LINGUIST List 19.3407|
Fri Nov 07 2008
Qs: Survey on Linguists' Judgments
Editor for this issue: Dan Parker
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Survey on Linguists' Judgments
Message 1: Survey on Linguists' Judgments
From: Edouard Machery <macherypitt.edu>
Subject: Survey on Linguists' Judgments
E-mail this message to a friend
Edouard Machery (University of Pittsburgh) is doing a study focusing on the
judgments made by scientists working on language in response to a few
thought experiments in the philosophy of language. He is asking scientists
to complete a brief questionnaire (approximately 10 minutes). If you are
willing to participate, he will ask a few questions about your background
(e.g., age, gender). There are no foreseeable risks associated with this
project, nor are there any direct benefits to you. People younger than 18
are not eligible to participate. This is an entirely anonymous
questionnaire, and so your responses will not be identifiable in any way.
To contact Edouard Machery, please email her at the following address:
macherypitt.edu. Many thanks for your help.
If you wish to participate, please go to this site:
We invite you to send this e-mail to your colleagues and students.
Philosophy of Language
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.