Friday's meeting, 17/11/00

From: Richard Ogden (rao1@york.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 16:00:49 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Huckvale: "Words on Computing for 3rd Proposal"

    Dear all,

    Jill and I met on Friday to talk about our latest grant proposal. This is
    a very short summary of where we think we are.

    1. The deadline we were going for was early December. Are we still aiming
    for this, realistically? If so, we have about two weeks to get the whole
    thing done. We spent so much time mulling over ideas on Friday (esp. how
    to fit everyone's work together coherently) that we didn't produce a
    detailed action plan. It didn't help either that I couldn't get there till
    lunchtime. So, what's the plan now? Get it over and done with snappy-like,
    or take time and submit later (which *still* means doing things now)?

    2. I agreed to take over Sarah's document and work on it this week
    (Prosynth 2.4, 28.10.00). (This means I am volunteering to co-ordinate the
    writing of the proposal for at least a while.) But Mark said (and we
    agreed) that our main priorities at this point are to work out what's in
    the work packages. We'd like to ask everyone to consider what they want to
    contribute and *write it up*. I'll work on Friday to put things together.
    I might have some time too next week; but after that less time to get much
    done.

    We agreed that the current headings are useful:

    WP1: collect and annotate data

    WP2: enrich phonological representations
    Primarily for York and MArk to work on.

    WP3: apposition
    material needed from each site/PI: what do you want to work on, and how?

    WP4: lists
    same as for apposition.

    We think most of the current material under WP3/4 should be moved to WP1.
    Under WP3/4 we envisage minprojects like "rhythmicity in lists",
    "assimilation in/between list items", "intonation of
    appositions/pre/post".

    I'll try and rework parts of the background section too. There are a lot
    fo words/ideas in there that aren't easy to understand, and we felt it
    needs unpacking.

    Mark suggested that the thrust of the proposal ahs to be that we're
    working on information structure, and we've chosen two good examples of
    that. I think that's right and propose to work on the background section
    so it reflects that better. We'll also need to put more definitions
    inthere, like 'list', 'apposition', and 'gestalt', for starters.

    I hope this helps. Personally I'm sorry I couldn't contribute more last
    week.

    Richard



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 20 2000 - 16:01:37 GMT