LIN 200: Foundations of Linguistics

Instructor	Lecture Day/Time	Lecture Hall	Email	Office Hours	Office
Masoud Jasbi	Tuesdays and Thursdays, 4:10 - 5:30 PM	Kerr Hall 273	jasbi@ucdavis.edu	Friday 1-2pm or by email	Kerr Hall 279

Schedule

Week	Month	Date	Topic	Readings	Assignments
1	September	22	ّIntro to Philosophy of Science and Linguistics	Scholz et al (2022). Intro Ladyman(2002): Understanding Philosophy of Science Ch.1.2-3 (Check Canvas Files)
2		27	The History of Linguistics	Campbell (2001) The History of Linguistics von Humboldt (1813) Ch.1 and 6 (Check Canvas Files) de Suassure (1916) Intro Ch.2-5 and Part 1 Optional: Kiparsky. On the Architecture of Panini’s Grammar
		29
3	October	4	Approaches to Linguistic Theorizing: The Externalists	Scholz et al (2022). Section 1-1.1 Harris, Zellig. (1954). Distributional Structure Harris (1946). From Morpheme to Utterance Jurafsky and Martin (2021) Ch.6
		6
4		11	Approaches to Linguistic Theorizing: The Emergentists	Scholz et al (2022). Section 1.2-1.3 Bybee (2013). Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions Gibson et al (2019). How Efficiency Shapes Language Optional: Kirby et al (2015): Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure
		13
5		18	Approaches to Linguistic Theorizing: The Essentialists	Scholz et al (2022). Section 1.4 Chomsky (1957). Syntactic Structures Chs.1,2,6,8 Chomsky (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Ch.1 Lasnik (2002). The Minimalist Program in Syntax	Abstract Outline/Argument-Map
		20
6		25	Comparing the three Approaches and Social Aspects	Scholz et al (2022). Section 1.3-4 Eckert (2012). Three Waves of Variation Study	Argument Map 1
		27
7	November	1	The Subject Matter of Linguistic Theories	Scholz et al (2022) Section 2 Hauser, Chomsky, Fitch (2002). The Faculty of Language Pinker and Jackendoff (2005). The Faculty of Langauge (response)	Abstract (Draft)
		3
8		8	Linguistic Methodology and Data	Scholz et al (2022) Section 3 Schütze (2010). Linguistic evidence and grammatical theory Mahowald et al. (2016) SNAP Judgments	Argument Map 2
		10
9		15	Language Acquisition	Scholz et al (2022) Section 4 Yang et al (2017) The Growth of Language Behrens (2009): Usage-based and Emergentist Approaches to Language Acquisition Watch Goldberg-Yang Debate	Peer-Review
		17
10		22	Language and Thought	Wolff and Holmes (2011). Linguistic Relativity
		24	Thanksgiving
11		29	Language Evolution and Change	Scholz et al (2022) Section 5 Bickerton (2007). Language evolution: A brief guide for linguists Weinrich, Labov, Herzog: Empirical foundations for theory of language change	Abstract (Final)
	December	1

Course Objectives

	Objective	Course Component
1	Cover the foundational topics and questions in linguistics	Readings
2	Critically assess the course content	Class Discussion
3	Practice Coherent and Logical Academic Writing	Writing Assignment

Syllabus

Assessment
Critical Thinking	50%	Discussion Forum	10%	Post a question, response to a question, or comments about the week's reading on the Canvas Discussion Section. Make sure that your question or comment is really engaging deeply and critically with the materials. 10 discussions (1 per week) each 1%.
		Argument Maps	40%	Create two argument maps on the following two papers, each worth 20 points: 1. Mayberry et al (2002): Linguistic ability and early language exposure 2. Dingemanse et al (2016). What sound symbolism can and cannot do Take a look at this introduction to argument maps and how we use them in this class.
Research Skills	50%
		Abstract Outline/Argument-Map	5%	Create an outline or an argument map for a conference abstract.
		Abstract (Draft)	5%	Expand your outline/argument-map to a 1 page conference abstract. You can model this abstract after the LSA annual meeting submissions linked here.
		Peer-review	10%	Write a 1-page peer-review for the two midterm abstracts assigned to you. Your peer-review should first briefly summarize the main argument of the abstract, then mention its strengths, followed by major issues and weaknesses, and finally minor issues such as typos or numerical errors. Take a look at this PLOS blog post on how to outline your review and this ACL guide for writing a good peer-review.
		Abstract (Final)	25%	Revise and edit your abstract based on the feedback you received from the peer-reviews. Submit it as the final version
Policies
Late Submission		Due dates are posted on Canvas. Due dates are flexible for the discussion forum posts, argument maps, and abstract outline. Due dates are extremely strict for the abstract draft, peer-reviews, and the final version of the absract. If you miss the deadline you miss all the points. This is supposed to model real conference submissions.
Submission Format		Submit your assignments in Canvas anonymously and in PDF format. Typed assignments should be Times New Roman (12pt), 1 inch margins, 1.5 line spacing. Handwritten assignments must be legible. Do not include your name or any identifying information in the assignment.
Grading		We use the following grading scale: A+ = 100-97 A = 97-93, A- = 93-90, B+ = 90-87, B = 87-83, B- = 83-80, C+ = 80-77, C = 77-73, C- = 73-70, D+ = 70-67, D = 67-63, D- = 63-60, F = 60-0.
Integrity		We follow the UC Davis code of academic conduct. You are permitted to work together on the assignments. However, you must write up and submit your own unique assignments.
Accessibility		If you need an academic accommodation based on the impact of a disability, you should initiate the request with the UC Davis Student Disability Center. Professional staff will evaluate your request, recommend reasonable accommodations, and prepare a letter of accommodation for me. Please contact the SDC as soon as possible since timely notice is needed to coordinate accommodations.
Addressing the Instructor		I prefer Masoud. No title or last name needed. All pronouns are fine.