Area of expertise (subdiscipline)

Area of expertise (method)

GLOW membership status

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [phonology]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [morphology]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [syntax]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [semantics]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [pragmatics]

I am content with the linguistic subdisciplines associated with the GLOW conference.

If you have any comments about the way different subdisciplines are represented at the GLOW conference, please share them below.

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [theoretical linguistics]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [experimental linguistics]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [corpus linguistics]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [computational linguistics]

I associate the annual GLOW conference with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [comparative/typological linguistics]

I am content with the linguistic methods associated with the GLOW conference.

If you have any comments about the way different methods are represented at the GLOW conference, please share them below.

I think it is good that the GLOW conference (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [has no invited speakers]

I think it is good that the GLOW conference (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [features long talks (45+15 minutes)]

I think it is good that the GLOW conference (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [has no parallel sessions]

I think it is good that the GLOW conference (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [hosts a poster session]

If you have any comments about the format of the GLOW conference, please share them below.

I associate GLOW (as an organization) with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [the annual conference]

I associate GLOW (as an organization) with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [supporting summer schools]

I associate GLOW (as an organization) with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [GLOWing lectures]

I associate GLOW (as an organization) with (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [other actitivities]

If you associate GLOW with other activities, which ones?

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [globally]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in Europe]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in North America]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in South America]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in Africa]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in Asia]

The impact of GLOW (as an organization) is strong (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [in Australia]

If you have any comments about the impact of GLOW as an organization, please share them below.

I believe an organization like GLOW is important for the generative linguistics community.

I am content with GLOW as an organization.

If you believe that GLOW should play a stronger or different role in the generative linguistics community, please indicate briefly in which ways.

I find the regular membership fees (unchanged since 2008) fair (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [student or unemployed/year €11,5]

I find the regular membership fees (unchanged since 2008) fair (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [regular/year €25]

I find the regular membership fees (unchanged since 2008) fair (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [student/4 years €30]

I find the regular membership fees (unchanged since 2008) fair (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [regular/5 years €110]

I find the regular membership fees (unchanged since 2008) fair (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [regular/10 years €200]

I would be willing to pay more or become a long-term member (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [if GLOW supports summer schools more]

I would be willing to pay more or become a long-term member (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [if GLOW reimburses students' travels to GLOW conferences]

I would be willing to pay more or become a long-term member (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [other]

If you have any ideas about how to meaningfully spend members' fees, please share them below.

If you have any comments about GLOW membership fees, please share them below.

First (and middle) name(s)

Please include below anything else relevant to the goals of this questionnaire.

I would be willing to pay more or become a long-term member (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [if things stay as they are (necessary as a response to inflation)]

In the past four years selected contributions from the GLOW conference were published in GLOWing Papers - special collections at Glossa: a journal of general linguistics under the guest co-editorship of the GLOW chair. Glossa special collections have a limit of 10 papers. I think that (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [it is good to have GLOW proceedings]

In the past four years selected contributions from the GLOW conference were published in GLOWing Papers - special collections at Glossa: a journal of general linguistics under the guest co-editorship of the GLOW chair. Glossa special collections have a limit of 10 papers. I think that (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [Glossa is a good venue for the proceedings]

In the past four years selected contributions from the GLOW conference were published in GLOWing Papers - special collections at Glossa: a journal of general linguistics under the guest co-editorship of the GLOW chair. Glossa special collections have a limit of 10 papers. I think that (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [GLOW chair (or other board members) should be the editor(s)]

In the past four years selected contributions from the GLOW conference were published in GLOWing Papers - special collections at Glossa: a journal of general linguistics under the guest co-editorship of the GLOW chair. Glossa special collections have a limit of 10 papers. I think that (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) [GLOW board should decide on the papers to be included]

If you have any comments about the GLOW proceedings, please share them below.

long-term member (4 or more years)

Corpus, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

long-term member (4 or more years)

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Comparative / Typological

Hunboldt Universität zu Berlin

I think the more you open it to different methods and disciplines, the less engaging it’s going to be for each individual attendee and the less dialogue will be among attendees.

I think it’s positive that it’s kind of “hard” to get into GLOW, because it makes it prestigious, and I also think it’s a nice thing that the talks are longer because it lets attendees explain their research longer. I’d add more poster so there’s a larger audience. But in order to make it appealing to whoever attends, the fields and methods need to be restricted (see my answer above).

Supporting students would be a great idea!

