Th. Gries <stgrieslinguistics.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Frequency Effects in Language
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Frequency Effects in Language

Date: 28-Jul-2009 - 03-Aug-2009
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Contact Person: Stefan Th. Gries
Meeting Email: stgrieslinguistics.ucsb.edu

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Language Acquisition; Psycholinguistics

Call Deadline: 05-Sep-2008

Meeting Description:

a theme session at the
International Cognitive Linguistics Conference 2009, UC Berkeley

'Frequency Effects in Language'
Stefan Th. Gries (UCSB) and Dagmar Divjak (University of Sheffield)

Call for Papers

Contents
Within cognitive linguistics, the notion of frequency has long been recognized
as a vital part of many different aspects of linguistic representation,
processing, and change. Virtually every domain of linguistics has been found to
reveal systematic frequency effects:

- in first language acquisition, the frequency with which a child hears
particular words or patterns affects the ease/speed with which s/he
acquires these words and patterns (cf., e.g., Goodman, Dale, and Li 2007,
Tomasello 2003, Goldberg 2006);
- in diachronic linguistics, frequency effects have been shown to drive
grammaticalization (cf. Lindquist and Mair 2004);
- in phonology, frequency of co-occurrence predicts degrees of phonological
reduction (cf., e.g., Bybee and Scheibman 1999, Gahl and Garnsey 2004);
- in syntax, (co-occurrence) frequencies are correlated with syntactic
choices in language production (cf., e.g., Bresnan et al. 2007);

Cf. also Bybee and Hopper (1997), Barlow and Kemmer (2000), or Ellis (2002) for
overviews. In addition, the development of exemplar-based and
probabilistic psycholinguistic models of representation and processing has
provided cognitive linguistics with a robust psycholinguistic underpinning
from which to derive testable predictions. In spite of these advances, work
involving frequencies has also encountered problems that merit more
attention than they have so far received:

- often, linguistic elements are differently frequent in different corpora or
even different parts of one and the same corpus(cf. Schlüter 2005, Gries 2006,
Newman et al., in progress);
- the frequency estimates arrived at on the basis of corpora are often at odds
with frequency estimates obtained through experiments such as elicitation tasks
or direct frequency estimates (cf. Gilquin 2003, Nordquist 2006, to appear,
Divjak to appear, McGee to appear);
- there are more and more scholars who use the WWW to obtain frequency
estimates in spite of the fact that (i) such frequencies will again differ from
all others obtained and (ii) the WWW does not provide frequency data but
dispersion data; in addition, it is unclear whether, for the purposes of
cognitive linguistics, dispersion data would not be more appropriate than
frequency data as an operationalization of entrenchment; and, if that would be
the case, which of the various ways to measure dispersion would be most
appropriate (cf. Gries, to appear).

For this theme session, we invite corpus-based and/or experimental papers
that explore and discuss frequency effects from a cognitive-linguistic or
psycholinguistic perspective. Contributions from all sorts of domains (e.g.,
language acquisition, language development, or language processing) and
linguistic subdisciplines (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics)
will be considered. We are interested in empirical studies and
especially welcome submissions which discuss diverging evidence, i.e. different
outcomes resulting from using different methods.

Submission Procedure
Please submit:
What: your 500-word abstract (1'' margins, Times New Roman, size 12 font)
as .odt, .rtf, or .doc file
When: by September 5, 2008
To Whom: stgries linguistics.ucsb.edu and d.divjaksheffield.ac.uk
in an email with the subject heading ''ICLC 2009 theme session''; the body
of your e-mail should include:
- title of paper
- name(s) of author(s)
- affiliation
- contact e-mail address.

References:
Barlow, Michael and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of
language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen. 2007.
Predicting the dative alternation. In: G. Boume, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts
(eds.). Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal
Netherlands Academy of Science, 69-94.
Bybee, Joan L. and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). 1997. Frequency and the emergence
of linguistic structure. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of
constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37:575-96.
Divjak, Dagmar S. to appear. On (in)frequency and (un)acceptability. In: B.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.). Corpus Linguistics, computer tools and
applications - state of the art. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang, 1-21.
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing and
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24:143-88.
Gahl, Susanne and Susan Marie Garnsey. 2004. Knowledge of grammar,
knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation.
Language 80:748-75.
Gilquin, Gaetanelle. 2003. Prototypicality: Corpus vs. elicitation. Paper
presented at ICLC-8. University of La Rioja, Spain, 20-25 July 2003.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Goodman, Judith C., Philip S. Dale, and Ping Li. 2008. Does frequency
count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child
Language 35:515-31.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora:
some methodological considerations. Corpora 1:109-51.
Gries, Stefan Th. to appear. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in
corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.
Lindquist, Hans and Christian Mair (eds.). 2004. Corpus approaches to
grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McGee, Iain. to appear. Adjective-noun collocations in elicited and corpus
data: similarities: differences and the whys and wherefores. Corpus
Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Newman, John, Philip Dilts, Stefan Th. Gries, and Cyrus Shaoul. in
progress. Ngrams: Google vs. corpora. (working title)
Nordquist, Dawn. 2004. Comparing elicited data and corpora. In: Michel
Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). Language, culture, and mind. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications, 211-23.
Nordquist, Dawn. to appear. Investigating elicited data from a usage-based
perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Schlueter, Norbert. 2006. How reliable are the results? Comparing
corpus-based studies of the present perfect. Zeitschrift fuer Anglistik und
Amerikanistik 54:135-148.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of
language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Message 2: Sentence-final Adverbials
Date: 22-Jul-2008
From: Sylvie Hancil <smhttikihotmail.com>
Subject: Sentence-final Adverbials
E-mail this message to a friend


