Syntactic and pragmatic constraints on processing relative clauses

Thc oen itninteureasc ttioo nb eo fa pcreangtmraal tiiscs uaen di ns ymnotadcetlisc ocfo nsestnrtaeinnctse processing. It is well established that object relatives (1) are harder to process than subject relatives (2). Passivization, other things being equal, increases sentence complexity. However, one of the functions of the passive construction is to promote an NP into the role of subject so that it can be more easily bound to the head NP in a higher clause. Thus, (3) is predicted to be marginally preferred over (1). Passiviazation in this instance may be seen as a way of avoiding the object relative construction. 1. The pipe that the traveller smoked annoyed the passengers. 2. The traveller that smoked the pipe annoyed the passengers. 3.The pipe that was smoked by the traveller annoyed the 4.The traveller that the pipe was smoked by annoyed the 5.The traveller that the lady was assaulted by annoyed the In (4) we have relativization of an NP which has been demoted by passivization to the status of a by-phrase. Such relative clauses may only be obtained under quite restrictive pragmatic conditions. Many languages do not permit relativization of a constituent as low as a by-phrase on the NP accessibility hierarchy (Comrie, 1984). The factors which determine the acceptability of demoted NP relatives like (4-5) reflect the ease with which the NP promoted to subject position can be taken as a discourse topic. We explored the acceptability of sentences such as (1-5) using pair-wise judgements of samddifferent meaning, accompanied by ratings of easeof understanding. Results are discussed with reference to Gibsons DLT model of linguistic complexity and sentence processing (Gibson, 2000)

Engaging with theories of dialogue and voice: Using Bakhtin as a framework to understand teaching and learning Indigenous Australian women's performance

In this paper I explore the Indigenous Australian women's performance classroom (hereafter ANTH2120) as a dialectic and discursive space where the location of possibility is opened for female Indigenous performers to enter into a dialogue from and between both non-Indigenous and Indigenous voices. The work of Bakhtin on dialogue serves as a useful standpoint for understanding the multiple speaking positions and texts in the ANTH2120 context. Bakhtin emphasizes performance, history, actuality and the openness of dialogue to provide an important framework for analysing multiple speaking positions and ways of making meaning through dialogue between shifting and differing subjectivities. I begin by briefly critiquing Bakhtin's "dialogic imagination" and consider the application and usefulness of concepts such as dialogism, heteroglossia and the utterance to understanding the ANTH2120 classroom as a polyphonic and discursive space. I then turn to an analysis of dialogue in the ANTH2120 classroom and primarily situate my gaze on an examination of the interactions that took place between the voices of myself as family/teacher/student and senior Yanyuwa women from the r e m o t e N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t y o f B o r r o l o o l a as family/performers/teachers. The 2000 and 2001 Yanyuwa women's performance workshops will be used as examples of the way power is constantly shifting in this dialogue to allow particular voices to speak with authority, and for others to remain silent as roles and relationships between myself and the Yanyuwa women change. Conclusions will be drawn regarding how my subject positions and white race privilege affect who speaks, who listens and on whose terms, and further, the efficacy of this pedagogical platform for opening up the location of possibility for Indigenous Australian women to play a powerful part in the construction of knowledges about women's performance traditions.

Public Intellectuals, Book Culture and Civil Society

Introduction: the rise and rise of the public intellectual My starting point is the remarkable rise to prominence of public intellectuals – and talk about public intellectuals – over the last decade in Australia. Since 1997, especially, this has occurred around Indigenous questions with the result that issues such as the stolen generations, genocide, the apology and reconciliation have also gained new prominence. This is undeniably a good thing. New ways of thinking about history and the nation and new kinds of public ethical discourse have been put into circulation. History as battleground is preferable to the great Australian silence. And yet – my starting point is also the ambivalent effects and meanings of these recent developments, not least the way that the debates have centred so much around the figure of the 'public intellectual', the way that certain kinds of intellectuals and intellectual discourse have come to dominate the mainstream representation of the issues.