Maybe attendees can vote on which papers they think should be included based on the quality of the talks.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

I think that probably to strongest impact is the support of summer schools and given that people from all over the world come, then the impact is global, but it's very hard for me to tell what the direct impact in particular parts of the world other than Europe is.

Perhaps supporting Glossa if they agree to publish more than 10 papers in the special GLOWing volume?

Masaryk University in Brno & University of Wrocław

marcin.wagiel@phil.muni.cz

I strongly believe that all papers presented at GLOW should be invited to the proceedings (whatever the form of the proceedings is). It might be due to my ignorance, but I never understood the rationale behind this additional selection process and I always found it unsubstantiated, harmful and creating unnecessary issues regarding transparency, fairness etc. (I'd also like to emphasize that I'm not talking about rejecting papers based on negative reviews.) I believe that in principle Glossa is a good venue but the limit of 10 papers is of course problematic in the context of the above. However, perhaps this could be negotiated with Glossa editors? A potential solution that comes to mind is, e.g., proposing more than one special issues per year if needed, i.e., GLOWing Papers 2024a, GLOWing Papers 2024b etc. or GLOWing Papers 2024 Syntax, GLOWing Papers 2024 Semantics etc. Maybe there is some room for a reasonable compromise?

long-term member (4 or more years)

represent generative views to the outside

video content on the web, wikithon, membership in international congress of linguists

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Experimental, Corpus

long-term member (4 or more years)

Theoretical, Experimental, Corpus, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

To be honest, I am shocked by the amount of orthodoxy present at the GLOW conferences and I am not sure I will renew my membership if things continue going on like this. The conferences are open to various generative perspectives per se but reviewers are more often than not narrow-minded and accept only papers that they deem purely theoretical, which leads to an over-representation of papers on e.g. agreement making assumptions that are not falsifiable. On the other hand, some approaches are explicitly not welcome at all: diachronic studies, for instance, are often viewed as not having a place at GLOW, reviewers contrasting "theoretical" with "diachronic", which is absolutely nonsensical: diachronic generative syntax has been a thing for some decades now and it is very sad that papers addressing language change from a strong generative/minimalist perspective are more often than not excluded. The organisers of conferences should be more explicit about aspects of language change and variation (and I stress: of course from a theoretical, generative perspective) are welcome, as they should be.

If GLOW continues excluding generative/minimalist perspectives, we will end up having no impact at all other than on fellow GLOW members, and that would be said.

GLOW should recognise the wide range of generative topics that people actually do research on. Sticking to some 'core' topics will not end well.

Well, Glossa also has some tendencies towards orthodoxy and having selected GLOW papers, which are usually also selected on the basis of how religiously they follow the ideas of those who want to be more Chomskyan than Chomsky himself, will not improve the situation. The danger is that part of the generative community will end up being a clique.

I think making it a big umbrella for generative work and work grounded in generative theory is a good idea.

The long format, often with funding for those give the talks but no funding for those giving posters seemed a bit unfair

compton.richard@uqam.ca

Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

"OT" should have its own conference, because it's not a theory just a procedure (E. Keenan)

sometimes experimental *methods* (even nontrivial ones) are presented prematurely as results, robbing attention from more substantive contributions

(i assume that selection/review problems -- sc. gruppendenken -- will be addressed below)

the conference is already a lot, but the egg schools are useful to nurture non-mainstream work

old world is a useful euphemism for non-northamerican although it leaves south america in limbo. the motivation is similar to the european union, i.e. to create a partly autonomous alternative to the overbearing hegemony of MIT and its clones, because evolution dies in monoculture.

the less northamerican conformism the healthier in the long term

in most countries, the neoliberal debacle has subrepted the student/faculty distinction. at least it's overdue to recognize "nonstudent precarity" as distinct from "tenurosity".

glossa has good editors, and editorial independence controls the gruppendenken effekt.

It would be great if we could try to represent the 4 main subfields (phon, morph, syn, sem-prag) equally in terms of the number of presentations at the annual conference - if there are enough high quality submissions in each subfield, of course. This may require some effort and time, at least for phonology, I guess, but the more regularly phonology talks will be presented, the more phonologists will submit. I think we can all learn from each other (-> keyword: cross-modular parallelism) since we deal with very similar analytical problems. It certainly doesn't hurt if, e.g., a syntactician, also has a clue of what is currently debated in, say, phonology, and vice-versa. So listening to talks from different subfields at the GLOW conference will be beneficial for all of us, in my view.

