Editor for this issue: <>
Specific question: Does anyone have in emailable form the style information for submissions to Linguistic Inquiry? Our library seems to have discarded in binding the information published in volume 15(1), and I'm in a hurry to get a manuscript sent off. Proposal: it would be handy if on-line information on style requirements of linguistics journals was made available electronically. This would save prospective authors hunting down elusive style sheets, which libraries generously discard. An ideal place for such information would be in the archive files made available in association with the `linguist' mailing list. Any editors have this information on-line? If so, send it to me, and I'll organise with the editors of `Linguist' to make it available. marke.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Is there somebody among the readers of 'Linguist' who can give us some bibliographic information about the computational, cognitivist, or psycholinguistic treatment of compound nouns? Information about ongoing research is especially welcome. We are trying to set up a system that is able to analyze compound words in the sense that it returns -the morphological decomposition (which is rather straightforward), -an educated guess at the semantic relations between these morphemes (especially difficult with new compounds, for which no information about the global meaning can be present in the lexicon). Although were are especially interested in Dutch compounds, information on English compounds and Romance compounds (both fundamentally different in the sense that they are not written as one new word) will certainly be useful. To give you the flavour of our interests: the ultimate goal of such a system is to be able 1) to guess the semantics of totally new compounds, distinguishing grass specialist (some professor of botany), from grass specialist (a tennis player who is more likely to win in Wimbledon than in Flushing Meadow), and 2) to decompose electrical shock protection into (electrical shock) protection instead of electrical (shock protection). Please send replies both to Jan Dings and Lieve De Wachter dingsMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueet.kuleuven.ac.be lieve
et.kuleuven.ac.be