Bruce,
The term "function" seems to have a long, venerable history in
linguistics. The OED cites both Bloomfield and C. C. Fries. Halliday
tends to use the term much as many of us use it on list. We can put
words or constructions roughly into classes, which tell us something
about the meaning potential of the word or structure. The word
"function" designates the role of the word or word group within a
particular instance of use. In the previous sentence, "The word
function" is noun phrase acting as subject. (It also acts us agent of
"designates". And it is unmarked theme in the theme/rheme structure of
the clause.) It is not uncommon for a structure to have more than one
function.
I don't think it is accurate to say that the functionalists don't use
the tools of linguistics. The primary difference is that they see
language as innately functional, not just a formal system that can then
be put to use in functional ways. Generative grammar is often
criticized from the functional side for calling everything that doesn't
fit neatly into its theory peripheral or unimportant. It becomes so
abstract that it no longer seems to represent what many of us think of
as language.
There may in fact be many cases in which the passive is more primary
than the active. There is no doubt a good reason why (according to
Biber et al) passives are eight times more likely to show up in
academic discourse. From a functional perpsective, active and passive
give us alternative choices, and each gives us a different meaning.
Someone asks "Who gave the book to Charlie?" You may likely reply "It
was given by his wife." This allows us to put given information ("It")
first and new information in clause ending prominence. Whether or not
this is thought of as superfluous is a theoretical position, not a
scientific one. I find myself much more attracted to the theory that
explores how these structures function in the world. If we theorize
about them out of context, we may end up with a distorted theory.
At some point, of course, we need to agree to disagree. I am a writer
and writing teacher and somewhat a learning specialist by position and
you are a mathematician, so that may explain a great detail. I like
math and always did well in it, but I do not think it is a good model
for the complexities of language. And I think it is misleading to call
any approaches that aren't mathematical less rigorous or scientific.
Craig
Craig,
>
> I think my concern is really quite far from the classroom, for which I
> apologize. It's more like a paleontologist using the tools of geology to
> solve biological questions. I think the functionalists need to use some
> more tools of linguistics to solve their language questions. I see no
> sense debating the cline of polite requests, whether the points are
> continuous of discontinuous, or adjusted up or down by context, if we have
> no way to measure where the points are. Wouldn't it be helpful to have
> measures? Technology can help science to collect and analyze their data.
> The theory can only take us so far. What? It might be refuted if its
> predictions cannot be corroborated. My point in segmenting the
> differently formulated requests was show the direction toward some kind
> of measure. This is not just by tallying up the units of meaning but
> would involve weighing them in context. Let's callibrate the cline and
> establish points or regions along it. I don't think the instruments for
> doing such a thing are developed. Like a paleontologist we're just
> waiting for the next discovery.
>
> If the theory helps to teach the concepts that need teaching, more power
> to it. Some models are helpful, but others can be disruptive in the
> acquisition of a skill. I think of the power that certain images have in
> teaching music and voice. Educators have learned that certain visual
> metaphors guide the mind in some mysterious way to produce or reproduce
> the sounds desired. I sure wish I knew what the rules were behind these
> secrets (in the brain, in the mind).
>
> Bruce
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/12/07 1:59 PM >>>
>
> Bruce,
> I'll check out definitions for "functional" in Halliday and get back
> to you. I admit I'm not using the term as a mathematician would--perhaps
> more like a biologist, as in "what is the function of the placenta
> within the reproductive system." I don't think mathematical models work
> well for language--once you strip it of its semantic and discourse
> content and context, you end up with a view of language that doesn't fit
> what we find in the world. I don't think an ecology is less scientific
> than classical biology. It just has a different (systemic and
> functional) orientation. It asks a different set of questions, ones that
> may yet save the world.
> Ordering or requesting politely might be thought of as different
> points on a cline. One is not necessarily more primary than the other,
> and the words of politeness won't be superfluous to the human relations
> we are fostering though language. The same would be true of passives.
> You can certainly say that the unmarked or default is the active, but
> they do not mean the same thing if you include things like propositional
> focus or textual unity within your definition of meaning. In the
> language of cognitive linguistics, different versions will construe the
> world differently. In functional grammar, grammatical subject is a
> separate function from actor or agent, though they generally co-occur.
> When we vary from that co-occurrence, we are simply predicating a
> statement about another element. One is not necessarily more primary,
> and the extra words are not superfluous, but highly functional.
> I don't mean to imply that generative grammar presents rules as
> regulative. I do think most people believe grammar rules are rules that
> you are supposed to follow, not just patterns that arise from purposeful
> use of language. And when we abstract these rules from context, we pull
> further and further away from the living language. If we use the term
> "pattern", perhaps we could change that.
