This paper discusses the aspectual particle po in Albanian. The etymology and use of the particle... more This paper discusses the aspectual particle po in Albanian. The etymology and use of the particle is discussed in relation to its Indo-European background, its Balkan context and its position within the grammatical system of Albanian.
I explore here how aware speakers are of the history of their language as they use it and how awa... more I explore here how aware speakers are of the history of their language as they use it and how aware of typology they are. I advocate for a speaker-oriented viewpoint and argue ultimately that speakers know little to nothing about language history and less about typology, and yet they behave in ways that essentially create typology and history. I offer a number of examples, mainly from Sanskrit and Greek, covering sound change and grammatical change and discuss issues regarding naturalness, gradualness, and social indexing.
ABSTRACT As a longtime member, since 1976, of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), and having... more ABSTRACT As a longtime member, since 1976, of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), and having a firm belief in the value of the LSA, I of course find it disconcerting to hear that any member is dissatisfied with the Society. Thus I was distressed to read the letter by Sean Fulop that was recently published in this journal (Fulop 2010), since not only does he levy criticism at the LSA and at its journal, Language, but he also states that he is giving up his LSA membership. I feel compelled to respond in some way, especially since the issues raised by this letter merit the attention of all members of the LSA. It is probably inevitable that some members will become disaffected with any society’s policies and workings, so that the adage that ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time’ surely applies to the LSA and, realistically, to any such body. Yet it is to be hoped that each new generation of linguists will recognize the tangible benefits of LSA membership, such as participation in the annual meeting and the biennial Linguistic Institute, as well as the intangible benefits, such as professional identification. And, among the benefits, one needs to count the Society’s journal, despite Dr. Fulop’s very pointed criticisms of it. In his critique, Dr. Fulop compared Language, and by extension its sponsoring society, the LSA, to (among others) Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (JASA), associated with the Acoustical Society of America, and Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, associated with the Cognitive Science Society, and drew attention especially to the number of articles in a typical volume of Language and the number found in those other journals, and to the criteria by which articles are selected for publication. With regard to the former, he noted that members of the LSA ‘are treated to perhaps two dozen research papers per year’, while each of the other journals in his comparison set publishes ‘many dozens of papers per year’. His interpretation of those numbers casts a highly negative light on Language, as, in his estimation, the ratio of the cost of the journal through LSA membership to the benefits of being a member is to Language’s disadvantage compared to the other societies and their associated journals. Those criticisms deserve a response for several reasons, not the least of which is that the negative view that they offer of Language’s ‘numbers’ is not as justified as it might at first seem. Further, though, they raise broader issues about the nature and value of a scientific journal’s contents and of membership in scholarly societies more generally. My response is based in part on aspects of the inner workings of the journal that would undoubtedly be useful for all members to know about before they engage in their own similar sort of comparative exercise. As with the comparative method in historical linguistics, about which my mentor Calvert Watkins said that the first and most crucial step is knowing what to compare, some of the comparisons made here are not as cogent as one might think. First, the economic side of producing the journal must be considered. The LSA, based on its budget, allocates to Language the wherewithal to publish approximately 950 pages densely packed with linguistic content each year, and pages cost money to produce, from paying copyeditors to ensure that the journal’s material has a consistent and professional look to the cost of paper and shipping and such. The number of pages is thus in part a function of the LSA’s resources and has to be measured against other demands on the society’s budget (the LSA Institute, for instance). There may well be ways of cutting Language-specific costs that could in principle allow for more pages and more articles, and the LSA leadership has made many steps in that direction, including this year’s ‘transition from Maryland Composition to Dartmouth Journal Services’ in regard to actual production of each issue (referred to in Carlson 2010). One means that was often mentioned when I was editor, however, namely moving to electronic- only dissemination, while certainly allowing for...
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2002
Much of linguistic analysis rests on a single key question: given entities X and Y as objects for... more Much of linguistic analysis rests on a single key question: given entities X and Y as objects for analysis, are they the same or different? This issue pervades all components of grammar: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. Moreover, in addressing this issue, one often needs to recognize the relevance of different levels of analysis, especially underlying versus surface, since underlying sameness can be surface difference, and vice versa. For example, phonemic analysis takes phones with decidedly different phonetic realizations (e.g. aspirated vs. unaspirated stops in English) and treats them as the same at the phonemic level if their distribution does not overlap. But at the same time, segments that seem to be the same phonetically on the surface and even phonemically as well, e.g. the [d] of recede and the [d] of invade, might need to be treated as different from a morphophonemic standpoint, since, in this example, the former alternates with [s] in the related noun reces...
