FALL 2015 APPLICATONS

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

I got an email from the UChicago Humanities division saying they were impressed by my strong application and they invited me to apply to some fellowship called FLAS. I don't think it means anything though, still haven't heard anything from linguists.

[wuglife427]

I got an email from the UChicago Humanities division saying they were impressed by my strong application and they invited me to apply to some fellowship called FLAS. I don't think it means anything though, still haven't heard anything from linguists.

 

Yeah, I got the same one. I hoped it meant something since I've taken several years of Russian and am particularly interested in the syntax of Slavic languages, but then I thought about it more and poked around GradCafe...I think it was sent to pretty much everyone :/

[Garyon]

So, I saw in the result section that someone was invited for an interview at NYU. Good luck to him/her!!!

 

Side note: clearly, this news is feeding my anxiety! I don't know if I can make it till March/april.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

So, I saw in the result section that someone was invited for an interview at NYU. Good luck to him/her!!!

 

Side note: clearly, this news is feeding my anxiety! I don't know if I can make it till March/april.

 

Oh no.... T_T. Why the hell did you need to tell me this?!?!

 

I'm not going to get accepted anywhere. >___<

Edited January 13, 2015 by Chiki

[Garyon]

Oh no.... T_T. Why the hell did you need to tell me this?!?!

 

I'm not going to get accepted anywhere. >___<

Oh, I'm sorry... I just felt the need to share and didn't really think about it. I'm really sorry.

 

I had the same reaction. I'm dealing with it with chocolate abuse and tv series (I've started Battlestar Galactica!).

I wish I could focus on my work but I keep getting distracted (as by every email I get).

 

I also have some linguistics work I wanted to check out ( for example some papers by Angela Friederici - super interesting stuff!) but I can't look at any linguistics stuff without thinking about the applications. Hopefully I'll learn how to cope with this state-of-mind.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

Oh, I'm sorry... I just felt the need to share and didn't really think about it. I'm really sorry.

 

I had the same reaction. I'm dealing with it with chocolate abuse and tv series (I've started Battlestar Galactica!).

I wish I could focus on my work but I keep getting distracted (as by every email I get).

 

I also have some linguistics work I wanted to check out ( for example some papers by Angela Friederici - super interesting stuff!) but I can't look at any linguistics stuff without thinking about the applications. Hopefully I'll learn how to cope with this state-of-mind.

Lol it's ok, I was kidding. My stress levels just tripled though.

[rainbowpink]

Been lurking this forum for a while because I'm also waiting to hear back from PhD programs.

 

Definitely going crazy from all this

 

I have research work to do, and I teach so I'm trying to prepare for the upcoming semester, but I've been spending so much of my days thinking about hearing back from schools, haha...

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

Been lurking this forum for a while because I'm also waiting to hear back from PhD programs.

 

Definitely going crazy from all this

 

I have research work to do, and I teach so I'm trying to prepare for the upcoming semester, but I've been spending so much of my days thinking about hearing back from schools, haha...

 

Welcome to hell.

[isilya]

Been lurking this forum for a while because I'm also waiting to hear back from PhD programs.

 

Definitely going crazy from all this

 

I have research work to do, and I teach so I'm trying to prepare for the upcoming semester, but I've been spending so much of my days thinking about hearing back from schools, haha...

Me too I have shit to do, but here I am just thinking about grad schools...

[wuglife427]

I agree this is super-stressful But if you search "NYU Linguistics" and look at what happened last year, you'll see that while someone got an interview request on 1/13, other people got them closer to the 20th. Maybe this person's POI is just really proactive, and the rest will get to it soon. Hope is not lost!

Also, although I'm trying to boost morale in the forum (because you're all wonderful and intelligent), I will say that it's hard not to worry and engage in negative self-evaluation, even to the point where I can't focus on things that I need to do and/or that I actually have control of. I'm thinking of trying mindfulness meditation. Anyone have any experience with it?

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

I agree this is super-stressful But if you search "NYU Linguistics" and look at what happened last year, you'll see that while someone got an interview request on 1/13, other people got them closer to the 20th. Maybe this person's POI is just really proactive, and the rest will get to it soon. Hope is not lost!