> I think it might be fine to teach generative grammar in the schools
> as a discipline of inquiry, but I don't think it will help us develop a
> view of language that will carry over into reading and writing. I
> believe both functional and cognitive approaches have much more promise
> for that.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Bruce Despain wrote:
>> Craig,
>>
>> With my experience in math, I have a difficulty with the word
>> "function" similarly as you do with "rule." For the mathematician the
>> function is a process that has a domain or set of input values (one or
>> more parameters) and a range or output value. The transformation is a
>> mapping or relation (one to one, one to many, many to one) of one set
>> of values onto another. This way of picturing the relationship as a
>> process is a convenience for understanding the model. In this way
>> rules and patterns are simply two ways of viewing the same
>> phenomena. The rules as functions output a value, which can often be
>> considered a pattern. It is the analysis of patterns that allow us to
>> describe them by rule. Generative rules (now called Backus-Naur
>> form) were developed with this in mind. Rules in this sense are not
>> regulative, except to the person who wants a description of the
>> structure. They show how to go about building it so as to get the
>> best results. (The are not generative either, in the sense of giving
>> birth to ideas.)
>>
>> To beat a dead horse: the normal way to request behavior of another
>> person is with an imperative ("Shut the window"), but we can use the
>> yes-no interrogative to inquire about a person's disposition to behave
>> in a certain way: "Will you shut the window?" or a declarative "It's
>> cold in here" or even a wh-interrogative, "How cold does it have to
>> get?" If the syntactic description of the sentence is limited to such
>> sentence types, it is easy to see that Halladay needed another level
>> (meta-) on which to express the actual intent of the question apart
>> from its form. Hence, at this level (interactive) the three sentences
>> that are used for the same purpose are of the same type.
>> If we subscribe to the compositionality of language meaning, there
>> would certainly be more elementary units of meaning of which the more
>> complex constructions are composed. Couldn't these be considered
>> primary? If it takes me more words (syntactically) to say something
>> one way, perhaps that would be a rough indication of the number of
>> meaning elements it could be broken down into. The active sentence
>> usually has one less word than the passive, which uses a form of "be"
>> with the passive participle. If we're counting morphemes, we would
>> have to consider the participle ending as another element. The
>> passive seems to be less primary from an analytic point of view. The
>> same argument makes sentences with a progressive aspect less primary
>> than corresponding ones with a simple finite verb. They are
>> structurally more complex and seem also to contain additional
>> meaningful units. Perhaps if we are allowed to cut away the
>> superfluous content of the above syntactically different sentences, we
>> can be left with a core set of meanings at the interactive level. A
>> transformation would seem to be an appropriate model for stating such
>> a relationship.
>>
>> My intent was to make a point that has less to do with pedagogy,
>> perhaps, than formal models. Yet, we must admit that kids today have
>> been given the opportunity to learn a good deal of these concepts in
>> their math classes. Maybe pedagogy needs to relate to this kind
>> of educational curriculum to some extent. Many branches of
>> linguistics are trying to bridge this abysmal gap between the
>> humanities and science. I think some of it ought to trickle down to
>> the lower grades. Maybe we should teach using the mathematical
>> approach to functions and rules. If not literally, perhaps only
>> metaphorically.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 9:40 AM >>>
>> Bruce,
>> It may be hard to use the term "transformation" without bringing in
>> all the apparatus that has historically come with it. It may be better
>> to talk about alternative options, perhaps ones that complement each
>> other and stand at more or less equal status. So a question is not a
>> transformed statement, but just an alternative choice--offering
>> information or requesting information as both necessary options in the
>> system. We can also request or offer goods and services, and we have
>> ways to carry that out.
>> Halliday describes three different metafunctions, one being
>> interpersonal and interactive, another being representational, and the
>> other being largely textual. So you might say that a passive sentence
>> has been "transformed" from an active one, but a functional analysis
>> would emphasize that a different entity has been moved into grammatical
>> subject role to ground the proposition, while the role of doer of the
>> action (representation) has been left out or shifted into the
>> predicate.
>> This may happen for textual reasons, perhaps to keep a topic in
>> extended
>> focus. If you treat this systematically, then one is not a
>> transformation of the other, just ways to accommodate different
>> functions within the structure of the clause. It may be misleading to
>> think of one as more primary than the other, even if more common.
>> We can certainly divide verbs into physical (material) and mental
>> (cognitive), and we do mix those types up in a sort of metaphor all the
>> time. When the wind "howls", we are granting it a speech act. When I
>> "fall" for someone, I'm describing emotional change in physical terms.