I have no objections regarding the acceptance of some more experimental/computational work as long as the consequences for theory formation are pointed out. But I would definitely keep GLOW a (very valuable and competitive) venue for theoretical linguistics. There are less and less conferences where purely theoretical work (which keeps delivering lots of good and relevant insights) can be presented, we should not contribute to make the list even shorter; moreover, lots of new conferences have been founded to address specifically experimental work (e.g., Linguistic Evidence), so there is no need to turn GLOW into one of them. GLOW should stay THE formal linguistics conference in Europe.

The slots for the talks should be shortened, 45 minutes are very long, especially when a talk turns out to not to be so great after all. In my experience, hardly anybody requires 45 minutes to make the points they wish to make. The rest of the time is then often filled with very basic content/literature summaries that sometimes feels like an intro to, e.g., syntax - that should be avoided. I also do not like the 20-minute format many US conferences of a similar rank use, that is very short and usually not enough to make a proper argument. So I would go for something like 30 or 35 minutes (+10 minutes for discussion). This would also allow more presentations per day (without the need for parallel sessions).
Posters are great, especially since more (and especially also younger) people get the chance to present their work int his way, and to actually discuss it with more senior people in the field.

in the form of training of early career researchers regarding the state-of-the art in the 4 main subfields and a discussion of open questions that need to be addresses in these fields. Summer schools are one way of doing this, but they take a lot of time (both for the instructors and the students), and it's not helpful if they take place in the middle of the summer when most people want to take some time of (and have care work to do). Maybe a series of smaller (2-day) workshops on specific topics might be better in this regard. I'm sure that more people would agree to teach something for half a day or 2 days than for 2 entire weeks.

Supporting reimbursement for people without (enough) funding (e.g., students, researchers from countries that cannot afford to travel to Europe, ...) is something GLOW should offer. It doesn't have to be automatic such that every student would get funding, no matter the crcumstances. But there could be a certain sum dedicated to this purpose every year that would then be distributed among the candidates that need it most (to be decided by the board or the local organizers). I think we should not exclude people who do high-quality research because of their financial situation. I thus strongly support the reimbursement idea.
I would also invest more money into education (e.g., workshops, see above).
I would not invest any money into invited speakers, however. The people who are usually invited tend to have enought funds to pay for their travel. I'd rather like to have more slots available for talks selected based on peer-review.

doreen.georgi@uni-potsdam.de

Given that GLOW is very competitive, it should not be a problem for the authors to publish the work they present at GLOW in the usual high-quality journals. I do not see why we need GLOW proceedings for this purpose - especially since they're published in an existing journal (not in an independent GLOW proceedings series). What is the benefit of adding "GLOW proceedings" to a collection of Glossa articles when we can submit a paper to Glossa anyway, also without a presentation at GLOW? Is this supposed to be a sign of high quality? We already have peer-review for that. I would not do proceedings of GLOW at all. But if the members insist, it should then be an independent series. And then it should probably be open for all accepted presentations, doing only selective papers comes with a lot of issues (Who makes the decision? This is somewhat arbitrary and gives very few people a lot of power. Where publish it? Not to mention all the editorial work this requires - we should rather invest this time into research, there are enough good journals on the market already.)

Theoretical, Experimental, Corpus

University of South Carolina / Haifa University

could be more computational work

I guess I think it could be more connected to EU funding mechanisms, feeding into those as reviewers, and as a means of lobbying for generative research to be funded ~(or at least not dismissed!)

proceedings feel like a very old fashioned thing to do these days, but if we're to have them, Glossa is the obvious and excellent place to put them.

Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics

Theoretical, Experimental, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Theoretical, Corpus, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Participation of different fields will only change if the conference setup changes

GLOW should be a meeting of those who share, broadly speaking, the same ideas about generative grammar. For instance, experiment linguistics that is theoretically relevant, builds on theory. Etc.

The conference should be organized in such a way that it is a meeting place

Morphology, Syntax, Historical Linguistics

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Morphology has always seemed a bit underrepresented to me, at least those aspects that are not reducible to morphophonology or morphosyntax, which tend to be better represented.

I think the main focus should remain on theoretical linguistics, but maybe the representation of other methods could be more balanced (and maybe include evidence from diachrony as well) - provided it is clear that the goal is to supplement rather than replace the theoretical focus.