Also, although I'm trying to boost morale in the forum (because you're all wonderful and intelligent), I will say that it's hard not to worry and engage in negative self-evaluation, even to the point where I can't focus on things that I need to do and/or that I actually have control of. I'm thinking of trying mindfulness meditation. Anyone have any experience with it?

 

That's a really good point. And this person got an email from a POI so it seems pretty informal.

 

Bolded part: probably everyone here!! Do your hobbies that have nothing to do with linguistics and education and stuff. Watch TV series or whatever. Video games are the best for stress (at least for me).

[cw01]

Oh, I'm sorry... I just felt the need to share and didn't really think about it. I'm really sorry.

 

I had the same reaction. I'm dealing with it with chocolate abuse and tv series (I've started Battlestar Galactica!).

I wish I could focus on my work but I keep getting distracted (as by every email I get).

 

I also have some linguistics work I wanted to check out ( for example some papers by Angela Friederici - super interesting stuff!) but I can't look at any linguistics stuff without thinking about the applications. Hopefully I'll learn how to cope with this state-of-mind.

Her work is really cool! But it's mostly neurolinguistics stuff though. So are you doing neurolinguistics? Just curious

[onzeheures30]

Maybe this person's POI is just really proactive

 

I am really curious who that might be. Almost feel like sending a letter to the dept mailing list asking who's so quick.

[Garyon]

Her work is really cool! But it's mostly neurolinguistics stuff though. So are you doing neurolinguistics? Just curious

 

I am! Well, hopefully, I will be!

 

I attended a conference where she gave a speach together with Andrea Moro ( have you read anything by him? It was his work that first got me into linguistics).

 

By the way, I am mainly interested in theoretical syntax right now. But I believe Neurolinguistics to be amazingly interesting and that They (meaning Theoretical L. and NeuroL.) are/could be/should be of great use to one another.

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

I am! Well, hopefully, I will be!

 

I attended a conference where she gave a speach together with Andrea Moro ( have you read anything by him? It was his work that first got me into linguistics).

 

By the way, I am mainly interested in theoretical syntax right now. But I believe Neurolinguistics to be amazingly interesting and that They (meaning Theoretical L. and NeuroL.) are/could be/should be of great use to one another.

 

The prospects of that are unfortunately kind of dim.

[Garyon]

The prospects of that are unfortunately kind of dim.

I don't know.

I think there is some work in this direction. And, if this application season goes as planned, I hope I'll be there to be part of it.    

Edited January 14, 2015 by Garyon

[rainbowpink]

I don't think it's that uncommon. The interest is definitely there, at least. I studied neuroscience in my undergrad (didn't do much with language, unfortunately), and my experience with talking to people in related fields is that they're really intrigued by neuroscience (some were shocked when I switched to linguistics). It's just that the necessary facilities for the research are expensive and not readily accessible, so neurolinguistics can't be easily done just anywhere. It's not like phonetics where anyone can download Praat.

 

Anyway, that's not really what I'm going into even though I find neurolinguistics to be interesting. I'm primarily a phonologist now, although I'm mostly interested in the interface between phonology and other aspects of theoretical linguistics.

[beccamayworth]

The prospects of that are unfortunately kind of dim.

 

Hi Chiki, could you explain why you feel this way? As far as I know, there are lots of research in that direction. I myself worked in a lab that mainly focused on syntax and neuro (mostly with impaired populations). 

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

Hi Chiki, could you explain why you feel this way? As far as I know, there are lots of research in that direction. I myself worked in a lab that mainly focused on syntax and neuro (mostly with impaired populations). 

 

I feel like we can't really get psycholinguistic evidence for theories in the Minimalist Program and formal semantics. For example, suppose we want evidence for the covert movement account of interpreting sentences against the type-shifting account of interpreting sentences. Suppose we give evidence on that based on processing speed that favors the covert movement account.

 

But how do we ever know that the covert movement account is the right way to go even though we have evidence that favors it instead of the type-shifting account? How do we know type theory is the right tool for interpreting sentences? How do we know internal merge and external merge are used to form sentences in the head? We just can't look in the head and see what's going on. Though we may have evidence for the covert movement account of interpreting stuff, that's not very strong evidence for the covert movement account as a whole. I find it pretty hopeless for this reason.

 

It seems like the fundamentals of theoretical syntax and semantics nowadays could very easily be wrong. That's why I find it so interesting though.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Chiki

[Scarecrow24]

Hey guys!