>> "The fields never knew such cold as they knew that winter." What kind
>> of
>> "knowing" is that? Any description of creativity ought to foreground
>> the
>> metaphoric nature of language.
>> I mainly worry that people think of rules as "governing" rather than
>> as conventional. It is not a "rule" that college students dress
>> informally, but it is certainly a pattern. You haven't broken a rule
>> when you wear a tie, for whatever reason. I don't think the comparison
>> holds too far (language is not just fashion), but "rule" and "pattern"
>> can be very different in people's minds.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Bruce Despain wrote:
>> > Craig,
>> >
>> > I think it might be a good exercise for you to respond sometime
>> > without using the word "function" or "functional." Don't these words
>> > just provide us another way to talk about rules. The rule is there
>> to
>> > *describe* something that is regular, expected, recognized, and
>> > conventional. Language needs a certain amount of conventionality to
>> > convey understanding. Does a new construction arise to carriy out a
>> > new function or an old function in a new way? Maybe the answer would
>> > tell us to what extent function is driving language or whether
>> > language is driving function. Consider the rhetorical question, for
>> > example. This phenomenon takes a syntactic structure normally used
>> to
>> > seek new information and applies it to make an assertion. We could
>> > describe this phenomenon by rule in the form of a (dreaded?)
>> > "transformation" (a sense different from
>> > "generative-transformational"). The language user transforms the
>> > function of a yes-no question to that of a declarative sentence
>> simply
>> > by placing it in a rhetorical context. To compare the functions of
>> > "kick" and "admire" as transitive verbs is not as useful as comparing
>> > them, maybe, at the level of action, one being physical and the
>> > other mental. To find a syntactic correlate to this contrast may
>> give
>> > us a clue to where a creative act of functional transform might be
>> > found. Perhaps something like these metaphors: "John kicked around
>> > and then admired football." (zeugma) "Mary admired John, but kicked
>> > him out of her life." We respect the "functional pressures" of
>> syntax
>> > but utilize their force to make our expressions more powerful. Is
>> > this something like you have in mind?
>> >
>> > Bruce
>> >
>> > >>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 10/11/07 7:54 AM >>>
>> > Herb,
>> > I enjoyed both posts very much and will respond to both in this
>> one.
>> > I like the idea that the language is both "complex" and "subtle",
>> > which implies that it's a functional complexity. We bring new
>> > constructions into play precisely because they allow us to carry out
>> the
>> > various functions of language, and any attempt to describe it ought
>> to
>> > pay deep respect to that. They come into being because we find them
>> > useful and they become routinized (and intuitive) over time.
>> > I'm beginning to think that we use the term "rules" far too
>> readily
>> > and widely. What we are describing may in fact be a useful
>> construction
>> > or a functional pattern, not a "rule" in the way we usually
>> understand
>> > rules. Language may be better understood bottom up than top down.
>> > It does make sense to look for patterns, but when we find these
>> > similarities, when we classify sentences or constructions, we are not
>> > necessarily discovering some sort of internal rules that they are
>> > "following." The patterns are enormously important, and they do tend
>> to
>> > function below consciousness for very good (functional) reasons. But
>> > classifying the sentences or ascertaining the "rules" they represent
>> may
>> > be very misleading. Both "kick" and "admire" take direct objects, not
>> > because they are transitive, but because we understand kicking as a
>> > process that involves something to be kicked and admiring as a
>> process
>> > that requires something to be admired. The differences between being
>> > kicked and being admired may be more important than the similarities.
>> > Transitivity arises because it is congruent with our understanding of
>> > the world. When the patterns don't fit our purposes, we bend and
>> shape
>> > them, we blur the edges.
>> > This may be why studying formal grammar doesn't seem to carry
>> over,
>> > at least not quickly or easily. We need to respect the functional
>> > pressures, the context it arises from.
>> > When we write, we are not constructing forms; we are constructing
>> > meanings. Meaning is not simply poured into neutral forms. The
>> > constructions themselves are meaningful, arising out of that
>> > meaning-making history over time.
>> > I know that probably puts me at odds with many people on the list.
>> > But that's where my current thinking is headed.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> >
>> > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> > > Craig,
>> > >
>> > > What you describe as the verb pulling the preposition into its
>> orbit is
>> > > precisely the sort of historical change that's been going on since
>> Early
>> > > Modern English and has given us the very complex and subtle system
>> of
>> > > multi-word verbs we have in English today. So we have
>> constructions in
>> > > which about behaves in some ways as a preposition and in other
>> ways as a
>> > > part of the verb. And we just have to live with that fact.
>> Language
>> > > continually defies our attempts to codify it, which is what makes
>> it so
>> > > endlessly fascinating to study.
