* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *


LINGUIST List 27.1471

Tue Mar 29 2016

Fund Drive 2016: Computational Linguistics and University of Washington Take the Lead!

Editor for this issue: Ashley Parker <ashleylinguistlist.org>

***************** LINGUIST List Support *****************

Fund Drive 2016
25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/


Date: 29-Mar-2016
From: LINGUIST List <linguistlinguistlist.org>
Subject: Fund Drive 2016: Computational Linguistics and University of Washington Take the Lead!
E-mail this message to a friend

Dear Subscribers,

We are pleased to introduce you to our LINGUIST List Fund Drive 2016 challenges! Here, we track our donations by university, subfield, and country. Our event has just started, and we already see the following leads in the different challenges:

Subfield:
1. Computational Linguistics
2. Sign Language
3. Psycholinguistics
4. Phonology
5. Syntax

University:
1. University of Washington
2. Indiana University Bloomington
3. University of Massachusetts Amherst
4. City University of New York
5. Morehead State University

Country:
1. United States
2. Spain

So far, we have received $3,096 in donations—a long way from our $79,000 goal. Please help us reach our goal and keep The LINGUIST List running for another year!

To make a donation, please visit http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/.

We thank everyone for their support, and are very appreciative! LINGUIST List relies on your donations, and cannot continue without them!

Sincerely,
The LINGUIST List Team

Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 29-Mar-2016

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About 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.