So, I'm also super nervous/excited/anxious (nerexcious?) about everything. While I still haven't received any formal news regarding an interview or acceptance yet (of course it is still early), within the past few days I received one email from Chicago inviting me to apply for their FLAS, an email from Washington informing me of my eligibility for a diversity scholarship and one directly from my POI at Pittsburgh that I was selected to apply for the Mellon Fellowship (which includes a three page essay).

While I know these should be amazing signs (I applied last year to 7 schools and nothing like this happened), I'm super stressed out to make sure I don't screw things up. I submitted the FLAS form (pretty straightforward) and the one-page diversity essay already. But I'm really nervous about the Mellon Fellowship. Pitt has become my top choice because of the POI and now I feel like their decision is going to ride solely on if I do a good job with my fellowship application paper.

I'm freaking out!!!!    

[isilya]

If anyone is wondering about UCSD, I'm an undergrad and found out the other day that Open House is on February 6 this year, so official acceptances should be coming out very soon!! Good luck to anyone waiting and feel free to ask me any questions about the department as well

[fuzzylogician]

I feel like we can't really get psycholinguistic evidence for theories in the Minimalist Program and formal semantics. For example, suppose we want evidence for the covert movement account of interpreting sentences against the type-shifting account of interpreting sentences. Suppose we give evidence on that based on processing speed that favors the covert movement account.

 

But how do we ever know that the covert movement account is the right way to go even though we have evidence that favors it instead of the type-shifting account?

<snip>

 

 

Part of my dissertation does exactly that. I provide evidence from processing experiments and also from simple judgment data in favor of covert movement, that I argue can't be accounted for by non-movement analyses. Of course I don't now "know" that the covert movement account as I argued for it has to be right and nothing else could possibly be the case, but luckily that's not how you do science. I build an argument that if we buy theory X as it is formulated now or as you might reasonably reformulate it so it had a fair chance for our purposes then we make prediction Y, but if we adopt theory A instead then we make prediction B. I show that several unrelated types of evidence converge to support conclusion B, not Y. Now lets assume for a moment that my reading of the theory is right and we indeed make prediction Y/B and that my methodology is fair and was implemented correctly (you can fight me back on all of those things too, but for the sake of argument it's more interesting to assume the result is really there). If that is the case, then if you truly believe X is the correct theory then you need to explain my data. Maybe there is an unrelated explanation, or you can modify your theory to capture my data; if you can do it, then we're back where we started. If you can't, or your modification seems unreasonable from a complexity/plausibility/acquisition point of view, then this is a strong argument for theory A. It's not normally the case that one strong argument is enough to bring down a whole theory, but you start to build a case for your theory and against the alternative. That's how you do science. Yes, it could be that both theory X and theory A are wrong, but if that's what we have to work with now, then that's what we work with. If someone has an idea for a new theory W that explains all the data in a new way, then that would be interesting and we'd want to give it some serious consideration; but we won't sit there and not do anything because W might be out there and we just haven't proposed it yet.

 

What's more, your experiment (or theoretical paper, for that matter) doesn't have to explain *everything*, that's not a reasonable expectation for a paper. You have to start somewhere and work from there, and I just don't understand this view that "yes, you show that covert movement is supported by your results and type-shifting can't explain them, but what if type-shifting is still right? We can't rule that out so we can't learn anything from your results." That just means that you've decided not to accept evidence that disproves your beliefs, and if that's the case, then we're just not doing science anymore. I don't just mean to attack what you said; this is, for reasons I fail to understand, a prevailing attitude you see among linguists. For some reason it seems acceptable in linguistics to say "I cannot find a flaw with your experiment, I cannot see another explanation beside the one you provided, and yet I just don't believe it." I find it frustrating to no end. How can we have a serious discussion when the other side doesn't "believe" you? We just need to grow as a field. It's not about what you "believe," it's about what you can convincingly argue for. And arguing for something doesn't mean that you have "the smoking gun" evidence that solves Language, that probably won't happen, for obvious reasons. Your evidence is usually a compilation of lots of smaller pieces of evidence and arguments, and you just see where it points. Psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics can provide new sources of evidence for/against theoretical points of view, and linguists need to be trained to at least understand these methods so we don't have an argument that boils down to "I don't like your argument." That seems to me like a major obstacle that these new types of evidence face, more than their actual validity. People don't understand them and are reluctant to accept them as valid.