Full Title: Sentence-final Adverbials
Short Title: ICLC 2009/Theme session

Date: 28-Jul-2009 - 03-Aug-2009
Location: Berkeley, California, USA
Contact Person: Sylvie Hancil
Meeting Email: smhttikihotmail.com

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics

Call Deadline: 07-Sep-2008

Meeting Description:

'Sentence-final adverbials' will be proposed as a theme session for one day at
ICLC 2009. The purpose of this session is to examine a linguistic phenomenon,
which stills remains unexplored in non-Asian languages.

First paper call to a theme session at the International Cognitive Linguistics
Conference (ICLC) 2009, Berkeley.

Title of the theme session : « Sentence-final Adverbials »
Organiser : Sylvie Hancil (University of Rouen)

Description of the theme session :

Sentence-final adverbials in English are traditionally associated with
VP-oriented adjuncts, especially manner, time and space adverbials, whereas the
presence of clause-oriented adverbials is said to be rare and even problematic
in such a position. But the examination of recent spoken English corpora has
shown that they are attested in various dialects of English, such as American
English (see Barth-Weingarten (forthcoming)), American and Australian English
(see Mulder & Thompson (forthcoming)), Southern British English and Geordie
English (see Hancil (forthcoming)), to name a few.
Even though it is still an emerging process, compared to the use of these
particles in Asian languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean, this
phenomenon is worth exploring since it contributes to discourse coherence and
cohesion and it partakes of linguistic creativity in language.
The purpose of this theme session is to gather original research papers on the
interrelation between sentence-final adverbials and cognitive linguistics in
various types of language.
A special attention will be devoted to the analysis of these adverbials in
relation, but not exclusively, to the following topics :

- Grammaticalization theory
- Information structure theory
- Construction grammar
- Relevance theory
- Conversational analysis
- Iconicity
- Language contact
- Prosodic and phonetic features
- Sociolinguistic criteria

Submission Procedure :
Please submit an abstract of 500 words max., references included in .doc format
by 7 September 2008 at the following electronic address : smhttiki _AT_
hotmail.com with the following information. The subject heading should be: Theme
session/ICLC2009. The body of your email should include the title of the paper,
the name(s) of the author(s), the affiliation of the author(s), along with the
contact email address.

References :
Barth-Weingarten, D. (forthcoming). « You never know but » : Prosodic and
syntactic units in English conversational data. InLiSt.
Beeching, K. 2007. Social identity, salience and language change: The case of
post-rhematic 'quoi'. In W. Ayres-Bennet & M. Jones (eds.) The French Language
and Questions of Identity. London: Legenda.
Blöndal, T. 2006. Dinner or coffee or ... ? The interactive role of turn-final
'edda' (« or ») in Icelandic. Paper given at the ICCA, Helsinki, May 2006.
Erteschik-Shir, N. 2007. Information structure. The Syntax-Discourse Interface.
Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Fischer, K. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional
Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York.
Fischer, K. (ed.). 2007. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Studies in
Pragmatics 1. Amsterdam : Elsevier.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. & S. A. Thompson. 2002. Constituency and the Grammar of
Turn Increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson, (eds.), The
Language of Turn and Sequence, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 14-38.
Fried, M. & J.-O. Östman. 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: the
case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (11). 1752-1778.
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Hancil, S. (forthcoming). Sentence-final « but » in British English. In S.
Hancil (ed.), The role of affect in discourse markers. Rouen : PURH.
Hartmann, K. 2003. Background matching in right node raising constructions. In
The Interfaces, K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (eds.), Amsterdam : Benjamins. 121-151.
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar. BLS. 13. 139-57.
Kirsner, R. S. and V. J. van Heuven 1999. How Dutch Final Particles Constrain
the Construal of Utterances: Experiment and etymology. In Discourse Studies in
Cognitive Linguistics, K. Van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (eds.). 165-183.
Kirsner, R. S. & V. J. van Heuven 1996. Boundary tones and the semantics of the
Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg and joh. Linguistics in the Netherlands
1996, C. Cremers & M. den Dikken (eds.). 133-145.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. A theory of topic,
focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge Studies
in Linguistics, vol. 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maschler, Y. 2003. The Discourse Marker nu: Israeli Hebrew impatience in
interaction. Text 23. 89-128.
Maschler, Y. & R. Estlein 2008. Stance-Taking in Hebrew Casual Conversation via
be'emet ('really, actually, indeed', lit. 'in truth'). Discourse Studies 10(3).
283-316.
McCoy, S. 2001. Connecting Information and Discourse Structure Levels through «
Kontrast »: Evidence from Colloquial Russian Particles -TO, ZHE, and VED. ESSLLI
2001 Workshop Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Discourse
Semantics. Helsinki. Paper online.
Mulder, J. & S. A. Thompson (forthcoming). The grammaticization of « but » as a
final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic
studies of clause combining. Amsterdam : Benjamins.
Schneider, S. 2007. Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages : a
pragmatic typology. In N. dehé & Y. Kavalova (eds.). Parentheticals. Amsterdam :
Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C. & R. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue




Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.