From sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr Fri Jul 4 12:01:39 2014 From: sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr (Sylvie Voisin) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:01:39 +0200 Subject: Thematic school - Senelangues2015 - Announcement Message-ID: The University of Cheikh Anta Diop, the LLACAN and the DDL (CNRS institutions, France) invite participation in the thematic school "Description des langues d'Afrique de l'Ouest". April 20 - May 1st, 2015 Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal Language of the school : French Ecole thématique «Description des langues d’Afrique de l’Ouest» http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn L’école thématique «Description des langues d’Afrique de l’Ouest» se tiendra à l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (Sénégal), du 20 avril au 1er mai 2015. Elle est organisée par les laboratoires LLACAN et DDL du CNRS en partenariat avec l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, dans la continuité du projet ANR Sénélangues (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Les objectifs de cette école sont de profiter des acquis du projet Sénélangues pour transmettre les dernières avancées théoriques, méthodologiques et technologiques en matière de description de langues à tradition orale et délivrer une formation axée essentiellement sur des langues parlées en Afrique de l’Ouest (langues atlantiques, langues mandé, créoles, mais aussi français d’Afrique). La perspective de travail sera avant tout descriptive et typologique. Cette formation de deux semaines, qui entend compléter les formations de Master et de Doctorat existantes, doit permettre aux stagiaires d’avoir une vue d’ensemble des différents enjeux scientifiques et cadres d’analyses existants, des diverses tâches à entreprendre, ainsi que des méthodes et outils à disposition lorsque l’on se lance dans la description d’une langue parlée en Afrique de l’Ouest. Elle doit également leur donner une première initiation à la pratique de terrain. L’école thématique s’étendra sur deux plages de quatre jours chacune (semaine 1: 20-23 avril 2015; semaine 2: 28 avril 1er mai 2015), entre lesquelles sera inséré un colloque international sur la description des langues de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (24-25 avril 2014). Contenu des enseignements La formation représente un volume total de 53h d’enseignement. Tous les cours sont obligatoires. Ils seront dispensés en français, la plupart sous forme de cours magistraux, complétés par plusieurs séances de travaux dirigés (organisées en sous-groupes) pour permettre l’entraînement, en conditions d’enquête de terrain, à l’analyse morphosyntaxique, à la perception et à la transcription des tons, ou encore l’utilisation des logiciels de traitement. La formation est articulée autour de 3 axes correspondant (1) aux connaissances de base en linguistique générale et aux particularités structurelles des langues africaines, (2) aux spécificités de la pratique de linguistique de terrain et (3) aux outils, techniques et méthodes d’exploitation des données de terrain. Un accent particulier sera donné aux langues de la famille atlantique, mais des spécialistes de langues mandé, de créoles à base portugaise et du français d’Afrique compléteront la formation. Liste des cours: Axe1. Fondamentaux Sémantique (2 sessions de 1h30) Typologie (1 session de 2h) Morphosyntaxe (2 sessions de 1h30) Tonologie (2 sessions de 1h30) Phonologie (2 sessions de 1h30) Sociolinguistique (1 session de 1h30) Axe1. Langues atlantiques Les classes nominales des langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Les langues atlantiques: connaissances et reconstruction (1 session de 2h) La flexion verbale dans les langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Extension verbale et valence dans les langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Axe1. Cours spécifiques à la région Français d’Afrique (1 session de 2h) Les créoles (1 session de 1h30) Description et langues en danger en Afrique de l’Ouest (1 session de 2h) Langues mandé (2 sessions de 1h30) Axe2. Terrain Techniques d’enregistrement (1 session de 1h30) Pratiques de terrain et enquêtes (1 session de 1h30 pour 2 sous-groupes) Ethnolinguistique (1 session de 1h30) Le chercheur sur le terrain (1 session de 1h30) Axe3. Exploitation des données ELAN (Logiciel) (2 sessions de 1h30) Les métadonnées (ArBIL) (1 session de 1h30) Comment écrire une grammaire (1 session de 1h30) Lexicographie (2 sessions de 1h30) Un certificat de participation (comprenant la liste des enseignements reçus et le nombre de crédits équivalents) sera délivré à tous les participants pour permettre une validation de la formation, comme stage ou autre selon les universités concernées. Liste des enseignants (à compléter) F. Ameka (Pr., Université de Leiden) C. Chanard (IE, LLACAN) D. Creissels (Pr. émérite, Université Lyon2) A. M. Diagne (assimilé CR, IFAN, Dakar) J. Kouadio (MCF, Université Cocody, Abidjan) M. Mous (Pr., Leiden) P. A. Ndao (Pr., UCAD, Dakar) K. Pozdniakov (IUF - Pr., INALCO) N. Quint (DR, LLACAN) S. Robert (DR, LLACAN) P. Roulon-Doko (DR, LLACAN) S. Voisin (MCF, Aix Marseille Université) V. Vydrine (Pr., INALCO) Public concerné et critères d’admissibilité L’école thématique doit permettre d’accueillir 70 stagiaires. Elle est ouverte à tous ceux qui désirent acquérir des connaissances sur les langues d’Afrique de l’Ouest, prioritairement les étudiants de Master 1 et 2, doctorants, post-doctorants ou jeunes chercheurs et enseignants-chercheurs de sciences du langage qui souhaitent effectuer un travail de description sur une langue parlée en Afrique de l’Ouest. Niveau d’études minimum requis: Licence de Sciences du langage (ou niveau équivalent en linguistique). Modalité de soumission des candidatures: Pour le 1er octobre 2014 au plus tard, remplir le formulaire de candidature en ligne sur le site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/index.php/formulaire-d-inscription-et La notification d’acceptation parviendra aux candidats le 1er décembre. Les modalités d’inscription leur seront précisées à cette occasion. Pour les tarifset l’hébergement : voir le site web Dates importantes - Ecole: du 20 avril au 1er mai 2015 - Date limite de dépôt des candidatures: 1er octobre 2014 - Notification d’acceptation: 1er décembre 2014 Lieu Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar Sénégal https://www.google.fr/maps/@14.687505,-17.46325,17z Site et contact Site web: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn Contact: senelangues2015et at gmail.com From sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr Fri Jul 4 12:12:51 2014 From: sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr (Sylvie Voisin) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:51 +0200 Subject: Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages - Call for papers - Chamada para comunicacao - Appel a communications Message-ID: Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages Call for Papers English Version Versão portuguesa : veja abaixo / Version française en fin de message First Call for papers Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages 24-25 April 2015 Dakar, Senegal Deadline for submission: 15 November 2014 web site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ contact: senelangues2015call at gmail.com The Senelangues project (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ), which aimed at the description and documentation of the languages of Senegal, was financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche française for a period of 4 years, involving linguists from the CNRS laboratories LLACAN and DDL in collaboration with the University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar. This scientific collaboration continues with the organisation of a double event,Sénélangues 2015, which consists of a Colloquium on the description of West African languages, and a thematic school with the same topic. The Colloque Sénélangues 2015 Langues d’Afrique de l’Ouest will take place on 24 and 25 April 2015 at the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar. Topics of the colloquium In the last decades, the description of African languages benefited a lot from the recent developments of good practices in the areas of information technology and of linguistic analysis including typology and language documentation. These developments have been stimulated by various collaborative projects and funding schemes. The aim of the Colloquium is to gather linguists working in West Africa so that they can share each other’s scientific results, insights, know-how and research questions in order to increase our understanding of the languages of the region. We welcome contributions on the analysis of West African languages including Creole languages, as well as on phenomena of language contact with other language families. Contributions in all sub-disciplines of linguistic analysis are welcome, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Plenary speakers Denis Creissels, University of Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universityof Leiden How to submit a contribution Contributions can either be in the form of an oral presentation of 20 minutes + 10 minutes discussion or in the form of a poster presentation (poster format A0, 120 by 80 cm). Presenters may indicate their preference (oral presentation or poster) but the selection committee reserves the right to do otherwise. For both types of presentation the abstract should adhere to the following instructions: - Maximum one page including title, examples and references, using a Times 12 point font. - Send an anonymous version of your abstract in both rtf and pdf formats as an attachment to an email message to senelangues2015call at gmail.com - Use some key words of your title in the name of your pdf-file. - Mention “communication Senelangues 2015” in the subject line of the email message - Indicate in the body of your message: surname, first name, affiliation, email address, title of your paper, preferred presentation (poster or oral) - The language of presentation should be either French, English or Portuguese. Address for submissions and any contact senelangues2015call at gmail.com Important dates Deadline for submitting abstracts:15 November 2014 Notification of decision of acceptance : 15 January 2015 Conference venue Faculté de Lettres, Université de Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal Scientific Committee Felix Ameka University of Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen University of Ghent Jérémie Kouadio N'Guessan Universityof Cocody Organizing Committee Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & University of Aix-Marseille Stéphane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bassène FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Cissé FLSH UCAD, Dakar Noël Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Dièye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar __________________________________________________________________________ Conferência Sénélangues 2015 Línguas da África Ocidental Chamada para comunicação Versão portuguesa 1eira chamada para comunicação Conferência Sénélangues 2015 "Línguas da África Ocidental" 24-25 Abril 2015 Dakar, Senegal Prazo de entrega das submissões: 15 Novembro 2014 Web: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ Contacto: senelangues2015call at gmail.com O projecto Senelangues, financiado pela Agência Nacional [Francesa] para a Pesquisa, reuniu durante quarto anos, linguistas das unidades de pesquisa LLACAN e DDL do CNRS [Centro Nacional [Francês] de Pesquisa Científica] em parceria com a Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar no âmbito dum ambicioso projecto de descrição e documentação das línguas de Senegal (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Na continuidade desta colaboração científica, os membros de Sénélangues decidiram organizar em Abril de 2015 um duplo evento, Sénélangues 2015, que combinará uma conferência sobre a descrição das línguas da África Ocidental com um minicurso dedicado ao mesmo tema. A conferência Sénélangues 2015 Línguas da África Ocidental terá lugar a 24 e 25 de Abril na Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Temática da conferência Graças ao estímulo de vários projectos colaborativos apoiados por diversas agências ou fundações, a descrição das línguas africanas tem vindo a beneficiar, ao longo das últimas décadas, dos desenvolvimentos recentes das boas práticas e dos recursos informáticos no que tange aos processos de análise de cariz linguístico, tipológico e documental. Ao abrir a problemática da descrição linguística ao conjunto da África Ocidental, esta conferência tem como objectivo permeter aos linguistas que trabalham sobre as línguas dessa área encontrarem-se para fazer o balanço dos seus avances científicos, compartilharem os seus respectivos conhecimentos, as suas experiências e dúvidas, assim como favorecer o aumento dos conhecimentos globais disponíveis sobre as línguas da África Ocidental. Esperamos contribuições que tratem das línguas vernáculas da África Ocidental (inclusive os crioulos) e também estamos interessados na descriç?