The only reason to have invited speakers that I can think of is that being an invited speaker at a prestigious conference like GLOW is relevant for job applications and grant applications and so on, especially for early career researchers and PhD students. But on the other hand, there's no reason why GLOW should have to cater to the whims of the cursed European grant application system.

I'm not sure about the impact outside of Europe and North America, actually (except for "GLOW in Asia", of course).

The work so far is much appreciated, but I think GLOW could be more active in representing and defending generative linguistics and its accomplishments, especially in the light of the current empiricist, anti-theoretical turn. For example, by proactively reaching out to media outlets to comment on the millionst story of how something disproves Chomsky's theory of such-and-such, or by making sure that GLOW members are represented on national and transnational review boards for research funding such as the ERC. Others will probably be able to think of additional strategies.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Why should the procession of paper inclusion in the selected papers be decided by the GLOW board? It is probable that this process would be influenced by bias (I have heard that GLOW workshop organizers actively discriminated against men in 2023 when deciding to invite speakers).

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Syntax clearly very strong, somewhat imbalanced

It is sometimes suggested that because phonology and semantics have their own conferences, they don't get represented at GLOW (or at similar "general" conferences in North America, like NELS), but I think it would be great to change this.

I think the current approach—of being primarily theoretical, but with other methodologies represented via workshops and in occasional talks—is appropriate.

GLOW talks are amazing! I really like it, and I think it distinguishes the conference from others with a similar theoretical/topic focus. This might be something to emphasize in trying to encourage more representation from other subdisciplines.

To support membership from academics with limited institutional support (especially in the "global south")

Queen's University at Kingston

bronwyn.bjorkman@queensu.ca

I have been only an occasional GLOW member (I think I was unclear as a student that presenters were expected to join GLOW), but greatly value the annual conference and submit / attend when it is practical for me to do so. I deeply appreciate the work of the GLOW board over the last year of controversy.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

I see more potential for GLOW to support young researchers. For example by inlcuding prizes for best abstract/presentation (submitted/held by a PhD student) at the conference etc.

long-term member (4 or more years)

Kanda University of International Studies

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

The theoretical focus should be maintained if not strengthened.

I personally do not benefit from long talks in a conference, because I can't stay focused. Additionally, I have the impression that often the talks are standard 20 min talks that are filled with fluff in order to meet the time constraint. I would prefer shorter talks. No strong feelings about the other aspects.

ELTE & Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics

marcel.den.dikken@nytud.hu

Papers presented at GLOW should be strong enough to make in into the major journals on their own: they are hefty papers featuring completed research, typically not interim reports on work in progress.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

A good balance between experimental and theoretical work seems like a good strategy moving forward.

Again, a balance between experimental and theoretical approaches is key.

Maybe it can do more on a regular basis. Lectures could be one thing, but a newsletter may also not be a bad idea. A problem, at least from my point of view, is that the generative community in Europe and beyond is rather fragmented these days. GLOW should play a better and more visible role in trying to bring the community together so that there actually is a sense of there being a community. Currently the latter is missing in my view.

I think summer schools are really vital.

I think it's important to adjust the fees in view of the inflation since 2008. Otherwise GLOW will have very limited possibilities to make an impact as an organization.

If we are to do proceedings, which I am not sure is worth the effort, the local team should be responsible for handling the editorial work.

I really appreciate the work the board has been doing to encourage phonologists to apply. All big generative conferences are syntax-heavy. I'm not sure why that is. It would be nice to see a real balance of disciplines at GLOW (and not just in the associated workshops).

I'm setting aside the GLOW in Asia conferences.

I really like the addition of the GLOWing lectures, and hope they continue. Other series, on say abstract writing, argumentation in linguistics, methodological issues, would be great too.

Student travel is a great way, although it would be good to direct the money to students whose home institutions are poorer/cannot offer them funding. Events at the conferences food, workshops). Maybe on a student hire to boost social media presence and attract more members.

Phonology, Morphology, Syntax

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics

Theoretical, Experimental, Comparative / Typological

the PF side is clearly underrepresented at GLOW; however, I suspect the real reason is not the representation of linguistics subfields but the methods and theoretical approaches; it might be the prevalence of empirististic methods and Baysian methods that makes GLOW a less attractive forum; which, if correct, raises the question whether a more inclusive approach would mean rethinking the theoretical positions taken by current presenters/board etc.

