<html>
<div align="center">
<font size=3><i>We apologize for multiple mailing of this message<br>
<br>
</i><b>Space in languages :<br>
linguistic systems and cognitive categories<br>
<br>
Paris, 7-8 February 2003<br>
</b>Ecole Normale Supérieure (salle Dussane, to be confirmed)<br>
45 rue d’Ulm, 75005 Paris<br>
<br>
International conference organized by the research group<br>
<i>Linguistic diversity and change: cognitive implications<br>
</i>with financial support from the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique<br>
<br>
<b><i>Entrance is free, no registration<br>
<br>
</i></b></div>
As illustrated by the Kantian tradition and by a number of cognitive
theories, space has been often viewed as a universal cognitive primitive,
an ‘a priori form of intuition’ that conditions all of our experience.
From this point of view, it is of particular interest to study the
linguistic expression of space, since languages seem to capture and to
make explicit the constraints of experience on the construction of
spatial reference. At the same time, language confers to spatial
representations the property of referential ‘detachability’, that
distinguishes these representations from those that are produced by the
perceptual experience of space. This fundamental property of language
allows speakers to dissociate and to choose among different components of
spatial reference, as well as to use spatial morphemes to express other
and/or more abstract meanings, such as temporal, causal or argumentative
relations.<br>
<br>
A question then arises concerning the primitive and generative nature of
the category of space in languages. To what extent does space, as it is
linguistically encoded, reflect forms of perceptual experience and which
aspects of this experience do languages encode? Does space constitute a
pure and primitive category from which other linguistic meanings are then
derived? This question has been raised by cognitive grammars in general
and by metaphor theory in particular. It is also particularly relevant in
the light of numerous derivations that can be observed in the history of
languages, often indicating that a given term evolves from a concrete
spatial meaning to an abstract discourse one. What are then the cognitive
mechanisms that allow these transitions? Inversely, some recent
linguistic analyses argue that spatial values are neither basic nor even
purely spatial, but rather that spatial terms always carry other values,
for example related to the functional properties of objects, their force
or resistance, or the goals towards which speakers construct spatial
relations in their utterances. According to this conception, space in
language is therefore not a primitive category, but already the result of
some construction. What types of evidence can be brought to bear on these
different conceptions?<br>
<br>
Furthermore, in the last twenty years, many studies in linguistics,
psycholinguistics, and cultural anthropology have revealed the existence
of rather varied spatial systems across languages and cultures. These
variations concern, for example, the nature of the linguistic devices
expressing spatial information (e.g. verbs, affixes, classifiers,
particles), the particular distinctions they encode, and the reference
systems that are used by speakers (absolute, egocentric, relative). In
addition, various studies show that linguistic and cultural systems
determine - at least partially - the nature and cognitive accessibility
of the information selected by speakers, thereby casting some doubts on
the supposedly universal properties of the category of space. This
evidence then raises questions concerning the impact of linguistic
categorization on perception, as well as the existence of a single
(a-modal) system or of two distinct (linguistic vs. perceptual and motor)
systems of spatial representations.<br>
<br>
The study of space can then be reframed in terms of several fundamental
questions, that will be addressed during this conference from the point
of view of linguistics (typology, diachrony, sign-language), cognitive
anthropology, the philosophy of language, psycholinguistics, and
neurosciences.<br>
<br>
<div align="center">
<b>List of participants and papers to be presented<br>
<br>
</b><i>The precise program will be announced in January<br>
<br>
</i></div>
<b>Melissa Bowerman</b> (Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics,
Nijmegen)<br>
<i>Constructing language-specific spatial categories in first language
acquisition<br>
<br>
</i><b>Pierre Cadiot</b> (Université de Paris 8, Laboratoire LATTICE)<b>
</b> <b>Franck Lebas</b> (Université Clermont-Ferrand 2) <br>
<i>The French movement verb MONTER as a challenge to the status of
spatial reference<br>
<br>
</i><b>Denis Creissels</b> (Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, Université
Lyon 2)<br>
<i>Encoding the distinction between localization, source of a movement
and direction of a movement: a typological study<br>
<br>
</i><b>Michel Denis</b> (LIMSI, Orsay)<br>
<i>Deficits in spatial discourse: the case of Alzheimer patients<br>
<br>
</i><b>Jérôme Dokic & Elisabeth Pacherie</b> (Institut Jean Nicod,
EHESS Paris)<br>
<i>Molyneux’s question and frames of reference<br>
<br>
</i><b>Colette Grinevald</b> (Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage,
Université Lyon 2)
<dl><i>
<dd>The expression of static location in a typological perspective<br>
<br>
</i>
</dl><b>Maya Hickmann</b> (Laboratoire Cognition et Développement,
Université de Paris 5)<br>
<i>The relativity of motion in first language acquisition<br>
<br>
</i><b>Anetta Kopecka</b> (Laboratoire Dynamique du Langage, Université
Lyon 2)<br>
<i>The semantic structure of prefixed motion verbs in French: typological
perspectives<br>
<br>
</i><b>Barbara Landau</b> (Department of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore)<br>
<i>(De)Coupling of spatial language and spatial cognition<br>
<br>
</i><b>Alain Peyraube</b> (Centre de Recherche sur les Langues d’Asie
Orientale, Paris)<br>
<i>On the history of place words and localizers in Chinese : a cognitive
approach<br>
<br>
</i><b>Marie-Anne Sallandre</b> (Université Paris 8)<br>
<i>Iconicity in discourse, the role of space in French sign
language<br>
<br>
</i><b>Chris Sinha</b> (Institute of Language and Communication,
University of Southern Denmark)<br>
<i>Mapping and construal in spatial language and conceptualization:
language variation and acquisition.<br>
<br>
</i><b>Dan Slobin</b> (Department of Psychology University of California,
Berkeley)<br>
<i>What makes manner of motion salient ?<br>
<br>
</i><b>Leonard Talmy</b> (State University of New York at Buffalo)<br>
to be confirmed<br>
<br>
<b>Claude Vandeloise</b> (State University of Louisiana, Bâton
Rouge)<br>
<i>Are there spatial prepositions ?<br>
<br>
</i><b>Yves-Marie Visetti</b> (Laboratoire LATTICE, ENS Paris)<br>
<i>Semantics and its models of perception and action<br>
<br>
<br>
</i><b>Organizing committee<br>
</b>Maya Hickmann<br>
Stéphane Robert<br>
Yves-Marie Visetti<br>
<br>
<b>Contact:<br>
</b></font><font size=4>secretariat.tul@ivry.cnrs.fr<br>
<br>
</font></div>
</html>