ão dos fenómenos de contactos que se produzem entre estas línguas e idomas de outras familhas. Todos os níveis da análise linguística (fonologia, morfologia, sintaxe, semântica, enunciação e pragmática) serão contemplados. Conferências plenárias Denis Creissels, Universidade de Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universidadede Leiden Modo de submissão das comunicações Conforme o gosto dos conferencistas ou a decisão dos membros do comité de selecção, as comunicações far-se-ão de forma oral (20 mn mais 10 mn de perguntas) ou sob forma de póster (tamanho recomendado A0, H: 1,20 m - L: 0,80 m) no quadro de uma sessão especial. Em ambos os casos, as consignas para o envio das propostas são as seguintes: - o resumo não deve exceder uma página (título, exemplos e referências incluídos), em Times 12 (intervalo entre linhas simples) - será enviado (versão anonimizada) em formato rtf e pdf para o endereço seguinte: senelangues2015call at gmail.com - o nome do ficheiro pdf constará simplesmente de algumas palavras-chaves do título da comunicação - assunto da mensagem: “communication Senelangues 2015” - mencione no texto da mensagem: o seu apelido, nome, afiliação (universitária), endereço electrónico (e-mail), título da proposta, formato desejado (póster vs. oral) - as línguas da conferência são o francês, o inglês e o português Contacto parasubmissão de resumos - informações senelangues2015call at gmail.com Calendário Submissão dos resumos: até ao 15 de Novembro 2014 Notificação aos autores: 15 Janeiro 2015 Lugar da conferência Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Sénégal Comité Científico Felix Ameka Universidadede Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen Universidade de Ghent Jérémie Kouadio N'Guessan Universitade de Cocody Comité de organização Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & Universidade de Aix-Marseille Stéphane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bassène FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Cissé FLSH UCAD, Dakar Noël-Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Dieye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar _______________________________________________________________________ Colloque Sénélangues 2015 Langues d’Afrique de l’Ouest Appel à communications Version française 1er appel à communications Colloque Sénélangues 2015 Langues d’Afrique de l’ouest 24-25 avril 2015 Dakar, Sénégal Date limitede soumission: 15 novembre 2014 Site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ Contact: senelangues2015call at gmail.com Le projet Sénélangues, financé par l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche française, a réuni pendant quatre ans des linguistes des laboratoires LLACAN et DDL du CNRS dans une collaboration avec l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar autour d’un ambitieux projet de description et de documentation des langues du Sénégal (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Dans la continuité de cette collaboration scientifique, les membres de Sénélangues organisent en avril 2015 un double événement, Sénélangues 2015, qui articulera un colloque sur la description des langues d’Afrique de l’ouest avec une école thématique sur le même thème. Le colloque Sénélangues 2015- Langues d’Afrique de l’ouest se tiendra les 24 et 25 avril à l’Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Thématique du colloque Stimulée par divers projets collaboratifs soutenus par différentes agences ou fondations, la description des langues d’Afrique a pu bénéficier, au cours des dernières décennies, des développements récents des bonnes pratiques et des ressources informatiques en matière d’analyse linguistique, typologique et documentaire. En ouvrant la problématique de la description linguistique à toute l’Afrique de l’ouest, l’objectif de ce colloque est de permettre aux linguistes qui travaillent sur les langues de cette région de se rencontrer pour faire le point sur leurs avancées scientifiques, partager leurs connaissances, leur savoir-faire et leurs interrogations, et d’accroître ainsi les connaissances sur les langues de cette région. Les contributions attendues doivent porter sur des langues vernaculaires d’Afrique de l’ouest (créoles inclus), sans exclure toutefois la description des phénomènes de contact avec des langues d’autres familles. Tous les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique (phonologie, morphologie, syntaxe, sémantique, énonciation et pragmatique) pourront être abordés. Conférences plénières Denis Creissels, Université Lumière Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universitéde Leiden Modalités de soumission des communications Les communications pourront se faire sous forme orale (durée 20mn suivies de 10mn de discussion) ou sous forme de poster (dimensions recommandées Format A0, H : 1,20 m - L : 0.80 m) dans le cadre d’une session spéciale (par choix des proposants ou décision des membres du comité de sélection). Dans les deux cas, les consignes pour l’envoi des propositions sont les suivantes: - le résumé doit faire un maximum d’une page (titre, exemples et références compris), en Times 12 (simple interligne) - il doit être envoyé anonymisé et aux formats rtf et pdf à l’adresse suivante: senelangues2015call at gmail.com - le nom du fichier pdf comportera simplement quelques mots clefs du titre de la communication - sujet du message: communication Senelangues 2015 - dans le corps du texte du message, indiquer: nom, prénom, affiliation, adresse mail, titre de la proposition, format souhaité (poster vs. oral) - les langues de la conférence sont le français, l’anglais et le portugais Adresse pour les soumissions et contact senelangues2015call at gmail.com Calendrier Date limite d’envoi des résumés : 15 novembre 2014 Notification aux auteurs : 15 janvier 2015 Lieu de la conférence Université de Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Sénégal Comité Scientifique Felix Ameka Université de Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen Ghent University Jérémie Kouadio N'Guessan Université de Cocody Comité d’organisation Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & Université d’Aix Marseille Stéphane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bassène FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Cissé FLSH UCAD, Dakar Noël Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Dièye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar From tono at ualberta.ca Fri Jul 11 03:56:27 2014 From: tono at ualberta.ca (Yoshi Ono) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:56:27 -0600 Subject: Short Fieldwork Training on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan Message-ID: *Pre-announcement: short fieldwork training on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan* We will be conducting a short fieldwork training workshop focusing on one of the Ryukyuan languages, Miyako on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan. This workshop has been planned as part of the activity of the Linguistic Dynamics Science Project (LingDy) at ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, to stimulate and support research in language documentation. The main target of the workshop is advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students. Details will be announced soon, but we plan to cover the basics of working on an endangered language in the community where it is still spoken. Both linguistics and people skills are emphasized. If you are interested in participating in the workshop, pre-register at < http://bit.ly/1pNon3A > so that we can inform you when the detailed application information becomes available. If you have questions, please direct them to Toshihide Nakayama . *Target participants*: Advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students without fieldwork experience. We are targeting at 5 to 10 total participants. A good command of Japanese is required. *Conducted by*: Professor Toshihide Nakayama (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) *Where*: Miyakojima, Japan *When*: 5-7 days mid December 2014 (tentative) *Fees*: no registration fee; no tuition required *Cost*: You are responsible for the transportation cost to Miyako Island and lodging and food costs. We will, however, try to keep the lodging and food costs reasonable by making arrangements for shared lodging and self-cooking. From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Sat Jul 12 09:23:53 2014 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:23:53 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis Message-ID: Dear all, After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example and in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then”, in which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. And I find little difference between these cases and the function of “this” in “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the previous linguistic context. In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) in order to be interpreted. Many thanks in advance for your responses. Best wishes, Marta Carretero Universidad Complutense, Madrid From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Sat Jul 12 09:45:18 2014 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:45:18 +0300 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Marta, I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic expressions (e.g., Hebrew 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive processing series). (pp. 29-87). Best, Mira (Ariel) -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM To: Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis Dear all, After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example and in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then”, in which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. And I find little difference between these cases and the function of “this” in “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the previous linguistic context. In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) in order to be interpreted. Many thanks in advance for your responses. Best wishes, Marta Carretero Universidad Complutense, Madrid From hartmut at ruc.dk Sat Jul 12 15:22:20 2014 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:22:20 +0000 Subject: Discourse deixis vs. anaphora Message-ID: I think one of the original suggestions to distinguish between Discourse deixis and anaphora was in Ehlich's 1979 study of deixis and anaphora in Biblical Hebrew, where they are lexically distinguished. (The book is in German, but here is a link to my review in English from the Nordic Journal of Linguistics; hope the link works.) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=9D6C4586F5E75ADC7916C57E489D59F6.