I already alluded to it in my previous answer; I think the methods that are the real reason some subfields are underrepresented; I personally find a clear value in sticking to theoretical approaches because the field needs a venue for that

the best thing about GLOW is that everyone is in the same room and there's space to think and talk about the work presented

long-term member (4 or more years)

Please accept more papers. It'd be good if the acceptance rate (incl posters) is around 25-30%. Otherwise you really miss good papers.

Or have a lifetime-only fee (not too expensive) so that everybody remains a glow member and glow will have a very large amount of members.

Phonology, Morphology, Semantics

Theoretical, Computational

Antisemitic agitation (BDS)

Stop yielding to antisemitic agitation

Syntax, language acquisition

long-term member (4 or more years)

long-term member (4 or more years)

While my feeling is that there used to be more syntax and phonology, I'd say that in recent years all subdisciplines have been incorporated. GLOW should accept any good abstract on any of the above subdisciplines.

They are fine and affordable as they are.

long-term member (4 or more years)

I think we should keep it theoretical - other methods have plenty of their own outlets.

Having parallel sessions for different subfields would be nice. We like each other but want to hear a talk in our own subfield.

I think all papers from the conference should be included.

Theoretical, Experimental, Computational

The quality of the syntax and semantics talks at GLOW are very high. Both the quality and quantity of the phonology and morphology talks are often low. I have a lot to say about why this might be---NELS, in the US, has a rather similar problem.

I am fine with a GLOW that emphasizes theoretical ("armchair") work. I don't think there's any animus towards other methodologies, and that a high-quality experimental (e.g.) paper that addressed interesting generative questions would be well-enjoyed there, even if few are received in actuality.

I think GLOW is doing quite a bit better than equivalents like NELS and WCCFL in the US, and I like attending.

I appreciate the periodic survey of members.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

The decision to move GLOW from Israel was a mistake, because it makes the organization look as if it has been subject to anti-semitic capture of the kind that many institutions in Europe have been recently.

It is a lot of money for too few talks. More talks and more varied, please!

It cannot have a significant impact if conferences are organized tge way they are.

I think the Glow organisation should be more inclusive and less "mainstream". Space should be given to more varied topics. More talks, and shorter. More ideas and less "conventional" issues!

Theoretical, Corpus, Comparative / Typological

Theoretical, Experimental, Computational

long-term member (4 or more years)

I think it is overly Minimalist. Incorporating other syntactic theories and also other subfields of linguistics would be better.

Phonology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Corpus, Computational

just remember Richie Kayne's lecture in Lisboa on asymmetry, which was almost a preaching setup (due to the architectural context). Having invited speakers could be a good opportunity to set up a current theme, but should be treated individually on each occasion.

friedrich.neubarth@ofai.at

Theoretical, Corpus, Computational

It’s my impression that GLOW has traditionally been considered a very theoretical syntax-heavy conference.

University of Massachusetts Amherst

singapore2003@gmail.com

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

long-term member (4 or more years)

Please make sure that online attendance and presentations are possible. This is to open up to the diverse audience. I do not have an academic job, that means I have 5 weeks of vacation which I need for rest and family care. I cannot afford to travel to a conference timewise. Other diverse people might not be able to travel for reasons of money, visa, disabilities, child care etc. I strongly feel that academic discussion should be grounded on the quality of the work, not on the body properties (including its location) of the speaker.

This is a recommendation: GLOW should pursue more political issues as commenting on grammar education in schools.

antonia.rothmayr@gmx.ch

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

long-term member (4 or more years)

Theoretical, Experimental, Comparative / Typological

jana.willer-gold@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk

Glow host (for that year) should feature as main editor

Morphology, Syntax, bilingualism

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics

e.kiss.katalin@nytud.hun-ren.hu

Theoretical, Experimental, Comparative / Typological

It is a heavy bias towards syntax and the syntax-semantics interface. Not only in the program, but also in the way participants attend talks during the conference.

Not only reimbursement for students but also currently unemployed people (happens to often unfortunately), so they can still join if they are inbetween jobs; and more generally people with no travel money; the reimbursement should only hold for presenters though, otherwise the costs would be too high

Goethe-Universität Frankfurt

himmelreich@lingua.uni-frankfurt.de

Since the local organizers play a big role in the topic of the conference and the organization, they should be involved as editors or at least get first dips to be editors. Also, the GLOW board/organizers could ask people to be editors. This way, the power would be distributed more.

long-term member (4 or more years)

It’s an online journal, there’s absolutely no reason why ALL papers shouldn’t be included. So that should be the case in my view. If necessary, cut down the number of talks at the conference.