ABSTRACT One of the annual tasks expected of me as editor is the preparation of a report to the E... more ABSTRACT One of the annual tasks expected of me as editor is the preparation of a report to the Executive Committee of the Linguistic Society of America, submitted at the annual meeting in January. I have actually enjoyed fulfilling this duty over the past six years, as it provides me with the opportunity to take stock of what the past year at Language has brought in the way of activities and matters pertaining to the journal’s operations and policies, and it allows me to note any new developments of relevance involving the journal and to address any topics that I or the Executive Committee see as important. Following my now-established custom, this Annual Report, my sixth ‘State-of-the-Journal’ address, as it were, appears here in place of my more usual editorial comments in this section of the journal. The version printed here is essentially what was submitted to the Executive Committee in January, though with footnoted updates, embellishments, elaborations, and corrections as appropriate, as well as some minor editorial and typographical adjustments. As I am composing this report, I am within hailing distance of the end of my term as editor of Language, with less than thirteen months to go (but who’s counting?) and the search for a successor under way and presumably drawing to a close. The December 2007 issue has been put to bed and is in the hands of the printers, so that the number of issues that remain under my purview is down to just four, a single year’s worth. While this might be considered a time for nostalgia and reflection, I plan to refrain from that here and rather will include any such musings in my remaining Editor’s Department and in my final report. For me this past year has been an interesting one (there is never a dull moment in the Language office!), and the editorial demands on me remain as stimulating and challenging as they ever have been. Fortunately, in just about every aspect of operations for the journal, all continues to go smoothly. In what follows, I chronicle the highlights of the past year and point to what is coming up in my final year of service, with a few items for action by the Executive Committee. I start, though, with a numerical overview of volume 83, including any relevant commentary needed to elucidate the statistics. Volume 83 contained the usual four issues, and, continuing a streak started in my second year with the September 2003 issue (79.3), all four issues appeared on time, being mailed out to LSA members by around the third week of the month in which they were due to appear (March, June, September, and December). While a lapse on the part of the compositors kept the September issue (83.3) from being posted electronically on Project Muse on time, that oversight has been rectified and it seems to have been a one-time problem. We continue to lay the groundwork for future issues, with the March 2008 issue (84.1) already in the works, and the papers for the June 2008 issue (84.2) being lined up as well. Thus, Language’s overall record of on-time delivery of the goods continues and is certain to continue throughout the coming year. The four issues of volume 83 contained 951 numbered pages. Of that number, 599 pages were devoted to 18 articles, 26 to 2 short reports, 21 to 1 review article, 28 to 3 obituaries, 111 to 35 reviews, 98 to 140 book notices, and 68 to other sorts of material (letters: 5 pages for 4 letters; Editor’s Department columns: 18 pages for 4 pieces, including the annual Editor’s Report; Recent Publications lists: 18 pages for 4 lists; index: 22 pages; job ads erroneously numbered in one issue: 2 pages; dedications: 2 pages; correction: 1 page). All of these numbers are roughly comparable to those from the previous year. The total of 951 pages is down a bit from last year’s 991 but more than the original target of 900 pages that I started with in 2002. It...
This paper discusses the aspectual particle po in Albanian. The etymology and use of the particle... more This paper discusses the aspectual particle po in Albanian. The etymology and use of the particle is discussed in relation to its Indo-European background, its Balkan context and its position within the grammatical system of Albanian.
I explore here how aware speakers are of the history of their language as they use it and how awa... more I explore here how aware speakers are of the history of their language as they use it and how aware of typology they are. I advocate for a speaker-oriented viewpoint and argue ultimately that speakers know little to nothing about language history and less about typology, and yet they behave in ways that essentially create typology and history. I offer a number of examples, mainly from Sanskrit and Greek, covering sound change and grammatical change and discuss issues regarding naturalness, gradualness, and social indexing.
ABSTRACT As a longtime member, since 1976, of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), and having... more ABSTRACT As a longtime member, since 1976, of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), and having a firm belief in the value of the LSA, I of course find it disconcerting to hear that any member is dissatisfied with the Society. Thus I was distressed to read the letter by Sean Fulop that was recently published in this journal (Fulop 2010), since not only does he levy criticism at the LSA and at its journal, Language, but he also states that he is giving up his LSA membership. I feel compelled to respond in some way, especially since the issues raised by this letter merit the attention of all members of the LSA. It is probably inevitable that some members will become disaffected with any society’s policies and workings, so that the adage that ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time’ surely applies to the LSA and, realistically, to any such body. Yet it is to be hoped that each new generation of linguists will recognize the tangible benefits of LSA membership, such as participation in the annual meeting and the biennial Linguistic Institute, as well as the intangible benefits, such as professional identification. And, among the benefits, one needs to count the Society’s journal, despite Dr. Fulop’s very pointed criticisms of it. In his critique, Dr. Fulop compared Language, and by extension its sponsoring society, the LSA, to (among others) Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (JASA), associated with the Acoustical Society of America, and Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, associated with the Cognitive Science Society, and drew attention especially to the number of articles in a typical volume of Language and the number found in those other journals, and to the criteria by which articles are selected for publication. With regard to the former, he noted that members of the LSA ‘are treated to perhaps two dozen research papers per year’, while each of the other journals in his comparison set publishes ‘many dozens of papers per year’. His interpretation of those numbers casts a highly negative light on Language, as, in his estimation, the ratio of the cost of the journal through LSA membership to the benefits of being a member is to Language’s disadvantage compared to the other societies and their associated journals. Those criticisms deserve a response for several reasons, not the least of which is that the negative view that they offer of Language’s ‘numbers’ is not as justified as it might at first seem. Further, though, they raise broader issues about the nature and value of a scientific journal’s contents and of membership in scholarly societies more generally. My response is based in part on aspects of the inner workings of the journal that would undoubtedly be useful for all members to know about before they engage in their own similar sort of comparative exercise. As with the comparative method in historical linguistics, about which my mentor Calvert Watkins said that the first and most crucial step is knowing what to compare, some of the comparisons made here are not as cogent as one might think. First, the economic side of producing the journal must be considered. The LSA, based on its budget, allocates to Language the wherewithal to publish approximately 950 pages densely packed with linguistic content each year, and pages cost money to produce, from paying copyeditors to ensure that the journal’s material has a consistent and professional look to the cost of paper and shipping and such. The number of pages is thus in part a function of the LSA’s resources and has to be measured against other demands on the society’s budget (the LSA Institute, for instance). There may well be ways of cutting Language-specific costs that could in principle allow for more pages and more articles, and the LSA leadership has made many steps in that direction, including this year’s ‘transition from Maryland Composition to Dartmouth Journal Services’ in regard to actual production of each issue (referred to in Carlson 2010). One means that was often mentioned when I was editor, however, namely moving to electronic- only dissemination, while certainly allowing for...