>> > >
>> > > Herb
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> > > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:01 AM
>> > > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > > Subject: Re: Those old transitivity blues was Help for a puzzled
>> teacher
>> > >
>> > > Herb, Peter, Bill, Ron,
>> > >
>> > > With apologies if they seems too theoretical for most people's
>> tastes. I
>> > >
>> > > have been thinking about these things for several months now and
>> have
>> > > mostly held back while the thoughts come into focus.
>> > >
>> > > The problem I currently have with tying to find a classification
>> for
>> > > "think about" is that I am starting to believe we make these
>> categories
>> > > more important (more governing) than they actually are. We tend to
>> feel
>> > > as if words have to act certain ways because of the grammar,
>> rather than
>> > >
>> > > believing that the grammar itself arises out of our use of words.
>> (Or
>> > > that it is a dynamic relationship, a lexico-grammar, word-grammar,
>> > > cline.) When classification becomes an end in itself, the living,
>> > > dynamic language gets left behind.
>> > >
>> > > Another way to think about it is that the process of thinking is
>> often
>> > > conceived of (and articulated) as "about" something, and over time
>> > > "think" and "about" come together often enough to start feeling like
>> a
>> > > single phrase rather than a verb plus prepositional phrase with a
>> > > variable object.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I often think about blank.
>> > >
>> > > I often think about blank
>> > >
>> > > From this way of thinking, the verb will begin to pull the
>> preposition
>> > > into its orbit, helped by two forces-one is repetition (the words
>> coming
>> > >
>> > > together so often)--and the other is congruency with our experience
>> of
>> > > the world, our conception of what thinking is like. In other words,
>> we
>> > > continue to use it because it is practical to use it, highly
>> > > "functional." And this becomes patterned.
>> > >
>> > > From a rule based approach, we have to say that "all grammars
>> leak",
>> > > but that may be because they try to treat the language as frozen
>> and not
>> > >
>> > > dynamic. If we see the creation of phrasal verbs as a dynamic
>> process,
>> > > then it is easy to treat in-between examples as part of that
>> process of
>> > > change-of grammatical structures being lexicalized and lexical
>> terms
>> > > being pulled into the grammar. From a usage based perspective,
>> leaking
>> > > is likely. Just like words, the grammar is always coming into
>> being.
>> > >
>> > > This gives us an approach to grammar that pulls us into meaning
>> and one
>> > > that frames meaning itself as contextual and dynamic.
>> > >
>> > > Craig
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Ron,
>> > >>
>> > >> Let's start with easiest of your questions, how to use information
>> > >>
>> > > like
>> > >
>> > >> this in teaching. The fact is that I wouldn't present a
>> seven-fold
>> > >> classification of anything grammatical in an ESL context. I might
>> be
>> > >> forced to do something like that if I were teaching Chinese
>> nominal
>> > >> classifiers, of which there are dozens, or Bantu noun classes,
>> which
>> > >>
>> > > can
>> > >
>> > >> exceed a couple dozen, but fortunately English doesn't do such
>> things.
>> > >> What's important in developing both fluency and register control
>> in
>> > >> non-native speakers is that they learn to shift particles when
>> doing
>> > >>
>> > > so
>> > >
>> > >> is pragmatically motivated, that they learn to use a passive when
>> that
>> > >> structure is pragmatically motivated. And this they will learn
>> much
>> > >> better from usage and practice than from grammar drill.
>> > >>
>> > >> I think perhaps you confused Bill and me in the latter part of
>> your
>> > >> post. Actually, the classification I posted is from Sidney
>> > >>
>> > > Greenbaum's
>> > >
>> > >> Oxford English Grammar (OUP, 1996), so I can't take credit for it.
>> > >> Transitivity does have degrees. Intransitives take only a
>> subject,
>> > >> (mono)transitives take a subject and a direct object, and
>> > >>
>> > > ditransitives
>> > >
>> > >> (SG's "doubly transitives") take a direct object and an indirect
>> > >>
>> > > object,
>> > >
>> > >> which may or may not require a preposition. Indirect object, bear
>> in
>> > >> mind, is a function, not a structure, and it can show up as either
>> a
>> > >> bare NP or as the object of a preposition. I suspect SG uses
>> > >> "monotransitivity" in a excess of clarity, the result of which
>> isn't
>> > >> necessarily what the writer hopes for.
>> > >>
>> > >> Actually, SG doesn't distinguish between "look at" and "look
>> after".
>> > >>
>> > > In
>> > >
>> > >> his discussion of prepositional verbs (p. 282), he uses "look at"
>> as
>> > >>
>> > > an
>> > >
>> > >> example of a monotransitive prepositional verb.
