Discourse op Dinsdag: this monday (!)

Discourse op Maandag

Date & time: March 30; 11:00-12:30

Location: Utrecht, Kromme Nieuwegracht 80, Stijlkamer van Ravesteyn 1.06

Jennifer Spenader

University of Groningen

Coherence Relations, Anaphora and Presupposition

Abstract:

Consider the following sentences and what the preferred interpretation of “he” is:

(1) Samuel threatened Justin with a knife, and he blindfolded Erin with a scarf (too). (Parallel)
(2) Justin was threatened by Samuel with a knife, and he blindfolded Erin with a scarf (too). (Parallel)
(3) Justin was threatened by Samuel with a knife, and he was arrested. (Cause-Effect)

The verb meaning makes clear that “he” should be interpreted as Justin in all three sentences, but somehow (2) is awkward. Kehler’s (2002) theory claims parallel coherence relations between two clauses constrains antecedent-anaphor relationships to parallel interpretations, e.g. object antecedents for object anaphora, etc. Because (2) has a passive-active voice mismatch, interpreting the pronoun in (2) is more awkward than in (1).  Cause-Effect relations are claimed to permit freer anaphoric links,  thus the same voice mismatch in a cause-effect relation in (3) is claimed not to influence anaphoric relationships.

Kehler illustrates his theory with convincing natural examples, but recently his theory has been tested experimentally, with a number of conflicting results (e.g. Frazier & Clifton, 2006, Kehler et al. 2008, Kertz 2008, Kobele et al. 2008). As a possible explanation, Frazier & Clifton (2006) and Hendriks (2002) have both suggested that the presence of presupposition triggers like “too” might influence pronoun interpretation possibilities.

In this talk I will present the motivation and set-up of a series of planned experiments to clarify the contribution of presuppositional triggers to pronoun interpretation in Parallel and Cause-Effect coherence relations, and discuss potential outcomes and their explanations.

The Discourse op Dinsdag discussion group is intended for researchers working on discourse from a language use perspective, and offers a platform to discuss their work (in progress). For more information check our website http://www.let.uu.nl/vici.

ICLC 2009 Berkeley cancelled

Official announcement by Laura Janda, president ICLA

Dear members of the International Cognitive Linguistics Association and other friends of Cognitive Linguistics,

I have recently been informed that the preparations for the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Berkeley in 2009 have reached an impasse and it is necessary to cancel the conference. This cancellation has come about despite sustained and laudable efforts to rescue the situation. However, responsibility for organization of the conference rests with the local organizers, who have made the decision to cancel.

We are at present working on an amended conference schedule over the next three years. We hope to honor the efforts of the hundreds of scholars who submitted abstracts for ICLC 2009 by integrating them into a future conference. Our colleagues in China have graciously offered us the possibility of moving the conference originally planned for 2011 to 2010, and our colleagues Sally Rice and John Newman have tentatively agreed to host the conference in Alberta, Canada in 2012. In addition, there are several alternatives for cognitive linguistic conferences this year, among them AFLiCo May 27-29 (http://www.aflico.fr/colloque.html) , SALC in Stockholm, June 10-12 (http://www.salc-sssk.org) , and the Slavic cognitive linguistics conference, October 15-17 in Prague (http://ucjtk.ff.cuni.cz/sclc/sclc_eng.htm) .

I realize that the cancellation of the ICLC 2009 in Berkeley is terrible news for many of us. The point in sending this message is to inform potential participants as early as possible, before concrete travel plans have been made.

It is important that we all work together toward the future of the ICLA. The current situation presents a challenge for our organization, but I believe that our combined efforts will lead to positive solutions.

I expect to have more information for you shortly. It will be necessary for us to make some important decisions for the ICLA and I appreciate the support of our members at this time.

Laura Janda

President ICLA

Construction Grammar Discussion Group: March 27

A Constructional Analysis of Quasi-Incorporation in Dutch

Geert Booij (University of Leiden)

Date and time: March 27, 15.30-17.00
Location: Utrecht University (precise location will be added)

Reading: If you would like to read the article we will be discussing, please send an e-mail to Elena Tribushinina.

 

Abstract: This paper deals with quasi-incorporation, the phenomenon that bare nouns form tight phrasal lexical units with verbs. The data are mainly from Dutch. The semantics of quasi-incorporation is similar to that of real noun-incorporation: the bare noun receives a generic interpretation, and the NV combination denotes a conventional activity. However, the lexical units are phrasal since they are separable in root clauses, and in verb raising clusters. It is shown that such Dutch bare Noun + V combinations (either singular or plural nouns) have two structural interpretations. They are either VPs with an NP that consist of the bare noun only, or they are units of the form [N⁰ V⁰]_V0, and thus a case of adjunction of the bare noun to the verb. The behaviour of these NV combinations under verb raising, in the Dutch periphrastic progressive construction, and with respect to the choice of the correct negative word (geen or niet) is shown to follow from the assumption of two possible structural analyses. Thus, Dutch quasi-incorporation is parallel to the analysis of similar cases of incorporation in Japanese, presented in Iida and Sells (2007). If the bare noun has no argumental role with respect to the verb, it is only the second structural option that is available, that of adjunction.

Quasi-incorporation can be seen as a construction, in which a specific syntactic pattern receives a specific semantic interpretation, that of conventional activity. Thus, the paper argues that the notion ‘construction’ is essential for giving a proper account of the semantics of quasi-noun incorporation.

 

Discourse op Dinsdag: March 24

 

Date & time: March 24, 15:30-17:00

Location: Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, Room 0.06

Sergey Avrutin

UiL-OTS, Utrecht University

The syntax-discourse interface and representation of anaphoric dependencies

Abstract

I will present a model of the syntax-discourse interface that is based on the different representations of functional and lexical elements in discourse.  Specifically, in the model I develop, functional categories such as D introduce a discourse place holder (‘a file card frame’) and lexical categories such as N introduce the referential substance (‘a file card heading’).  Anaphoric elements of three types are analyzed: SE elements (‘zich’), SELF elements (‘zichzelf’) and pronouns. The main idea is that the differences in morphology and feature specification of these elements result in their different discourse representations.  Their interpretation depends on the relationship between discourse entities (file cards) which are constrained by a set of rules/principles that I discuss.  A substantial part of the theory of anaphora, therefore, appears to be explainable at a beyond-narrow-syntax level.

The Discourse op Dinsdag discussion group is intended for researchers working on discourse from a language use perspective, and offers a platform to discuss their work (in progress). For more information check our website http://www.let.uu.nl/vici.

Meetings are planned 4-weekly on Tuesdays 15:30-17:00, in Utrecht. If you wish to participate, please let us know. If you’re interested in presenting your research, we invite you to come forward by sending an email to r.vanveen@uu.nl.