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2863040 A Danish newspaper had some years ago a headline (about the writer Kurtz Tucholsky), Manden som elskede Tyskland of som hadede det, which is (possibly unintentionally) ambiguous in Danish, but not in a translation into English: The man who loved Germany and who hated that/it. (That can also be combined with a Pointing gesture - deixis - while anaphoric it cannot.) More examples (e.g. from Icelandic) in my review. Ehlich's analysis of Hebrew has been contested, I know, and maybe the ambiguity of Danish det can be explained otherwise, but the distinction makes some sense in a typological framework. Hartmut Haberland Sendt fra min iPhone From danjiesu at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 06:27:50 2014 From: danjiesu at gmail.com (Danjie Su) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 23:27:50 -0700 Subject: Call for Papers: 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please allow me to bring to your kind attention the Call-for-Papers of the 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (April 3-5, 2015, University of California, Los Angeles). We look forward to meeting / seeing you at the conference. Best, Danjie Su ------------------------- PhD Candidate Asian Languages and Cultures UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095 danjiesu at gmail.com www.danjiesu.com ========================================== *CALL FOR PAPERS* *The 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics * *April 3-5, 2015, University of California, Los Angeles* Integrating Linguistic Research with Language Teaching *Conference website*: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ The 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-27) will be held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 3-5, 2015. The theme of the conference will be Integrating Chinese Linguistic Research with Language Teaching. Linguistic research and language teaching have generally been viewed as two separate types of academic endeavors, each with its own priorities and practices. While linguists have been preoccupied with uncovering patterns of language and building theories of language structure, rarely are they concerned with issues in language pedagogy. Language teaching practitioners, on the other hand, often encounter teaching and learning issues that are not readily addressed by theoretical linguistic research and find themselves in need of enriching their knowledge about the language for a better-informed pedagogy. We believe that it is time now that the integration of the two strands of academic endeavors be prioritized, for a number of reasons: a) truly insightful linguistic findings should find their value in applications such as language teaching, b) it takes tremendous effort and time to translate research into practical language teaching, c) language teaching can raise fundamental questions for linguistic research, and finally, d) the proliferation of Chinese language learning and teaching at the global level demands increased linguistic effort and synergy for a deeper understanding of the language and better pedagogies for language teaching. Thus, the conference organizers seek two types of papers for presentation at NACCL-27: 1) Linguistic research cast with pedagogical implications; 2) Teaching and learning studies raising important issues for linguistic research. <<>> *Abstract submission* Abstracts are invited for 30 minute presentations (including questions); Abstracts no longer than a single page should be submitted to the conference email address: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com (i.e. NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM). Only electronic submissions are accepted; The abstract should be in either plain text format or in MS Word format; In the abstract, please give 2-3 keywords to identify some general research areas, e.g. phonetics/phonology, grammar, lexicon, semantics, discourse, pragmatics, corpus linguistics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, technology, character learning, teaching models, assessment, teaching materials, heritage language, teacher-student interaction, and so forth; The abstract should have a cover page with the title of the paper, 2-3 keywords (see above), author's name, affiliation, contact information (including email). The abstract page should be an anonymous without any identifiable author information. *Key Deadlines* Abstract submission: Sunday, November 16, 2014. Notice of acceptance: December 20, 2014 *Organizer and Contact* Hongyin Tao Department of Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles 290 Royce Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1504 USA Email: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM Tel: +1 (310) 794-8933 =================================== *第27届北美汉语语言学会议征文通知（简体）* 第27届北美汉语语言学会议（NACCL-27）将于2015年4月3-5日在洛杉矶加州大学（UCLA）举行。 本届年会的主题为「汉语语言学研究与汉语教学应用的整合」。大会在广邀汉语语言学各方面研究的同时，尤其侧重以下两方面的研究： (1) 能够与汉语教学结合的语言学研究成果； (2) 能够启发语言学研究的教学研究成果。 大会还将举办一个汉语教师培训会前工作坊，具体信息敬请留意。 摘要提交 • 会议发言应不超过30分钟(包括问答)； • 投稿摘要需限制在一页纸内。会议仅接受电子投稿，请将摘要发至电子邮件naccl27.ucla at gmail.com ( NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM)； • 投稿摘要电子档应为纯文本格式或MS Word文档； • 请在投稿摘要中注明2-3个关键词（例如：语音学/音系学，语法，词汇，语义，话语，语用，语料库语言学，历史语言学，社会语言学，教学科技手段，汉字学习，教学模式，评估，教学素材，课堂师生互动等）； • 摘要前请另附一页，标明摘要的题目、2-3个关键词（见上）、作者姓名、工作单位以及联系方式（含电子邮件地址）。摘要页需完全匿名。 重要日期 • 摘要截稿日期：2014年11月16日，星期日 • 接受通知日期：2014年12月20日，星期六 大会网址及联系方式 大会网址: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ 召集人: 陶红印 洛杉矶加州大学亚洲语言文化系 电子邮件: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM 电话: +1 (310) 794-8933 —————————————————————————————————— *第27屆北美漢語語言學會議徵文通知（繁體）* 第27屆北美漢語語言學會議（NACCL-27）將於2015年4月3-5日在洛杉磯加州大學（UCLA）舉行。 本屆年會的主題為「漢語語言學研究與漢語教學應用的整合」。大會在廣邀漢語語言學各方面研究的同時，尤其側重以下兩方面的研究： (1) 能夠與漢語教學結合的語言學研究成果； (2) 能夠啟發語言學研究的教學研究成果。 大會還將舉辦一個漢語教師培訓會前工作坊，具體信息敬請留意。 摘要提交 • 會議發言應不超過30分鐘(包括問答)； • 投稿摘要需限制在一頁紙內。會議僅接受電子投稿，請將摘要發至電子郵件naccl27.ucla at gmail.com ( NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM)； • 投稿摘要電子檔應為純文本格式或MS Word文檔； • 請在投稿摘要中注明2-3個關鍵詞（例如：語音學/音系學，語法，詞匯，語義，話語，語用，語料庫語言學，歷史語言學，社會語言學，教學科技手段，漢字學習，教學模式，評估，教學素材，課堂師生互動等）； • 摘要前請另附一頁，標明摘要的題目、2-3個關鍵詞（見上）、作者姓名、工作單位以及聯繫方式（含電子郵件地址）。摘要頁需完全匿名。 重要日期 • 摘要截稿日期：2014年11月16日，星期日 • 接受通知日期：2014年12月20日，星期六 大會網址及聯繫方式 大會網址: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ 召集人: 陶紅印 洛杉磯加州大學亞洲語言文化系 電子郵件: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM 電話: +1 (310) 794-8933 From stephen.lewis at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 16:15:48 2014 From: stephen.lewis at gmail.com (Stephen Lewis) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:15:48 -0400 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <006101cf9db5$fdd6d4f0$f9847ed0$@post.tau.ac.il> Message-ID: In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the discourse > entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the speech situation > does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the referent > is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their previous > (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the antecedent > which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure I discuss this > issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and now”. Cognitive > Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert Spooren > eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive processing > series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and > revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled > as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. > I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example and > in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then”, in > which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of “this” > in > > “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” > > And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t these > pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for > information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in > addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, > section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the > extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) > in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From hartmut at ruc.dk Tue Jul 15 17:03:19 2014 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:03:19 +0000 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic sá and þessi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, Biblical Hebrew זֶה and הוּא (according to Ehlich) was exactly what you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way". Hartmut -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Stephen Lewis Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 Til: Mira Ariel Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the > discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the > speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic > expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the > referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their > previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the > antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure > I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and > now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in > 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert > Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive > processing series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, > and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often > signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. > I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example > and in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and > then”, in which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of “this” > in > > “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” > > And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t > these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they > stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in > addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter > numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; > these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to > which they belong) in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Tue Jul 15 17:42:12 2014 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:42:12 +0300 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <64BC5F23CF335040B77A5CCE9CF7A7E889772F11@MBX1.ad.ruc.dk> Message-ID: Hi, I don't know why you understand at least MY position as rejecting a distinction between deixis and anaphora. But reality is that so-called deictic markers are overwhelmingly used discourse anaphorically. Best, Mira -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Haberland [mailto:hartmut at ruc.dk] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:03 PM To: Stephen Lewis Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE; Mira Ariel Subject: SV: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic sá and þessi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, Biblical Hebrew זֶה and הוּא (according to Ehlich) was exactly what you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way". Hartmut -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Stephen Lewis Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 Til: Mira Ariel Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the > discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the > speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic > expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the > referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their > previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the > antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure > I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the “here and > now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in > 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert > Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive > processing series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, > and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often > signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. > I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example > and in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and > then”, in which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of “this” > in > > “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” > > And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t > these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they > stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in > addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter > numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; > these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to > which they belong) in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From michel.launey at ird.fr Thu Jul 17 16:58:00 2014 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:58:00 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <64BC5F23CF335040B77A5CCE9CF7A7E889772F11@MBX1.ad.ruc.dk> Message-ID: I think Marta raises an interesting point, which is related to issues like thetic vs. categorical judgments (Kuroda 1972) or to the status of situational reference in predication. Situation can indeed play a role in the topic vs. focus (or theme vs. rheme) pattern, e.g. “John is coming” being a possible answer to “What is John doing?” (or “What about John?”), “Who is coming?” but also “What’s up?” (or following “You know what?”), i.e. giving an information about the situation. It is thus clear that situation, though not overtly expressed, can share properties with argument phrases, and no wonder admitting anaphora is one of them. Let me add French data. Usually situational reference is expressed by ça/c’ (and not by the pronouns il/elle). For instance, Marta’s first two examples would be translated, respectively: “J’aime nager dans la mer, parce que c’est très délassant / ça délasse (or: détend) beaucoup” “J’en ai assez de cet ascenseur, parce qu’il se détraque tout le temps”. We find the same opposition in “first occurrence” pronouns, in situations where the reference is obvious, e.g. coming at the office, a worker hears from a colleague “Attention, il est de mauvais poil aujourd’hui” (“Be careful, he’s in a bad mood today” – obviously: the boss). The same with situational reference: “C’est le printemps!” (said on a first warm spring morning) or “C’est la guerre!” (Btw, how would it be best in English: “It’s war!” or “that’s war!”?), or, when entering an untidy place or a stormy discussion “C’est le bordel, ici!” (lit. “it’s the brothel, here!”) Best Michel Launey On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:03:19 +0000 Hartmut Haberland wrote: > Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic sá and >þessi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, >Biblical Hebrew זֶה and הוּא (according to Ehlich) was exactly what >you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the >distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to >account for these differences in another way". Hartmut > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] På vegne af Stephen Lewis > Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 > Til: Mira Ariel > Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between >"this" > and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of >discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we >essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these >differences in another way. > > Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. > > Stephen > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel >wrote: > >> Dear Marta, >> >> I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring >>expressions. >> The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the >> discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the >> speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic >> expressions (e.g., Hebrew >> 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the >> referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less >>accessible). >> But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent >>is >> equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their >> previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their >>accessibility. >> This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the >> antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty >>sure >> I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the “here >>and >> now”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in >> 2001. Accessibility >> theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert >> Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive >> processing series). (pp. 29-87). >> >> Best, >> >> Mira (Ariel) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA >>CARRETERO >> LAPEYRE >> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis >> >> Dear all, >> >> After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and >>pragmatics, >> and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often >> signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. >> >> For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very >> relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in >>the sea”. >> I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this >>example >> and in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and >> then”, in which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. >> >> And I find little difference between these cases and the function of >>“this” >> in >> >> “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” >> >> And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring >>to >> previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t >> these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they >> stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? >> >> Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in >> addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the >> previous linguistic context. >> >> In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter >> numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar >>expressions; >> these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document >>to >> which they belong) in order to be interpreted. >> >> Many thanks in advance for your responses. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Marta Carretero >> >> Universidad Complutense, Madrid >> >> From joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Wed Jul 23 17:43:58 2014 From: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl (Joanna Nykiel) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:43:58 +0200 Subject: PhD course announcement Message-ID: Dear FUNKNET moderator,  Could you please post the message below to the list members? Thank you,  Joanna Nykiel ----------------------------- PhD course, 'COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN COPYING A TEXT' (5 ECTS), 3-7 November, 2014, Ullandhaug Campus, University of Stavanger (Norway). Application deadline: October 1, 2014. INSTRUCTORS: Aidan Conti, University of Bergen Christer Johansson, University of Bergen Guido Nottbusch, University of Pottsdam Jacob Thaisen, University of Stavanger Joanna Nykiel, University of Silesia Per Henning Uppstad, University of Stavanger. The focus of the course is on exploring cognitive processes involved in copying written text. It is informed by research on how language users comprehend and produce oral or written text, as well as on how the combination of language comprehension and production is reflected in the task of copying written text. We will discuss insights into production and comprehension behavior gained from psycholinguistic experimentation using modern tools of investigation, such as eye tracking and key logging. We will then address the question of what cognitive constraints might operate on a person as they copy written text. We will do so by drawing on existing work in historical linguistics/philology which has explored the nature of linguistic variation found in scribal copies of medieval texts. In particular, our focus will be on how large a segment of text is being held in working memory and recalled from it in the process of copying, and whether the size of this segment may be affected by the linguistic features of the text being copied and/or the nonlinguistic features of the copying situation. The course will thus offer new interdisciplinary ways of linking historical linguistics/philology and psycholinguistic research. For further information, please visit http://www.uis.no/forskning-og-ph-d-studier/ph-d-utdanning/vaare-ph-d-studier/lesevitenskap/ph-d-emner/ ELIGIBILITY The course is open to students enrolled on a doctoral programme, in Norway or elsewhere, but the number of places is limited; we reserve the right to reject applicants. COURSE FEE Participation is free. Participants are responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs and arrangements. To apply for a place, fill in the registration form available from http://www.uis.no/forskning-og-ph-d-studier/ph-d-utdanning/kurs-og-emner/emner-paa-lesevitenskap/ (click on 'Søknad om opptak til ph.d.-kurs ved Universitetet i Stavanger') and send it to jeanette.rollheim at uis.no. Please do not hesitate to address any queries you may have to any of the four convenors (Aidan Conti aidan.conti at cms.uib.no, Jacob Thaisen jacob.thaisen at uis.no, Joanna Nykiel joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl, and Per Henning Uppstad per.h.uppstad at uis.no) -- Joanna Nykiel Assistant Professor English Department University of Silesia Grota-Roweckiego 5 Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Wed Jul 30 11:29:13 2014 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:29:13 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Many thanks to all contributors of the 'deixis versus anaphora' issue. I will consider all the suggestions before planning my next year lectures on deixis. For the moment, I can tell you that they have made me reflect on my own native language (Spanish), which makes a difference in the use of demonstrative pronouns for replacing a previously mentioned extralinguistic entity and a stretch of discourse (este/esta vs. esto, etc.). I wish you all a happy and relaxed August. Marta Dr Marta Carretero https://portal.ucm.es/web/filologia_inglesa_i/marta-carretero 2014-07-12 11:23 GMT+02:00 MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE < mcarrete at filol.ucm.es>: > Dear all, > > After some years’ experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and > revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled > as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say “I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing”, “it” refers to the situation expressed by “swimming in the sea”. > I see no great difference between the function of “it” in this example and > in “I’m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then”, in > which “it” is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of > “this” in > > “Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.” > > And the same for pronouns such as “it”, “this” or “that” referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn’t these > pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for > information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as “however”, “therefore” or “in > addition” could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, > section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the > extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) > in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr Fri Jul 4 12:01:39 2014 From: sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr (Sylvie Voisin) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:01:39 +0200 Subject: Thematic school - Senelangues2015 - Announcement Message-ID: The University of Cheikh Anta Diop, the LLACAN and the DDL (CNRS institutions, France) invite participation in the thematic school "Description des langues d'Afrique de l'Ouest". April 20 - May 1st, 2015 Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal Language of the school : French Ecole th?matique ?Description des langues d?Afrique de l?Ouest? http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn L??cole th?matique ?Description des langues d?Afrique de l?Ouest? se tiendra ? l?Universit? Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar (S?n?gal), du 20 avril au 1er mai 2015. Elle est organis?e par les laboratoires LLACAN et DDL du CNRS en partenariat avec l?Universit? Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, dans la continuit? du projet ANR S?n?langues (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Les objectifs de cette ?cole sont de profiter des acquis du projet S?n?langues pour transmettre les derni?res avanc?es th?oriques, m?thodologiques et technologiques en mati?re de description de langues ? tradition orale et d?livrer une formation ax?e essentiellement sur des langues parl?es en Afrique de l?Ouest (langues atlantiques, langues mand?, cr?oles, mais aussi fran?ais d?Afrique). La perspective de travail sera avant tout descriptive et typologique. Cette formation de deux semaines, qui entend compl?ter les formations de Master et de Doctorat existantes, doit permettre aux stagiaires d?avoir une vue d?ensemble des diff?rents enjeux scientifiques et cadres d?analyses existants, des diverses t?ches ? entreprendre, ainsi que des m?thodes et outils ? disposition lorsque l?on se lance dans la description d?une langue parl?e en Afrique de l?Ouest. Elle doit ?galement leur donner une premi?re initiation ? la pratique de terrain. L??cole th?matique s??tendra sur deux plages de quatre jours chacune (semaine 1: 20-23 avril 2015; semaine 2: 28 avril 1er mai 2015), entre lesquelles sera ins?r? un colloque international sur la description des langues de l?Afrique de l?Ouest (24-25 avril 2014). Contenu des enseignements La formation repr?sente un volume total de 53h d?enseignement. Tous les cours sont obligatoires. Ils seront dispens?s en fran?ais, la plupart sous forme de cours magistraux, compl?t?s par plusieurs s?ances de travaux dirig?s (organis?es en sous-groupes) pour permettre l?entra?nement, en conditions d?enqu?te de terrain, ? l?analyse morphosyntaxique, ? la perception et ? la transcription des tons, ou encore l?utilisation des logiciels de traitement. La formation est articul?e autour de 3 axes correspondant (1) aux connaissances de base en linguistique g?n?rale et aux particularit?s structurelles des langues africaines, (2) aux sp?cificit?s de la pratique de linguistique de terrain et (3) aux outils, techniques et m?thodes d?exploitation des donn?es de terrain. Un accent particulier sera donn? aux langues de la famille atlantique, mais des sp?cialistes de langues mand?, de cr?oles ? base portugaise et du fran?ais d?Afrique compl?teront la formation. Liste des cours: Axe1. Fondamentaux S?mantique (2 sessions de 1h30) Typologie (1 session de 2h) Morphosyntaxe (2 sessions de 1h30) Tonologie (2 sessions de 1h30) Phonologie (2 sessions de 1h30) Sociolinguistique (1 session de 1h30) Axe1. Langues atlantiques Les classes nominales des langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Les langues atlantiques: connaissances et reconstruction (1 session de 2h) La flexion verbale dans les langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Extension verbale et valence dans les langues atlantiques (1 session de 2h) Axe1. Cours sp?cifiques ? la r?gion Fran?ais d?Afrique (1 session de 2h) Les cr?oles (1 session de 1h30) Description et langues en danger en Afrique de l?Ouest (1 session de 2h) Langues mand? (2 sessions de 1h30) Axe2. Terrain Techniques d?enregistrement (1 session de 1h30) Pratiques de terrain et enqu?tes (1 session de 1h30 pour 2 sous-groupes) Ethnolinguistique (1 session de 1h30) Le chercheur sur le terrain (1 session de 1h30) Axe3. Exploitation des donn?es ELAN (Logiciel) (2 sessions de 1h30) Les m?tadonn?es (ArBIL) (1 session de 1h30) Comment ?crire une grammaire (1 session de 1h30) Lexicographie (2 sessions de 1h30) Un certificat de participation (comprenant la liste des enseignements re?us et le nombre de cr?dits ?quivalents) sera d?livr? ? tous les participants pour permettre une validation de la formation, comme stage ou autre selon les universit?s concern?es. Liste des enseignants (? compl?ter) F. Ameka (Pr., Universit? de Leiden) C. Chanard (IE, LLACAN) D. Creissels (Pr. ?m?rite, Universit? Lyon2) A. M. Diagne (assimil? CR, IFAN, Dakar) J. Kouadio (MCF, Universit? Cocody, Abidjan) M. Mous (Pr., Leiden) P. A. Ndao (Pr., UCAD, Dakar) K. Pozdniakov (IUF - Pr., INALCO) N. Quint (DR, LLACAN) S. Robert (DR, LLACAN) P. Roulon-Doko (DR, LLACAN) S. Voisin (MCF, Aix Marseille Universit?) V. Vydrine (Pr., INALCO) Public concern? et crit?res d?admissibilit? L??cole th?matique doit permettre d?accueillir 70 stagiaires. Elle est ouverte ? tous ceux qui d?sirent acqu?rir des connaissances sur les langues d?Afrique de l?Ouest, prioritairement les ?tudiants de Master 1 et 2, doctorants, post-doctorants ou jeunes chercheurs et enseignants-chercheurs de sciences du langage qui souhaitent effectuer un travail de description sur une langue parl?e en Afrique de l?Ouest. Niveau d??tudes minimum requis: Licence de Sciences du langage (ou niveau ?quivalent en linguistique). Modalit? de soumission des candidatures: Pour le 1er octobre 2014 au plus tard, remplir le formulaire de candidature en ligne sur le site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/index.php/formulaire-d-inscription-et La notification d?acceptation parviendra aux candidats le 1er d?cembre. Les modalit?s d?inscription leur seront pr?cis?es ? cette occasion. Pour les tarifset l?h?bergement : voir le site web Dates importantes - Ecole: du 20 avril au 1er mai 2015 - Date limite de d?p?t des candidatures: 1er octobre 2014 - Notification d?acceptation: 1er d?cembre 2014 Lieu Universit? Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar S?n?gal https://www.google.fr/maps/@14.687505,-17.46325,17z Site et contact Site web: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn Contact: senelangues2015et at gmail.com From sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr Fri Jul 4 12:12:51 2014 From: sylvie.voisin at univ-amu.fr (Sylvie Voisin) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 14:12:51 +0200 Subject: Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages - Call for papers - Chamada para comunicacao - Appel a communications Message-ID: Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages Call for Papers English Version Vers?o portuguesa : veja abaixo / Version fran?aise en fin de message First Call for papers Colloquium Senelangues 2015 West African Languages 24-25 April 2015 Dakar, Senegal Deadline for submission: 15 November 2014 web site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ contact: senelangues2015call at gmail.com The Senelangues project (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ), which aimed at the description and documentation of the languages of Senegal, was financed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche fran?aise for a period of 4 years, involving linguists from the CNRS laboratories LLACAN and DDL in collaboration with the University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar. This scientific collaboration continues with the organisation of a double event,S?n?langues 2015, which consists of a Colloquium on the description of West African languages, and a thematic school with the same topic. The Colloque S?n?langues 2015 Langues d?Afrique de l?Ouest will take place on 24 and 25 April 2015 at the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar. Topics of the colloquium In the last decades, the description of African languages benefited a lot from the recent developments of good practices in the areas of information technology and of linguistic analysis including typology and language documentation. These developments have been stimulated by various collaborative projects and funding schemes. The aim of the Colloquium is to gather linguists working in West Africa so that they can share each other?s scientific results, insights, know-how and research questions in order to increase our understanding of the languages of the region. We welcome contributions on the analysis of West African languages including Creole languages, as well as on phenomena of language contact with other language families. Contributions in all sub-disciplines of linguistic analysis are welcome, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Plenary speakers Denis Creissels, University of Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universityof Leiden How to submit a contribution Contributions can either be in the form of an oral presentation of 20 minutes + 10 minutes discussion or in the form of a poster presentation (poster format A0, 120 by 80 cm). Presenters may indicate their preference (oral presentation or poster) but the selection committee reserves the right to do otherwise. For both types of presentation the abstract should adhere to the following instructions: - Maximum one page including title, examples and references, using a Times 12 point font. - Send an anonymous version of your abstract in both rtf and pdf formats as an attachment to an email message to senelangues2015call at gmail.com - Use some key words of your title in the name of your pdf-file. - Mention ?communication Senelangues 2015? in the subject line of the email message - Indicate in the body of your message: surname, first name, affiliation, email address, title of your paper, preferred presentation (poster or oral) - The language of presentation should be either French, English or Portuguese. Address for submissions and any contact senelangues2015call at gmail.com Important dates Deadline for submitting abstracts:15 November 2014 Notification of decision of acceptance : 15 January 2015 Conference venue Facult? de Lettres, Universit? de Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal Scientific Committee Felix Ameka University of Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen University of Ghent J?r?mie Kouadio N'Guessan Universityof Cocody Organizing Committee Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & University of Aix-Marseille St?phane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bass?ne FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Ciss? FLSH UCAD, Dakar No?l Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Di?ye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar __________________________________________________________________________ Confer?ncia S?n?langues 2015 L?nguas da ?frica Ocidental Chamada para comunica??o Vers?o portuguesa 1eira chamada para comunica??o Confer?ncia S?n?langues 2015 "L?nguas da ?frica Ocidental" 24-25 Abril 2015 Dakar, Senegal Prazo de entrega das submiss?es: 15 Novembro 2014 Web: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ Contacto: senelangues2015call at gmail.com O projecto Senelangues, financiado pela Ag?ncia Nacional [Francesa] para a Pesquisa, reuniu durante quarto anos, linguistas das unidades de pesquisa LLACAN e DDL do CNRS [Centro Nacional [Franc?s] de Pesquisa Cient?fica] em parceria com a Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar no ?mbito dum ambicioso projecto de descri??o e documenta??o das l?nguas de Senegal (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Na continuidade desta colabora??o cient?fica, os membros de S?n?langues decidiram organizar em Abril de 2015 um duplo evento, S?n?langues 2015, que combinar? uma confer?ncia sobre a descri??o das l?nguas da ?frica Ocidental com um minicurso dedicado ao mesmo tema. A confer?ncia S?n?langues 2015 L?nguas da ?frica Ocidental ter? lugar a 24 e 25 de Abril na Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Tem?tica da confer?ncia Gra?as ao est?mulo de v?rios projectos colaborativos apoiados por diversas ag?ncias ou funda??es, a descri??o das l?nguas africanas tem vindo a beneficiar, ao longo das ?ltimas d?cadas, dos desenvolvimentos recentes das boas pr?ticas e dos recursos inform?ticos no que tange aos processos de an?lise de cariz lingu?stico, tipol?gico e documental. Ao abrir a problem?tica da descri??o lingu?stica ao conjunto da ?frica Ocidental, esta confer?ncia tem como objectivo permeter aos linguistas que trabalham sobre as l?nguas dessa ?rea encontrarem-se para fazer o balan?o dos seus avances cient?ficos, compartilharem os seus respectivos conhecimentos, as suas experi?ncias e d?vidas, assim como favorecer o aumento dos conhecimentos globais dispon?veis sobre as l?nguas da ?frica Ocidental. Esperamos contribui??es que tratem das l?nguas vern?culas da ?frica Ocidental (inclusive os crioulos) e tamb?m estamos interessados na descri???o dos fen?menos de contactos que se produzem entre estas l?nguas e idomas de outras familhas. Todos os n?veis da an?lise lingu?stica (fonologia, morfologia, sintaxe, sem?ntica, enuncia??o e pragm?tica) ser?o contemplados. Confer?ncias plen?rias Denis Creissels, Universidade de Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universidadede