<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western"> <font size="-1"><tt>Call
for Papers<br>
*Evidentiality, Modality and Corpus Linguistics*<br>
</tt></font><font size="-1"><tt><font size="-1"><tt><br>
</tt></font>*INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EVIDENTIALITY AND
MODALITY IN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES 2014 (EMEL’14)*<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.ucm.es/emel14/">http://www.ucm.es/emel14/</a><br>
<br>
Facultad de Filología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,<br>
6-8 October 2014<br>
<br>
Workshop convenors:<br>
Dylan Glynn (Linguistique anglaise, psycholinguistique
University of Paris VIII) <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:dglynn@univ-pari8.fr">dglynn@univ-pari8.fr</a><br>
Paola Pietrandrea (University of Tours & CNRS LLL) <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:paolapietrandrea@gmail.com">paolapietrandrea@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
*MODAL CATEGORIES. TOWARDS THE TYPOLOGICALLY VALID ANNOTATION
OF DEONTIC, EPISTEMIC, EVIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN NATURAL
LANGUAGE*<br>
<br>
<br>
Submissions are invited for 20 minutes talks + 10 min.
discussion.<br>
Abstracts of 300 words (excluding references) are invited.<br>
Please make sure the abstract contains a clear summary of the
research question, the data and method and (prospective)
results.<br>
The language of the workshop will be English.<br>
<br>
<br>
Abstract submission deadline: 25 April 2014<br>
Notification of acceptance by the workshop convenors: 25 May
2014<br>
Notification of acceptance by the conference organisers: 26
May 2014<br>
Papers accepted for oral presentation due by 5 September 2014<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*Call Information*<br>
This workshop seeks to bring together the research traditions
of computational linguistics, corpus linguistics and typology
in the study of modality (deontic, epistemic, evidential).
More specifically, the categorisation / annotation of the
different modal phenomena and the various factors with which
they interact is a fundamental concern for all three
approaches. Collaboration of such concerns cross the
theoretical and methodological divisions and our insights from
different perspectives should be to the benefit of all.<br>
<br>
Within the computational tradition, as pointed out by Nissim
et al. (2013), recent years have witnessed the development of
annotation schemes and annotated corpora for different aspects
of modality in different languages (McShane et al. (2004);
Wiebe et al. (2005); Szarvas et al. (2008); Sauri and
Pustejovsky (2009); Hendrickx et al. (2012); Baker et
al.(2012)). While there have been efforts towards finding a
common avenue for modality annotation, such as the CoNLL-2010
Shared Task, ACL thematic workshops and a special issue of
Computational Linguistics (Morante and Sporleder (2012)), the
computational linguistics community is still far from having
developed working, shared standards for converting
modality-related issues into annotation categories.<br>
<br>
A similar state of affairs holds for the immense quantity of
research in the corpus-driven tradition in modality research
where the where functionally determined annotation schemas
have long been the focus of debate Most of the research in
this tradition has focused on the operationalisation of the
manually annotated categories, but recent years have seen the
growth methods that employ inter-coder agreement measures and
predictive statistical modeling. Key references include, but
are not restricted to: Coates (1983); Biber & Finegan
(1988, 1989); Aijmer (1997, 2013), Hunston & Thompson
(1998); Krug (2000); Nuyts (2001); Mushin (2001); Tucker
(2001); Scheibman (2002); Kärkkäinen (2003), Rizomilioti
(2003); Facchinetti, Krug & Palmer (2003); Paradis (2003);
Marín-Arrese (2004); Martin & White (2005);
Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer (2007); Hunston (2007);
Englebretson (2007); Cornillie (2007); Narrog (2008, 2012);
Divjak (2010); Diewald & Smirnova (2010a); Boye (2012);
Beijering (2012); Deshors (2012); and Glynn & Sjölin
(2014).<br>
<br>
In typology, identifying and characterizing the range of modal
types and their marking across the languages of the world is
clearly an ongoing and immensely difficult task, which is
leading towards a complete classification of modal functions
and a thorough understanding of the relations holding between
modal categories as well as towards an understanding of the
grammatical vs. lexical nature of modal markers across
languages. One such line of research where the use of corpora
is gaining methodological importance is comparative
linguistics. Examples of typology research in the field
include: van der Auwera & Plungian (1998); Johanson &
Utas (2000); Plungian (2001, 2011); Dendale & Tasmowski
(2001); Squartini (2001, 2004); Aikhenvald (2004); Wiemer
(2005); Wiemer & Plungjan (2008); Holvoet (2007);
Xrakovskij (2007); Guentcheva & Landaburu (2007), Hansen
& De Haan (2009); Boye & Harder (2009); Mortelmans et
al. (2009); Boye (2010); Diewald & Smirnova (2010b, 2011);
Mauri & Sanso’ (2012); and Abraham & Leiss (2013).<br>
<br>
We invite topologists, computational linguists and corpus
linguists working on in the field to join our discussion on
the contribution that corpus analyses can bring to the study
of modality.<br>
<br>
Ideas for research questions include but are not limited to
the following:<br>
<br>
1. What do corpora teach us about modality? How can corpus
analyses help us to refine the repertoire of modal functions?
