The research and reading groups that are such a central part of the life of the department will continue and expand their activities going in to the new quarter and the new year. S-Circle and Phlunch will continue their Friday meetings, and the venerable MRG (Morphology Reading Group) will spring into life again in Winter 2015. Two new groups came into being in Fall 2014 and we thought that the final WHASC of 2014 would be a good time to check in with them and see what their plans for the coming year were.
The Agree(ment) group is coordinated by Amy Rose Deal and Maziar Toosarvandani and has financial support from the Institute for Humanities Research at UCSC. Amy Rose and Maziar sent in this report:
This fall, the Agree(ment) group has been meeting primarily to discuss recent theories that have been proposed to account for the patterns of verbal agreement found in the world’s languages. Mid-quarter, we took a break from reading to hear from Nick Kalivoda about his ongoing working on the intricate system of agreement in Teotitlan del Valle Zapotec. We will be kicking off 2015 with a pair of talks by visitors to UCSC. In the first week of classes, Coppe van Urk (MIT) will be joining us for a meeting on Wednesday evening. And in the second week, Claire Halpert (University of Minnesota) will speak to us during our regular meeting time on Thursday evening. Stay tuned for details!
SPLAP (Semantics, Pragmatics, and Language Philosophy) is coordinated by Karen Duek, Margaret Kroll and Deniz Rudin and focuses on the connections among semantics, pragmatics and philosophy of language. Deniz sent in this report about their activities and plans:
SPLAP’s inaugural quarter proved to be very productive and enjoyable. The management would like to thank from the bottom of our hearts all of our loyal Splappers, for helping us to realize our fever dream of a weekly assembly of colleagues eager to discuss Semantics, Pragmatics, and LAnguage Philosophy. We sank our teeth into two main topics: First, we performed a thorough investigation of the theory of vague predicates. We saw logicians formalize a wiggle-roomier notion of truth; we saw semanticists discard the law of the excluded middle; we saw philosophers declare that there’s no such thing as vagueness after all; and we saw psycholinguists demonstrate that many people are distressingly comfortable describing people of average height as `tall and not tall’. In a private discussion, whose participants were sworn to secrecy until their dying day, we solved to our satisfaction all of the problems that a satisfactory analysis of vagueness must solve, and decided to move on with our lives, confident in the knowledge that there remained no more to be said on the subject. Second, we dipped our toes into a preliminary investigation of the notion of meaning. Putnam argued that meanings aren’t psychological objects; Chomsky argued that they are; Burge argued that the two camps are talking past each other and are actually in agreement about most of the fundamental issues. Strong and contradictory opinions were voiced by various parties in these discussions, but at least we all could agree that the true path is obvious and that our opponents are hopelessly misguided. Who knows what our next quarter will bring? All are welcome to show up and participate to whatever degree they feel comfortable; email drudin@ucsc.edu with any inquiries, including requests to be added to our mailing list.