loudermilk / brownbag Goto Github PK

Full Title: Experimental Approaches to the Perception and Production of Language Variation
Short Title: ExAPP III

Date: 21-Sep-2016 - 24-Sep-2016
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact Person: Juliane Fink
Meeting Email: [email protected]
Web Site: http://exapp2016.univie.ac.at/

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Sociolinguistics

Other Specialty: Variationist Linguistics

Call Deadline: 31-Jan-2016

Meeting Description:

3rd International Conference on “Experimental Approaches to the Perception and Production of Language Variation” - ExAPP III
Vienna, Austria, September 21-24, 2016
https://exapp2016.univie.ac.at/

Language use and its inherent variability are an important part of linguistics and a subject of study in all its branches. Across these branches, however, approaches and objectives differ, and various methods of investigation are employed accordingly. The ExAPP conference series presents an important opportunity to juxtapose, discuss, and relate the multitude of current approaches to experimental research on language use and variation.

After highly successful meetings in Groningen (2010) and Copenhagen (2013), the third installment of ExAPP will take place at the University of Vienna in September of 2016, calling together international researchers who employ experimental methods to study the perception and production of language variation. Topics for presentation extend to all levels of linguistic systems as well as to any aspect of variation with regard to the perception and production of language use.

2nd Call for Papers:

Experimental Approaches to the Perception and Production of Language Variation III (ExAPP III) 2016

Vienna, Austria, September 21-24, 2016
https://exapp2016.univie.ac.at/

Language use and its inherent variability are an important part of linguistics and a subject of study in all its branches. Across these branches, however, approaches and objectives differ, and various methods of investigation are employed accordingly. The ExAPP conference series presents an important opportunity to juxtapose, discuss, and relate the multitude of current approaches to experimental research on language use and variation.

After highly successful meetings in Groningen (2010) and Copenhagen (2013), the third installment of ExAPP will take place at the University of Vienna in September of 2016, calling together international researchers who employ experimental methods to study the perception and production of language variation. Topics for presentation extend to all levels of linguistic systems as well as to any aspect of variation with regard to the perception and production of language use.

Conference topics include (but are not limited to) experimental research on:

• Perception of variation
• Production of variation
• Social meaning of linguistic features
• Language attitudes
• (Mutual) intelligibility
• Innovative methodologies

We solicit abstracts for paper and poster presentations alike. Talks are allocated slots of 30 minutes, including 10 minutes for discussion/ Q&A. Posters will be displayed throughout the conference day, and there will be a dedicated poster session.

Abstracts for both kinds of presentations should adhere to a limit of max. 300 words (excluding references) and may be submitted using EasyAbstracts provided by LINGUIST List at
http://linguistlist.org/easyabs/ExAPP2016
or via following the link on the ExAPP2016 website:
https://exapp2016.univie.ac.at/

The deadline for abstract submission is January 31, 2016.

A publication of selected papers from ExAPP2016 is planned.
The following plenary speakers have kindly accepted the invitation to ExAPP2016:

• Stefanie Jannedy (Berlin)
• Brigitte Krenn (Vienna)
• Kenny Smith (Edinburgh)
• Jane Stuart-Smith (Glasgow)

Please visit our website at https://exapp2016.univie.ac.at/ for more information. For any further inquiries, contact us at [email protected] .
We look forward to welcoming you to Vienna in 2016!

The local organizing team (University of Vienna):

• Alexandra N. Lenz
• Nikolaus Ritt
• Barbara Soukup
• Juliane Fink

The ExAPP Scientific Committee:

• Charlotte Gooskens (University of Groningen)
• Nanna Haug Hilton (University of Groningen)
• Nicolai Pharao (University of Copenhagen)
• Anja Schüppert (University of Groningen)

@freshforlife would you grab some of the decks you talked about - it would be useful for us to see what others are doing so we can up-grade the TCS POC game.

• - need to add Mark's blurb
• - secure location
• - set time/date
• - notofy participants
• - secure corporate sponsorship

@cmstewart can you update the folks at mapR with a link to the event, etc.?

@MarkRConway - lol, I forgot what general topic you said you were going to present on... maybe your old man memory is better than mine? Can you find an article and upload by maybe end of week?

DSC has a list of seminal data science articles: http://www.datasciencecentral.com/group/resources/forum/topics/38-seminal-articles-every-data-scientist-should-read

@cshann56 @freshforlife @cmstewart - if you have any suggested articles or time to present either post in this thread or update the main list (https://github.com/loudermilk/brownbag/blob/master/article-list.Rmd)

@mrconway , please explain the latest edits in contacts.rmd

@freshforlife @MarkRConway @cmstewart
My thoughts - once a week on a set day, we do an actual brownbag discussion. To save time, we stay in the building and eat lunch and discuss a previously assigned article. Strict 1hr format, maybe meet in that small lunchroom during 12-1 when most of TCS is vacant.

Two possible approaches: 1) general free for all or round robin discussion format; 2) designate discussion leader for each article. Pros and cons of both in my experience. Discussion leader must do a more indepth read than the other participants, so there is a higher time commitment. If the avg article read is 1hr, then a careful "read" would be ~4 hrs possibly including creation of discussion materials (e.g., slide deck, handout). The leader approach generally leads to better discussions b/c at least one person has put some serious thought into the material, which leads to the corrolary point -> other participants tend to slack off and skim or even skip doing their reading.

I'm open to either approach, though we may want to modulate our meeting frequency to accomodate the approach we choose (assuming we as a group have a constant time commitement we are willing to make to this endeavor).

We can maintain an Rmd file in the repo with a list of articles that we want to read. We can either do weekly votes on what to read, or randomly choose a topic.

Any other thoughts?

@MarkRConway could you upload your deck?

https://www.r-consortium.org/about/isc/proposals

@freshforlife @cmstewart please comment thoughts on this matter:

Need to determine:

[ ] who
[ ] when
[ ] where
[ ] how books are nominated
[ ] how books are chosen
[ ] book review? write up post to blog

@cmstewart can you upload and link to your data table stuff

@cmstewart can you present that eisenstein article on this date -- I want to do this next week, otherwise it will be a few weeks until our next meeting due to holidays. Let's try and keep the momentum going.