How can the analysis of (parallel) corpora help to determine
cross-linguistic (typologically valid) consistency in modal
categories?<br>
<br>
2. How do we operationalise (for annotation) non-observable
(functional - conceptual) modal categories? Do current
annotation schemata allow for a thorough identification of the
modality and evidentiality markers existing in discourse?<br>
<br>
3. What methods exist (usage-feature analysis, sentiment
analysis, latent semantic analysis etc.) for the description
of modal structures?<br>
<br>
4. What statistical instruments of analysis do we need for
accounting for the distribution of modal markers in corpora?<br>
<br>
<br>
*References*<br>
Abraham, W. & E. Leiss (eds.). 2013. Funktionen von
Modalität. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Aijmer, K. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. T. Swan
& O. Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in the Germanic
Languages, 1–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Aijmer, K. 2013. Analyzing modal adverbs as modal particles
and discourse markers. L. Degand, B. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea
(eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: categorization
and description, 89-106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Aikhenvald, Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.<br>
Baker, K., B. Dorr, M. Bloodgood, C. Callison-Burch, N.
Filardo, C. Piatko, L. Levin, & S. Miller. 2012. Use of
modality and negation in semantically-informed syntactic MT.
Computational Linguistics 38.<br>
Beijering, K. 2012. Expressions of Epistmeic Modality in
Mainland Scandinavian. PhD dissertation, University of
Groningen.<br>
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in
English. Discourse Processes 11: 1–34.<br>
Biber, D. & E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English:
Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect.
Text 9: 93–124<br>
Boye, K. 2010. Semantic maps and the identification of
cross-linguistic generic categories: Evidentiality and its
relation to Epistemic Modality. Linguistic Discovery 8: 4–22.<br>
Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic Meaning. A crosslinguistic and
functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Boye, K. & P. Harder. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic
categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language16:
9-43.<br>
Coates, J. 1983 The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries.
London: Croom Helm<br>
Coates, J. 1995. The expression of root and epistemic
possibility in English. J. Bybee & S. Fleischman
(eds.)Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 55-66. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.<br>
Cornillie, B. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in
Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries. A Cognitive-Functional Approach.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
de Haan, F. 2005. Typological approaches to modality. W.
Frawley (ed.). The Expression of Modality. The expression of
cognitive categories, 27–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Dendale, P. & L. Tasmowski (eds.). 2001 Evidentiality (Sp.
ed. Journal of Pragmatics 33). Amsterdam: Elsevier.<br>
Deshors, S. 2012. A multifactorial study of the uses of may
and can in French-English interlanguage. PhD dissertation,
University of Sussex.<br>
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova (eds). 2010a. The Linguistic
Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova, 2010b. Evidentiality in German.
Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Diewald, G. & E. Smirnova (eds). 2011. Modalität und
Evidentialität. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.<br>
Divjak, D. 2010. Corpus-based evidence for an idiosyncratic
aspect-modality interaction in Russian. In D. Glynn & K.
Fisher (eds), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics:
Corpus-driven Approaches, 305-330. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Englebretson, R. 2007. (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse:
Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.<br>
Facchinetti, R. & F. Palmer (eds.). 2003 English Modality
in Perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive. Bern: Peter
Lang.<br>
Glynn, D. & M. Sjölin, (eds.) 2014. Subjectivity and
Epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and
narration.Lund: Lund University Press.<br>
Guentcheva Z. et J. Landaburu (eds.), 2007. L'énonciation
médiatisée II - Le traitement épistémologique de
l'information: illustrations amérindiennes et caucasiennes,<br>
Hansen Bj & F. De Haan. 2009. Modals in the languages of
Europe, a reference work. Berlin: Mouton.<br>
Hendrickx, I., A. Mendes, & S. Mencarelli. 2012. Modality
in text: a proposal for corpus annotation. Proc. of LREC’12.<br>
Holvoet, A. 2007 Mood and Modality in Baltic. Krakow:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagielloflskiego.<br>
Hunston, S. & G. Thompson (eds.) 1998 Evaluation in Text.
Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.<br>
Hunston, S. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance
quantitatively and qualitatively, R. Englebretson
(ed.)Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation,
Interaction, 27-48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Johanson, L. & B. Utas (eds.) 2000. Evidentials: Turkic,
Iranian and Neighbouring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Karkkainen, E. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation.
A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on
I Think. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A corpus-based study
of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Marín-Arrese, J. 2004 (ed.) Perspectives on Evidentiality and
Modality in English and Spanish. Madrid: Editorial
Complutense.<br>
Martin, J. & White, P. 2005. Language of Evaluation.
Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan<br>
Mauri C. & A. Sanso’. 2012. HYPERLINK <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000110000963">"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000110000963"</a>
What do languages encode when they encode reality status?
Language Sciences 34: 99-106.<br>
McShane, M., S. Nirenburg, & R. Zacharski. 2004. Mood and
modality: out of theory and into the fray. Nat. Lang. Eng 10:
57–89.<br>
Morante, R. & C. Sporleder. 2012. Modality and negation:
An introduction to the special issue. Computational
Linguistics 38: 223–260.<br>
Mortelmans, T., K. Boye, & J. van der Auwera, (eds.).
2009. Modals in the Languages of Europe: A reference work.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Mushin, I. 2001. Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance:
Narrative retelling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Narrog, H. 2008. Modality in Japanese: The layered structure
of the clause and hierarchies of functional categories.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic
Change A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.<br>
Nissim, M., P. Pietrandrea, A. Sansò, & C. Mauri. 2013.
Cross-linguistic annotation of modality: a data-driven
hierarchical model. Proceedings of the 9th ISO Workshop on
Interoperable Semantic Annotation. Potsdam, 19-20 mars 2013.<br>
Nuyts, J. 2001a. Epistemic Modality, Language, and
Conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Nuyts, J. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in
epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33: 383-400.<br>
Paradis, C. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: the
case of really. Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. & Palmer, F.
(eds.) Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.<br>
Plungian, V. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the
universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics 33:
349-357.<br>
Plungjan, V. 2011. Введение в грамматическую семантику:
грамматические значения и грамма-тические системы языков мира.
Москва: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет.<br>
Rizomilioti, V. 2003. Epistemic Modality in Academic Writing:
A corpus-linguistic study. PhD thesis. The University of
Birmingham.<br>
Sauri R. & J. Pustejovsky. 2012. Are you sure that this
happened? Assessing the factuality degree of events in
text.Computational Linguistics, 38: 261– 299.<br>
Scheibman, J. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural
patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<br>
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. & Aijmer, K. 2007. The Semantic
Field of Modal Certainty. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<br>
Squartini M. 2001a. The internal structure of evidentiality in
Romance Studies in Language 25: 297–334.<br>
Squartini M. 2004. Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic
modality in Romance. Lingua 114: 873–895<br>
Szarvas, G., V. Vincze, R. Farkas, & J. Csirik. 2008. The
bioscope corpus: annotation for negation, uncertainty and
their scope in biomedical texts. In Proc of BioNLP ’08,
Stroudsburg, pp. 38–45.<br>
Tucker, G. 2001. Possibly alternative modality: a corpus-based
investigation of the modal adverb possibly. Functions of
Language 8: 183-215.<br>
van der Auwera, J. & V. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s
semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.<br>
Wärnsby, A. (De)coding Modality: The Case of Must, May, Måste
and Kan. PhD Dissertation, Lund University.<br>
Wiebe, J., T. Wilson, and C. Cardie (2005). Annotating
expressions of opinions and emotions in language.Language
Resources and Evaluation 39: 165–210.<br>
Wiemer, B. 2005. Conceptual affinities and diachronic
relationships between epistemic, inferential and quotative
functions. B. Hansen & P. Karlík (eds.), Modality in
Slavonic Languages, New perspectives, 107–131. München: Otto
Sagner.<br>
Wiemer, B. & V. Plungjan. (eds.). 2008. Lexikalische
Evidenzialitätsmarker im Slavischen. München: Otto Sanger.<br>
Xrakovskij, V. (ed.) 2007. Evidencial'nost' v jazykax Evropy i
Azii. Sb. statej pamjati N A. Kozincevoj(Evidentiality in the
Languages of Europe and Asia. In the memory of N. A.
Kozinceva). Saint-Petersburg: Nauka.<br>
<br>
</tt></font> </div>
</body>
</html>