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2002
Much of linguistic analysis rests on a single key question: given entities X and Y as objects for... more Much of linguistic analysis rests on a single key question: given entities X and Y as objects for analysis, are they the same or different? This issue pervades all components of grammar: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. Moreover, in addressing this issue, one often needs to recognize the relevance of different levels of analysis, especially underlying versus surface, since underlying sameness can be surface difference, and vice versa. For example, phonemic analysis takes phones with decidedly different phonetic realizations (e.g. aspirated vs. unaspirated stops in English) and treats them as the same at the phonemic level if their distribution does not overlap. But at the same time, segments that seem to be the same phonetically on the surface and even phonemically as well, e.g. the [d] of recede and the [d] of invade, might need to be treated as different from a morphophonemic standpoint, since, in this example, the former alternates with [s] in the related noun reces...
ABSTRACT One of the annual tasks expected of me as editor is the preparation of a report to the E... more ABSTRACT One of the annual tasks expected of me as editor is the preparation of a report to the Executive Committee of the Linguistic Society of America, submitted at the annual meeting in January. I have actually enjoyed fulfilling this duty over the past six years, as it provides me with the opportunity to take stock of what the past year at Language has brought in the way of activities and matters pertaining to the journal’s operations and policies, and it allows me to note any new developments of relevance involving the journal and to address any topics that I or the Executive Committee see as important. Following my now-established custom, this Annual Report, my sixth ‘State-of-the-Journal’ address, as it were, appears here in place of my more usual editorial comments in this section of the journal. The version printed here is essentially what was submitted to the Executive Committee in January, though with footnoted updates, embellishments, elaborations, and corrections as appropriate, as well as some minor editorial and typographical adjustments. As I am composing this report, I am within hailing distance of the end of my term as editor of Language, with less than thirteen months to go (but who’s counting?) and the search for a successor under way and presumably drawing to a close. The December 2007 issue has been put to bed and is in the hands of the printers, so that the number of issues that remain under my purview is down to just four, a single year’s worth. While this might be considered a time for nostalgia and reflection, I plan to refrain from that here and rather will include any such musings in my remaining Editor’s Department and in my final report. For me this past year has been an interesting one (there is never a dull moment in the Language office!), and the editorial demands on me remain as stimulating and challenging as they ever have been. Fortunately, in just about every aspect of operations for the journal, all continues to go smoothly. In what follows, I chronicle the highlights of the past year and point to what is coming up in my final year of service, with a few items for action by the Executive Committee. I start, though, with a numerical overview of volume 83, including any relevant commentary needed to elucidate the statistics. Volume 83 contained the usual four issues, and, continuing a streak started in my second year with the September 2003 issue (79.3), all four issues appeared on time, being mailed out to LSA members by around the third week of the month in which they were due to appear (March, June, September, and December). While a lapse on the part of the compositors kept the September issue (83.3) from being posted electronically on Project Muse on time, that oversight has been rectified and it seems to have been a one-time problem. We continue to lay the groundwork for future issues, with the March 2008 issue (84.1) already in the works, and the papers for the June 2008 issue (84.2) being lined up as well. Thus, Language’s overall record of on-time delivery of the goods continues and is certain to continue throughout the coming year. The four issues of volume 83 contained 951 numbered pages. Of that number, 599 pages were devoted to 18 articles, 26 to 2 short reports, 21 to 1 review article, 28 to 3 obituaries, 111 to 35 reviews, 98 to 140 book notices, and 68 to other sorts of material (letters: 5 pages for 4 letters; Editor’s Department columns: 18 pages for 4 pieces, including the annual Editor’s Report; Recent Publications lists: 18 pages for 4 lists; index: 22 pages; job ads erroneously numbered in one issue: 2 pages; dedications: 2 pages; correction: 1 page). All of these numbers are roughly comparable to those from the previous year. The total of 951 pages is down a bit from last year’s 991 but more than the original target of 900 pages that I started with in 2002. It...
Uploads
Papers