>> > >>
>> > >> Back to the question of goals for a moment. SG was writing a
>> > >>
>> > > reference
>> > >
>> > >> grammar, and so his goal was to provide as complete and thorough a
>> > >> classification of English structures as he could. Hence his seven
>> > >> classes of phrasal/prepositional verbs. What the ESL teacher does
>> > >>
>> > > with
>> > >
>> > >> this classification is subject to different, pedagogical goals, and
>> I
>> > >> hope that teacher would keep SG's treatment well away from his
>> > >>
>> > > students,
>> > >
>> > >> while being informed by it as he or she prepares lesson plans.
>> > >>
>> > >> Herb
>> > >>
>> > >> One of the great advantages of this List (and particularly if one
>> has
>> > >> the
>> > >> intellectual courage to state what one knows about grammar with
>> the
>> > >> attendant possibility of being proven to be wrong and the even
>> worse
>> > >> possibility of realising that one has been teaching something to
>> > >> students
>> > >> which is possibly incorrect) is the potential it has to make one
>> > >> re-examine
>> > >> one's own assumptions about some point of grammar.
>> > >>
>> > >> Herb's comments on the complexities of phrasal verbs and Bill's
>> list
>> > >>
>> > > of
>> > >
>> > >> three examples are cases in point. This query, then, is just to
>> > >>
>> > > clarify
>> > >
>> > >> things in their posts and particularly in the context of ESL.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill's list of three is as follows:
>> > >>
>> > >> I looked [up the chimney] prepositional phrase
>> > >> I [looked up] the word phrasal verb
>> > >> I looked [up] adverbial particle.
>> > >>
>> > >> Just to avoid ambiguity, I would modify the second two as follows:
>> > >>
>> > >> I [looked up] the word. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as
>> > >>
>> > > 'the
>> > >
>> > >> word' is the direct object of the resultant phrasal verb, 'look
>> up' is
>> > >>
>> > > a
>> > >
>> > >> transitive phrasal
>> > >> verb.
>> > >>
>> > >> I looked [up]. As 'up' is an adverbial particle and as there is
>> no
>> > >> direct
>> > >> object, 'look up' is an intransitive phrasal verb.
>> > >>
>> > >> Would Bill agree with this modification?
>> > >>
>> > >> Herb's list of seven really puts the cat amonst the pigeons of my
>> > >> assumptions about transitivity. Here's Bill's list:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. intransitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "give in" (surrender)
>> > >> 2. transitive phrasal verbs, e.g. "find" something "out"
>> (discover)
>> > >> 3. monotransitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "look after" (take
>> care
>> > >>
>> > > of)
>> > >
>> > >> 4. doubly transitive prepositional verbs, e.g. "blame" something
>> "on"
>> > >> someone
>> > >> 5. copular prepositional verbs, e.g. "serve as"
>> > >> 6. monotransitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "look up to"
>> > >> (respect)
>> > >> 7. doubly transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs, e.g. "put"
>> > >>
>> > > something
>> > >
>> > >> "down to" (attribute to)
>> > >>
>> > >> My problem is with 3 This is the first time that I have
>> encountered
>> > >>
>> > > the
>> > >
>> > >> term 'monotransitive' so perhaps Bill can explain the significance
>> of
>> > >> the addition of 'mono-'.
>> > >>
>> > >> In the case of 3, why is Bill implicitly differentiating 'look
>> at' and
>> > >> 'look
>> > >> after'? I ask this because I am assuming that he is not claiming
>> > >>
>> > > that
>> > >
>> > >> 'look at' is a monotransitive prepositional verb. In the case of
>> ESL,
>> > >>
>> > > I
>> > >
>> > >> think it preferable to consider them both intransitive in order
>> not to
>> > >> muddy the transitive waters too much.
>> > >>
>> > >> 6 & 7 are also problematic in ESL terms for the same reason but
>> > >>
>> > > perhaps
>> > >
>> > >> we can come to those later.
>> > >>
>> > >> Ron Sheen
>> > >>
>> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > >> interface at:
>> > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > >> and select "Join or leave the list"
>> > >>
>> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> > >>
>> > >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > >>
>> > > interface at:
>> > >
>> > >> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > >> and select "Join or leave the list"
>> > >>
>> > >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > > interface at:
>> > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > > and select "Join or leave the list"
>> > >
>> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> > >
>> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > interface at:
>> > > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > > and select "Join or leave the list"
>> > >
>> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> > interface at:
>> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> > and select "Join or leave the list"
>> >
>> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
>> > Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>> > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
>> > sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
>> sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