Leiden Modo de submiss?o das comunica??es Conforme o gosto dos conferencistas ou a decis?o dos membros do comit? de selec??o, as comunica??es far-se-?o de forma oral (20 mn mais 10 mn de perguntas) ou sob forma de p?ster (tamanho recomendado A0, H: 1,20 m - L: 0,80 m) no quadro de uma sess?o especial. Em ambos os casos, as consignas para o envio das propostas s?o as seguintes: - o resumo n?o deve exceder uma p?gina (t?tulo, exemplos e refer?ncias inclu?dos), em Times 12 (intervalo entre linhas simples) - ser? enviado (vers?o anonimizada) em formato rtf e pdf para o endere?o seguinte: senelangues2015call at gmail.com - o nome do ficheiro pdf constar? simplesmente de algumas palavras-chaves do t?tulo da comunica??o - assunto da mensagem: ?communication Senelangues 2015? - mencione no texto da mensagem: o seu apelido, nome, afilia??o (universit?ria), endere?o electr?nico (e-mail), t?tulo da proposta, formato desejado (p?ster vs. oral) - as l?nguas da confer?ncia s?o o franc?s, o ingl?s e o portugu?s Contacto parasubmiss?o de resumos - informa??es senelangues2015call at gmail.com Calend?rio Submiss?o dos resumos: at? ao 15 de Novembro 2014 Notifica??o aos autores: 15 Janeiro 2015 Lugar da confer?ncia Universidade Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, S?n?gal Comit? Cient?fico Felix Ameka Universidadede Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen Universidade de Ghent J?r?mie Kouadio N'Guessan Universitade de Cocody Comit? de organiza??o Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & Universidade de Aix-Marseille St?phane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bass?ne FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Ciss? FLSH UCAD, Dakar No?l-Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Dieye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar _______________________________________________________________________ Colloque S?n?langues 2015 Langues d?Afrique de l?Ouest Appel ? communications Version fran?aise 1er appel ? communications Colloque S?n?langues 2015 Langues d?Afrique de l?ouest 24-25 avril 2015 Dakar, S?n?gal Date limitede soumission: 15 novembre 2014 Site: http://senelangues2015.ucad.sn/ Contact: senelangues2015call at gmail.com Le projet S?n?langues, financ? par l?Agence Nationale de la Recherche fran?aise, a r?uni pendant quatre ans des linguistes des laboratoires LLACAN et DDL du CNRS dans une collaboration avec l?Universit? Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar autour d?un ambitieux projet de description et de documentation des langues du S?n?gal (http://senelangues.huma-num.fr/ ). Dans la continuit? de cette collaboration scientifique, les membres de S?n?langues organisent en avril 2015 un double ?v?nement, S?n?langues 2015, qui articulera un colloque sur la description des langues d?Afrique de l?ouest avec une ?cole th?matique sur le m?me th?me. Le colloque S?n?langues 2015- Langues d?Afrique de l?ouest se tiendra les 24 et 25 avril ? l?Universit? Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar. Th?matique du colloque Stimul?e par divers projets collaboratifs soutenus par diff?rentes agences ou fondations, la description des langues d?Afrique a pu b?n?ficier, au cours des derni?res d?cennies, des d?veloppements r?cents des bonnes pratiques et des ressources informatiques en mati?re d?analyse linguistique, typologique et documentaire. En ouvrant la probl?matique de la description linguistique ? toute l?Afrique de l?ouest, l?objectif de ce colloque est de permettre aux linguistes qui travaillent sur les langues de cette r?gion de se rencontrer pour faire le point sur leurs avanc?es scientifiques, partager leurs connaissances, leur savoir-faire et leurs interrogations, et d?accro?tre ainsi les connaissances sur les langues de cette r?gion. Les contributions attendues doivent porter sur des langues vernaculaires d?Afrique de l?ouest (cr?oles inclus), sans exclure toutefois la description des ph?nom?nes de contact avec des langues d?autres familles. Tous les niveaux de l?analyse linguistique (phonologie, morphologie, syntaxe, s?mantique, ?nonciation et pragmatique) pourront ?tre abord?s. Conf?rences pl?ni?res Denis Creissels, Universit? Lumi?re Lyon 2 Felix Ameka, Universit?de Leiden Modalit?s de soumission des communications Les communications pourront se faire sous forme orale (dur?e 20mn suivies de 10mn de discussion) ou sous forme de poster (dimensions recommand?es Format A0, H : 1,20 m - L : 0.80 m) dans le cadre d?une session sp?ciale (par choix des proposants ou d?cision des membres du comit? de s?lection). Dans les deux cas, les consignes pour l?envoi des propositions sont les suivantes: - le r?sum? doit faire un maximum d?une page (titre, exemples et r?f?rences compris), en Times 12 (simple interligne) - il doit ?tre envoy? anonymis? et aux formats rtf et pdf ? l?adresse suivante: senelangues2015call at gmail.com - le nom du fichier pdf comportera simplement quelques mots clefs du titre de la communication - sujet du message: communication Senelangues 2015 - dans le corps du texte du message, indiquer: nom, pr?nom, affiliation, adresse mail, titre de la proposition, format souhait? (poster vs. oral) - les langues de la conf?rence sont le fran?ais, l?anglais et le portugais Adresse pour les soumissions et contact senelangues2015call at gmail.com Calendrier Date limite d?envoi des r?sum?s : 15 novembre 2014 Notification aux auteurs : 15 janvier 2015 Lieu de la conf?rence Universit? de Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, S?n?gal Comit? Scientifique Felix Ameka Universit? de Leiden Larry Hyman U.C. Berkeley Valentin Vydrine INALCO, LLACAN, Paris Martine Vanhove LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Koen Bostoen Ghent University J?r?mie Kouadio N'Guessan Universit? de Cocody Comit? d?organisation Sylvie Voisin DDL, CNRS & Universit? d?Aix Marseille St?phane Robert LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Alain-Christian Bass?ne FLSH UCAD, Dakar Denis Creissels DDL, CNRS & Lyon 2 Thierno Ciss? FLSH UCAD, Dakar No?l Bernard Biagui CLAD UCAD, Dakar Nicolas Quint LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Jeanne Zerner LLACAN, CNRS & INALCO, Paris Anna Marie Diagne IFAN UCAD, Dakar El Hadji Di?ye FLSH UCAD, Dakar Dame Ndao FLSH UCAD, Dakar From tono at ualberta.ca Fri Jul 11 03:56:27 2014 From: tono at ualberta.ca (Yoshi Ono) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 21:56:27 -0600 Subject: Short Fieldwork Training on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan Message-ID: *Pre-announcement: short fieldwork training on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan* We will be conducting a short fieldwork training workshop focusing on one of the Ryukyuan languages, Miyako on Miyako Island, Okinawa, Japan. This workshop has been planned as part of the activity of the Linguistic Dynamics Science Project (LingDy) at ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, to stimulate and support research in language documentation. The main target of the workshop is advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students. Details will be announced soon, but we plan to cover the basics of working on an endangered language in the community where it is still spoken. Both linguistics and people skills are emphasized. If you are interested in participating in the workshop, pre-register at < http://bit.ly/1pNon3A > so that we can inform you when the detailed application information becomes available. If you have questions, please direct them to Toshihide Nakayama . *Target participants*: Advanced undergraduate and beginning graduate students without fieldwork experience. We are targeting at 5 to 10 total participants. A good command of Japanese is required. *Conducted by*: Professor Toshihide Nakayama (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) *Where*: Miyakojima, Japan *When*: 5-7 days mid December 2014 (tentative) *Fees*: no registration fee; no tuition required *Cost*: You are responsible for the transportation cost to Miyako Island and lodging and food costs. We will, however, try to keep the lodging and food costs reasonable by making arrangements for shared lodging and self-cooking. From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Sat Jul 12 09:23:53 2014 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 11:23:53 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis Message-ID: Dear all, After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example and in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then?, in which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. And I find little difference between these cases and the function of ?this? in ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the previous linguistic context. In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) in order to be interpreted. Many thanks in advance for your responses. Best wishes, Marta Carretero Universidad Complutense, Madrid From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Sat Jul 12 09:45:18 2014 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 12:45:18 +0300 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Marta, I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic expressions (e.g., Hebrew 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the ?here and now?. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive processing series). (pp. 29-87). Best, Mira (Ariel) -----Original Message----- From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM To: Funknet Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis Dear all, After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example and in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then?, in which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. And I find little difference between these cases and the function of ?this? in ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the previous linguistic context. In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) in order to be interpreted. Many thanks in advance for your responses. Best wishes, Marta Carretero Universidad Complutense, Madrid From hartmut at ruc.dk Sat Jul 12 15:22:20 2014 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 15:22:20 +0000 Subject: Discourse deixis vs. anaphora Message-ID: I think one of the original suggestions to distinguish between Discourse deixis and anaphora was in Ehlich's 1979 study of deixis and anaphora in Biblical Hebrew, where they are lexically distinguished. (The book is in German, but here is a link to my review in English from the Nordic Journal of Linguistics; hope the link works.) http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=9D6C4586F5E75ADC7916C57E489D59F6.journals?fromPage=online&aid=2863040 A Danish newspaper had some years ago a headline (about the writer Kurtz Tucholsky), Manden som elskede Tyskland of som hadede det, which is (possibly unintentionally) ambiguous in Danish, but not in a translation into English: The man who loved Germany and who hated that/it. (That can also be combined with a Pointing gesture - deixis - while anaphoric it cannot.) More examples (e.g. from Icelandic) in my review. Ehlich's analysis of Hebrew has been contested, I know, and maybe the ambiguity of Danish det can be explained otherwise, but the distinction makes some sense in a typological framework. Hartmut Haberland Sendt fra min iPhone From danjiesu at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 06:27:50 2014 From: danjiesu at gmail.com (Danjie Su) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 23:27:50 -0700 Subject: Call for Papers: 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Please allow me to bring to your kind attention the Call-for-Papers of the 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (April 3-5, 2015, University of California, Los Angeles). We look forward to meeting / seeing you at the conference. Best, Danjie Su ------------------------- PhD Candidate Asian Languages and Cultures UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095 danjiesu at gmail.com www.danjiesu.com ========================================== *CALL FOR PAPERS* *The 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics * *April 3-5, 2015, University of California, Los Angeles* Integrating Linguistic Research with Language Teaching *Conference website*: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ The 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-27) will be held at the University of California, Los Angeles, April 3-5, 2015. The theme of the conference will be Integrating Chinese Linguistic Research with Language Teaching. Linguistic research and language teaching have generally been viewed as two separate types of academic endeavors, each with its own priorities and practices. While linguists have been preoccupied with uncovering patterns of language and building theories of language structure, rarely are they concerned with issues in language pedagogy. Language teaching practitioners, on the other hand, often encounter teaching and learning issues that are not readily addressed by theoretical linguistic research and find themselves in need of enriching their knowledge about the language for a better-informed pedagogy. We believe that it is time now that the integration of the two strands of academic endeavors be prioritized, for a number of reasons: a) truly insightful linguistic findings should find their value in applications such as language teaching, b) it takes tremendous effort and time to translate research into practical language teaching, c) language teaching can raise fundamental questions for linguistic research, and finally, d) the proliferation of Chinese language learning and teaching at the global level demands increased linguistic effort and synergy for a deeper understanding of the language and better pedagogies for language teaching. Thus, the conference organizers seek two types of papers for presentation at NACCL-27: 1) Linguistic research cast with pedagogical implications; 2) Teaching and learning studies raising important issues for linguistic research. <<>> *Abstract submission* Abstracts are invited for 30 minute presentations (including questions); Abstracts no longer than a single page should be submitted to the conference email address: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com (i.e. NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM). Only electronic submissions are accepted; The abstract should be in either plain text format or in MS Word format; In the abstract, please give 2-3 keywords to identify some general research areas, e.g. phonetics/phonology, grammar, lexicon, semantics, discourse, pragmatics, corpus linguistics, historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, technology, character learning, teaching models, assessment, teaching materials, heritage language, teacher-student interaction, and so forth; The abstract should have a cover page with the title of the paper, 2-3 keywords (see above), author's name, affiliation, contact information (including email). The abstract page should be an anonymous without any identifiable author information. *Key Deadlines* Abstract submission: Sunday, November 16, 2014. Notice of acceptance: December 20, 2014 *Organizer and Contact* Hongyin Tao Department of Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles 290 Royce Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1504 USA Email: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM Tel: +1 (310) 794-8933 =================================== *?27??????????????????* ?27???????????NACCL-27???2015?4?3-5??????????UCLA???? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (1) ?????????????????? (2) ????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???? ? ????????30??(????)? ? ?????????????????????????????????naccl27.ucla at gmail.com ( NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM)? ? ???????????????MS Word??? ? ?????????2-3???????????/???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ?????????????????2-3??????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ? ???????2014?11?16????? ? ???????2014?12?20????? ????????? ????: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ ???: ??? ?????????????? ????: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM ??: +1 (310) 794-8933 ?????????????????????????????????? *?27??????????????????* ?27???????????NACCL-27???2015?4?3-5??????????UCLA???? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (1) ?????????????????? (2) ????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???? ? ????????30??(????)? ? ?????????????????????????????????naccl27.ucla at gmail.com ( NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM)? ? ???????????????MS Word??? ? ?????????2-3???????????/???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ?????????????????2-3??????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ? ???????2014?11?16????? ? ???????2014?12?20????? ????????? ????: http://chineselinguistics.org/Events/NACCL-27/ ???: ??? ?????????????? ????: naccl27.ucla at gmail.com / NACCL27.UCLA at GMAIL.COM ??: +1 (310) 794-8933 From stephen.lewis at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 16:15:48 2014 From: stephen.lewis at gmail.com (Stephen Lewis) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 12:15:48 -0400 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <006101cf9db5$fdd6d4f0$f9847ed0$@post.tau.ac.il> Message-ID: In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the discourse > entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the speech situation > does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the referent > is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their previous > (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the antecedent > which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure I discuss this > issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the ?here and now?. Cognitive > Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert Spooren > eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive processing > series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and > revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled > as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. > I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example and > in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then?, in > which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of ?this? > in > > ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? > > And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t these > pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for > information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in > addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, > section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the > extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) > in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From hartmut at ruc.dk Tue Jul 15 17:03:19 2014 From: hartmut at ruc.dk (Hartmut Haberland) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:03:19 +0000 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic s? and ?essi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, Biblical Hebrew ??? and ???? (according to Ehlich) was exactly what you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way". Hartmut -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] P? vegne af Stephen Lewis Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 Til: Mira Ariel Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the > discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the > speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic > expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the > referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their > previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the > antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure > I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the ?here and > now?. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in > 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert > Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive > processing series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, > and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often > signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. > I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example > and in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and > then?, in which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of ?this? > in > > ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? > > And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t > these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they > stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in > addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter > numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; > these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to > which they belong) in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From mariel at post.tau.ac.il Tue Jul 15 17:42:12 2014 From: mariel at post.tau.ac.il (Mira Ariel) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 20:42:12 +0300 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <64BC5F23CF335040B77A5CCE9CF7A7E889772F11@MBX1.ad.ruc.dk> Message-ID: Hi, I don't know why you understand at least MY position as rejecting a distinction between deixis and anaphora. But reality is that so-called deictic markers are overwhelmingly used discourse anaphorically. Best, Mira -----Original Message----- From: Hartmut Haberland [mailto:hartmut at ruc.dk] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:03 PM To: Stephen Lewis Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE; Mira Ariel Subject: SV: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic s? and ?essi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, Biblical Hebrew ??? and ???? (according to Ehlich) was exactly what you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way". Hartmut -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] P? vegne af Stephen Lewis Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 Til: Mira Ariel Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between "this" and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these differences in another way. Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. Stephen On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel wrote: > Dear Marta, > > I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring expressions. > The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the > discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the > speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic > expressions (e.g., Hebrew > 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the > referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less accessible). > But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent is > equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their > previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their accessibility. > This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the > antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty sure > I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the ?here and > now?. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in > 2001. Accessibility > theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert > Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive > processing series). (pp. 29-87). > > Best, > > Mira (Ariel) > > -----Original Message----- > From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: > funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO > LAPEYRE > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM > To: Funknet > Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > Dear all, > > After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, > and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often > signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. > I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example > and in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and > then?, in which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of ?this? > in > > ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? > > And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t > these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they > stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in > addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter > numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; > these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to > which they belong) in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > > From michel.launey at ird.fr Thu Jul 17 16:58:00 2014 From: michel.launey at ird.fr (Michel LAUNEY) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:58:00 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: <64BC5F23CF335040B77A5CCE9CF7A7E889772F11@MBX1.ad.ruc.dk> Message-ID: I think Marta raises an interesting point, which is related to issues like thetic vs. categorical judgments (Kuroda 1972) or to the status of situational reference in predication. Situation can indeed play a role in the topic vs. focus (or theme vs. rheme) pattern, e.g. ?John is coming? being a possible answer to ?What is John doing?? (or ?What about John??), ?Who is coming?? but also ?What?s up?? (or following ?You know what??), i.e. giving an information about the situation. It is thus clear that situation, though not overtly expressed, can share properties with argument phrases, and no wonder admitting anaphora is one of them. Let me add French data. Usually situational reference is expressed by ?a/c? (and not by the pronouns il/elle). For instance, Marta?s first two examples would be translated, respectively: ?J?aime nager dans la mer, parce que c?est tr?s d?lassant / ?a d?lasse (or: d?tend) beaucoup? ?J?en ai assez de cet ascenseur, parce qu?il se d?traque tout le temps?. We find the same opposition in ?first occurrence? pronouns, in situations where the reference is obvious, e.g. coming at the office, a worker hears from a colleague ?Attention, il est de mauvais poil aujourd?hui? (?Be careful, he?s in a bad mood today? ? obviously: the boss). The same with situational reference: ?C?est le printemps!? (said on a first warm spring morning) or ?C?est la guerre!? (Btw, how would it be best in English: ?It?s war!? or ?that?s war!??), or, when entering an untidy place or a stormy discussion ?C?est le bordel, ici!? (lit. ?it?s the brothel, here!?) Best Michel Launey On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 17:03:19 +0000 Hartmut Haberland wrote: > Stephen, the point I was trying to make about Icelandic s? and >?essi, German (stressed) der/das (not the article) and er/es, >Biblical Hebrew ??? and ???? (according to Ehlich) was exactly what >you say: "discourse deixis provides an explanation for the >distinction. If we essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to >account for these differences in another way". Hartmut > > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >Fra: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu >[mailto:funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] P? vegne af Stephen Lewis > Sendt: 15. juli 2014 18:16 > Til: Mira Ariel > Cc: Funknet; MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE > Emne: Re: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis > > In English, there seems to be a distinct usage difference between >"this" > and "that" in discourse reference, and casting them as instances of >discourse deixis provides an explanation for the distinction. If we >essentially reject discourse deixis, we have to account for these >differences in another way. > > Off the top of my head, I don't have any other examples. > > Stephen > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Mira Ariel >wrote: > >> Dear Marta, >> >> I agree, and this is certainly how *I counted my referring >>expressions. >> The reason is that the immediately preceding mention renders the >> discourse entity quite accessible, often more accessible than the >> speech situation does. For example, I argued that clearly deictic >> expressions (e.g., Hebrew >> 'I') are pronounced differently, as related to how accessible the >> referent is deemed (shorter when highly accessible, longer when less >>accessible). >> But you couldn't explain this based on deixis, because the referent >>is >> equally accessible in the speech situation. Rather, it's their >> previous (and recent) mention in the discourse that may raise their >>accessibility. >> This shows that what counts is the mental accessibility of the >> antecedent which is sensitive to linguistic mentions. I'm pretty >>sure >> I discuss this issue in: 1998. The linguistic status of the ?here >>and >> now?. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 3. (pp.189-237). Most likely also in >> 2001. Accessibility >> theory: An overview. In Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert >> Spooren eds. Text representation. John Benjamins (Human cognitive >> processing series). (pp. 29-87). >> >> Best, >> >> Mira (Ariel) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto: >> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of MARTA BEGONA >>CARRETERO >> LAPEYRE >> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:24 PM >> To: Funknet >> Subject: [FUNKNET] On anaphora and discourse deixis >> >> Dear all, >> >> After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and >>pragmatics, >> and revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often >> signalled as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. >> >> For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very >> relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in >>the sea?. >> I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this >>example >> and in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and >> then?, in which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. >> >> And I find little difference between these cases and the function of >>?this? >> in >> >> ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? >> >> And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring >>to >> previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t >> these pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they >> stand for information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? >> >> Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in >> addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the >> previous linguistic context. >> >> In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter >> numbers, section numbers, page numbers and other similar >>expressions; >> these need the extralinguistic context (in this case, the document >>to >> which they belong) in order to be interpreted. >> >> Many thanks in advance for your responses. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> >> >> Marta Carretero >> >> Universidad Complutense, Madrid >> >> From joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Wed Jul 23 17:43:58 2014 From: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl (Joanna Nykiel) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:43:58 +0200 Subject: PhD course announcement Message-ID: Dear FUNKNET moderator,? Could you please post the message below to the list members? Thank you,? Joanna Nykiel ----------------------------- PhD course, 'COGNITIVE PROCESSES IN COPYING A TEXT' (5 ECTS), 3-7 November, 2014, Ullandhaug Campus, University of Stavanger (Norway). Application deadline: October 1, 2014. INSTRUCTORS: Aidan Conti, University of Bergen Christer Johansson, University of Bergen Guido Nottbusch, University of Pottsdam Jacob Thaisen, University of Stavanger Joanna Nykiel, University of Silesia Per Henning Uppstad, University of Stavanger. The focus of the course is on exploring cognitive processes involved in copying written text. It is informed by research on how language users comprehend and produce oral or written text, as well as on how the combination of language comprehension and production is reflected in the task of copying written text. We will discuss insights into production and comprehension behavior gained from psycholinguistic experimentation using modern tools of investigation, such as eye tracking and key logging. We will then address the question of what cognitive constraints might operate on a person as they copy written text. We will do so by drawing on existing work in historical linguistics/philology which has explored the nature of linguistic variation found in scribal copies of medieval texts. In particular, our focus will be on how large a segment of text is being held in working memory and recalled from it in the process of copying, and whether the size of this segment may be affected by the linguistic features of the text being copied and/or the nonlinguistic features of the copying situation. The course will thus offer new interdisciplinary ways of linking historical linguistics/philology and psycholinguistic research. For further information, please visit http://www.uis.no/forskning-og-ph-d-studier/ph-d-utdanning/vaare-ph-d-studier/lesevitenskap/ph-d-emner/ ELIGIBILITY The course is open to students enrolled on a doctoral programme, in Norway or elsewhere, but the number of places is limited; we reserve the right to reject applicants. COURSE FEE Participation is free. Participants are responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs and arrangements. To apply for a place, fill in the registration form available from http://www.uis.no/forskning-og-ph-d-studier/ph-d-utdanning/kurs-og-emner/emner-paa-lesevitenskap/ (click on 'S?knad om opptak til ph.d.-kurs ved Universitetet i Stavanger') and send it to jeanette.rollheim at uis.no. Please do not hesitate to address any queries you may have to any of the four convenors (Aidan Conti aidan.conti at cms.uib.no, Jacob Thaisen jacob.thaisen at uis.no, Joanna Nykiel joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl, and Per Henning Uppstad per.h.uppstad at uis.no) -- Joanna Nykiel Assistant Professor English Department University of Silesia Grota-Roweckiego 5 Sosnowiec 41-205, Poland E-mail: joanna.nykiel at us.edu.pl Homepage: http://uranos.cto.us.edu.pl/~jnykiel/ From mcarrete at filol.ucm.es Wed Jul 30 11:29:13 2014 From: mcarrete at filol.ucm.es (MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:29:13 +0200 Subject: On anaphora and discourse deixis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Many thanks to all contributors of the 'deixis versus anaphora' issue. I will consider all the suggestions before planning my next year lectures on deixis. For the moment, I can tell you that they have made me reflect on my own native language (Spanish), which makes a difference in the use of demonstrative pronouns for replacing a previously mentioned extralinguistic entity and a stretch of discourse (este/esta vs. esto, etc.). I wish you all a happy and relaxed August. Marta Dr Marta Carretero https://portal.ucm.es/web/filologia_inglesa_i/marta-carretero 2014-07-12 11:23 GMT+02:00 MARTA BEGONA CARRETERO LAPEYRE < mcarrete at filol.ucm.es>: > Dear all, > > After some years? experience in lecturing on semantics and pragmatics, and > revising references on deixis, I wonder whether many cases often signalled > as instances of discourse deixis are really anaphoric. > > For example, if I say ?I love swimming in the sea because it is very > relaxing?, ?it? refers to the situation expressed by ?swimming in the sea?. > I see no great difference between the function of ?it? in this example and > in ?I?m tired of this lift because it breaks down every now and then?, in > which ?it? is unanimously considered as anaphoric. > > And I find little difference between these cases and the function of > ?this? in > > ?Did you know that Sally finally won the prize? This is great news.? > > And the same for pronouns such as ?it?, ?this? or ?that? referring to > previous or forthcoming long stretches of discourse: why shouldn?t these > pronouns be considered as anaphoric or cataphoric, since they stand for > information transmitted elsewhere in discourse? > > Similarly, discourse markers such as ?however?, ?therefore? or ?in > addition? could be considered as anaphoric, since they point to the > previous linguistic context. > > In sum, I feel tempted to restrict discourse deixis to chapter numbers, > section numbers, page numbers and other similar expressions; these need the > extralinguistic context (in this case, the document to which they belong) > in order to be interpreted. > > Many thanks in advance for your responses. > > Best wishes, > > > > Marta Carretero > > Universidad Complutense, Madrid > >