 

[sorry, this is something I care about. I deal with these attitudes more often than I'd like to so I have strong opinions about them.] 

[aojfifjoaisjaiosdj]

 

 

[sorry, this is something I care about. I deal with these attitudes more often than I'd like to so I have strong opinions about them.] 

 

It's fine. I don't think theoretical linguistics is pointless at all if that's what you were getting (I wouldn't apply if that were the case) and I agree that small evidence bit by bit can point us in the right direction. Psycholinguistic evidence can rationally be used as evidence for and against certain theoretical standpoints. Though we still basically have no idea if we're really right about our theoretical fundamentals, that's fine: they are challenged in science all the time (like when Newton's laws were replaced). 

 

The work we might be doing now is probably based on the wrong theory, and it might even all be wrong in the long run, but that's how science works.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Chiki

[Garyon]

I feel like we can't really get psycholinguistic evidence for theories in the Minimalist Program and formal semantics. For example, suppose we want evidence for the covert movement account of interpreting sentences against the type-shifting account of interpreting sentences. Suppose we give evidence on that based on processing speed that favors the covert movement account.

 

But how do we ever know that the covert movement account is the right way to go even though we have evidence that favors it instead of the type-shifting account? How do we know type theory is the right tool for interpreting sentences? How do we know internal merge and external merge are used to form sentences in the head? We just can't look in the head and see what's going on. Though we may have evidence for the covert movement account of interpreting stuff, that's not very strong evidence for the covert movement account as a whole. I find it pretty hopeless for this reason.

 

It seems like the fundamentals of theoretical syntax and semantics nowadays could very easily be wrong. That's why I find it so interesting though.

 

First of all, let me say that THIS discussion is far more interesting than our previous (yeah, shame on me ) complaining about missing emails. 

I don't know if we are going off-topic (we probably are) but so be it.

 

Now, Chiki, I see your point. On the theoretical side though, I feel that following a theory that one finds convincing (for whatever - "evidence supported"-reason) while keeping an open mind will eventually lead to interesting developments (meaning: even just new  Questions!!), even if the original theory is seriously flawed. 

 

Bolded part: You are right, we can't. Also, in my opinion, we know almost nothing about our cognitive processes.

However,  I don't believe that the interesting questions are/should be so specific, for the moment. To be clearer - or more confusing- the questions may be, but we should not expect specific answers.

 

I think that experiments with a sound theoretical basis can provide interesting information not about a specific syntactic rule, but for example about the kind of rules we should be looking at. This is why I found Moro's work on possible vs. impossible grammars very convincing, or also Embick's work on the authonomy of syntax. I really believe that every little piece of information we get from these kinds of approaches can guide our  theoretical inquiries toward better theories (again, probably just by posing new questions! But I love questions, and I get that you do too  ).

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense...

 

Side note: have you ever read Pallier's work on constituents' encoding?

 

Edit: Sorry, while I was writing I didn't notice Fuzzy's (much more interesting and better written than mine) aswer and Chiki's answer back!  i'm late as usual! 

Edited January 14, 2015 by Garyon

[bubblespinky]

Hey guys!

So, I'm also super nervous/excited/anxious (nerexcious?) about everything. While I still haven't received any formal news regarding an interview or acceptance yet (of course it is still early), within the past few days I received one email from Chicago inviting me to apply for their FLAS, an email from Washington informing me of my eligibility for a diversity scholarship and one directly from my POI at Pittsburgh that I was selected to apply for the Mellon Fellowship (which includes a three page essay).

While I know these should be amazing signs (I applied last year to 7 schools and nothing like this happened), I'm super stressed out to make sure I don't screw things up. I submitted the FLAS form (pretty straightforward) and the one-page diversity essay already. But I'm really nervous about the Mellon Fellowship. Pitt has become my top choice because of the POI and now I feel like their decision is going to ride solely on if I do a good job with my fellowship application paper.

I'm freaking out!!!!    

Hi there, Socioling buddy! I am getting pretty nervous, too. I just visited 2 schools this week because I was in the area and it's just making me anxious!