In my view, the talks are too long. Very often I have the impression that the specific contribution of a talk could have been made in 20 mintes -30 minutes at most- but the speaker has to fill up the rest of the time with backround and irrelevant fillers. Furthermore, the 45 minute-length seems to me to represent an impediment for innovative theoretical ideas, since disruptive theoretical innovations may not be fully developped and may require shorter presentations.

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

I was a bit confused with how to interpret the previous question. To clarify, I believe that it would be good for GLOW to have a poster session, good-ish to have invited speakers; I think it would be better not to have parallel sessions and to have slightly shorter talks (perhaps, 30+10).

I forgot to mention it on the relevant page: it would be nice to have a dedicated student/postdoc panel or poster session or workshop added to the main Glow conference and organized together with it. There are some excellent dedicated student conferences in Europe, but they are organized separately from the more "senior"/broadly recognized events.

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Experimental, Fieldwork

I associate GLOW pretty strictly with syntax (and phonology) of major European languages which seem over represented at GLOW

It should diversify in terms of language and language families represented at the work being presented at GLOW. Over abundance of languages from a particular subfamily or geographical region does not come across as inclusive

All papers should be included in the proceedings, perhaps even posters

I think of GLOW as a syntax conference for the most part.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

For Asia, I have in mind GLOW-in-Asia, not GLOW (in Europe)

sandhya.sundaresan@stonybrook.edu

long-term member (4 or more years)

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Theoretical, Corpus, Computational, Historical

long-term member (4 or more years)

Morphology, Syntax, Semantics

Theoretical, Experimental, Computational

The English and Foreign Languages University

pallab.basu97@gmail.com

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological, Fieldwork

long-term member (4 or more years)

The recurring lack of phonology / syntax-dominance has been unfortunate.

The strong theoretical commitment is important to maintain; diverse methods should be welcome but only to the extent that they advance linguistic theory. It's important to have a venue like that.

The format is great, but from time to time there are some talks that feel a bit light, or not quite right for taking advantage of that time and attention. I wonder if there's a way to more significantly weight "appropriateness for a 45 min talk" in the selection process. One possibility that comes to mind is that GLOW board members reach out to people who they have seen give very strong and rich presentations at other venues and encourage them to submit versions of that same work to GLOW (without guarantee of selection, but weighing this information).

This answer would change if GLOW in Asia is considered "part of GLOW" or not, which was unclear from the question. (In practice, given its independent operations and governance — which is unfortunate, I personally think — I have answered as if there is no such connection.)

Better engagement with allied organizations elsewhere in the world (i.e. GLOW in Asia, which unfortunately currently is really not an organization, but also elsewhere)

University of Helsinki / National University of Singapore

Thank you for your thoughtful stewardship!!

The relationship with Glossa is unique and a very good one. Making it clear that this is "selected papers" is important too, to highlight that it truly is a peer reviewed venue, not a "traditional" proceedings.

Theoretical, Computational

It would be nice if students (especially local ones) could join the conference for free. This has not been the case yet and led to students not participating (even if they are practically next door).

Now that you've seen the global surge in antisemitism that your organization played an unwitting, albeit small, role in, it would be good if you took concrete steps to expel the cancerous antisemites from among your membership. At the very least, bar them from holding board positions and the like.

Theoretical, Comparative / Typological

long-term member (4 or more years)

if GLOW is about generative linguistics, and not more broadly formal linguistics, it is natural that certain subdisciplines are more represented than others

what do you mean by "impact"? GLOW is considered a very prestigious venue by a group of linguists - is this "impact"?

I feel GLOW could help disseminating work and initiatives by GLOW members (publications, ongoing research projects, advanced teaching initiatives) with the aim of strengthening the links among community members and sharing efforts to further generative approaches to language (e.g. by means of joint teaching activities). I appreciate the current efforts by the GLOW conference t become a more welcoming environment.

As far as I know, generative linguistics mainly tries to solve the Plato's problem about acquisition. The lack of representation of language acquisition is thus quite strange. I think including acquisition would not only be desirable but also necessary.

I'm not sure if the impact of an organization should be measured by its geographic breadth. Maybe GLOW can also explore its impact on connection between linguistics and other fields, which is not explored enough.

Connecting linguistics to psychology, cognitive science, computer science, natural language processing etc, without losing its aim to promote linguistic research that is aimed for understanding human.

National University of Singapore

zhengshen522@gmail.com

long-term member (4 or more years)

Uit the arctic university of norway