<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Almindelig tekst Tegn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Formateret HTML Tegn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.FormateretHTMLTegn
{mso-style-name:"Formateret HTML Tegn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Formateret HTML";
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.AlmindeligtekstTegn
{mso-style-name:"Almindelig tekst Tegn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Almindelig tekst";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:3.0cm 2.0cm 3.0cm 2.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="DA" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Second call for papers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Propositions vs. States-of-Affairs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Workshop at the 49th SLE meeting, Naples, August 31 – September 3, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">FULL VERSION OF CALL AT THE END OF THIS MESSAGE!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">The previously announced workshop “Propositions vs. States-of-Affairs” has now been accepted, and we’ve been allotted enough slots that we have room for a few more contributions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><br>
We therefore encourage you to submit an abstract by the general deadline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Submission procedure:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Please submit your abstract directly to the SLE via Easychair (</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><a href="https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sle2016"><span lang="EN-US">https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sle2016</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">), and remember to select the workshop under “Type of paper”. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The abstract should i) be anonymous, ii) contain between 400 and 500 words (exclusive of references), and (3) state research questions, approach, method, data and (expected) results. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">The submission deadline is January 15th 2016. </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">- Abstracts will receive three scores, two by two members of the SLE 2016 Scientific committee and one by the workshop convenors. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black">- If at the end of the reviewing process there are more accepted papers in the workshop than slots (10 or 15), a selection of papers for the workshop will be made by the convenors. Unselected papers will be scheduled in the general session.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Please contact Kasper Boye
</span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1F497D">(</span></b><b><a href="mailto:boye@hum.ku.dk"><span lang="EN-US">boye@hum.ku.dk</span></a></b><b><span lang="EN-US">) if you intend to submit an abstract, or if you have any questions.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<pre><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></pre>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Kasper Boye and Marie-Louise Lind Sørensen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">University of Copenhagen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:boye@hum.ku.dk"><span lang="EN-US">boye@hum.ku.dk</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:mlsoerensen@hum.ku.dk"><span lang="EN-US">mlsoerensen@hum.ku.dk</span></a><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">--------------<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">FULL VERSION OF CALL:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Call for papers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Propositions vs. States-of-Affairs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Workshop at the 49th SLE meeting, Naples, August 31 – September 3, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Convenors<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Kasper Boye and Marie-Louise Lind Sørensen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Aim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">This workshop aims at bringing together linguists of different orientations and with different research focuses in order to furnish our understanding of contrasts between Propositions (truth-valued predications) and
SoAs (non-truth-valued predications). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Background<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">The distinction between Propositions and States-of-Affairs (SoAs) can be characterized in terms of the notion of truth-value: Propositions are truth-valued predicational meaning units, while SoAs are non-truth-valued.
The distinction plays a central role in language philosophy and metaphysics (e.g. Loux 1998). In linguistics, it has been employed in several frameworks and by a variety of scholars – although under different names:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Proposition<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">“Proposition” (Loux 1998; Svenonius 1994; Schüle 2000; Lyons 1977) “Propositional content” (Dik & Hengeveld 1991) “Fact” (Lees 1960; Vendler 1967; Dixon 2006) “Third-order entity” (Lyons 1977)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">State-of-affairs (SoA)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">“State of affairs” (Loux 1998; Svenonius 1994; Dik & Hengeveld 1991) “Event” (Vendler 1967; Schüle 2000) “Action” (Lees 1960) “Activity” (Dixon 2006) “Second-order entity” (Lyons 1977)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Pertaining to predicational meaning units, the distinction is relevant to clause contrasts (including nominalizations). It has been used to capture contrasts between different complement types of, for instance, modal
predicates (1), perception predicates (2), knowledge predicates (3), and utterance predicates (4) (see Boye 2012: 188-194 for an overview; cf. Dixon 2006: 23-31).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(1) Modal complements (e.g. Lyons 1977: 842-843; Palmer 1979: 35; Perkins 1983: 7-8)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> He may stay in that house.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> a. ‘It is possible for him to stay in that house’. (SoA reading of complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> b. ‘It may be the case that he is staying in that house’. (Prop. reading of complement)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(2) Perception complements (e.g. Dik and Hengeveld 1991: 242-245; Boye 2010a)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> a. I saw [him write a letter]. (SoA complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> b. I saw [(that) he was writing a letter]. (Propositional complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(3) Knowledge complements (Sørensen & Boye 2015) (data from Jacaltec; Craig 1977: 241, 235)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> a. Wohtaj [hin watx'en kap camixe]. (SoA complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I.know I.make ? CLF/DET shirt<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ‘I know how to make shirts’.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> b. Wohtaj [tato ay tzet ch'alaxoj jet bay chon toj tu']. (Prop. complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> I.know COMP is what is.given to.us where we.go ? that<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> ‘I know that they will give us something where we are going’.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(4) a. I told him [to go]. (SoA complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> b. I told him [that she didn’t like him]. (Propositional complement)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">It has also been used to capture contrasts between different kinds of nominalization, such as the contrast in (5) (e.g. Lees 1960: 59-73), Vendler (1967: 122-146; Fraser 1970):<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(5) a. her singing of the aria (SoA nominalization)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"> b. her singing the aria (Propositional nominalization)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Importantly, the distinction has been associated with the distinction between the “major sentence types” declarative, interrogative and imperative. It has been argued that imperatives involve SoAs, while declaratives
and possibly also interrogatives involve propositions (see Boye 2012: 199-206 for discussion). The distinction is of relevance not only to (possibly nominalized) clause type contrasts, however. Certain nouns may be described as designating SoAs (e.g. event,
action), while others may be described as designating propositions (e.g. fact, proposal). Moreover, verb- or clause-level semantic categories may be distinguished according to whether they relate to propositions or SoAs. For instance, manner adverbs and non-epistemic
modality are associated with SoAs (e.g. Hengeveld 1989), while it has been argued that evidentiality and epistemic modality are associated with propositions (Boye 2010b, 2012). Arguably, then, Proposition-SoA contrasts are pervasive in the world’s languages.
Still, however, they remain heavily understudied. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Topics and issues covered<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">All aspects of Proposition-SoA contrasts are of relevance to the workshop, including the following.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">1) Proposition-SoA contrasts in individual languages or language families or across language families:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">e.g. nominalization contrasts, noun contrasts, contrasts in complement, adverbial and/or relative clauses.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">2) Modelling the Proposition-SoA contrast:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">As mentioned, propositions can be characterized as truth-valued predicational meaning units, and SoAs as non-truth-valued meaning units. But how should the contrast be understood more precisely? Is a cognitive linguistic
conception preferable to a denotational one (as argued in Boye 2012), or vice versa, or is there an alternative to both of these options?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">3) A typology of Proposition types and/or SoA types:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Can different types of Proposition types and/or SoA types be distinguished? For instance, is a distinction between fact- and non-fact propositions linguistically significant? How is the notion of SoA related to action
types (Aktionsarten)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">4) Interaction with other semantic or grammatical categories:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">What is the relationship between the Proposition-Soa distinction and distinctions such as that between Realis and irrealis? What is the relationship between the Proposition-SoA distinction and distinction between types
of evidentiality or epistemic modality?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Cristofaro (2003) suggests that the Proposition-SoA distinction is related to the distinction between finite (or balanced) and non-finite (or deranked) dependent clauses. In a similar vein, Harder (1996) argues that
the distinction is related to the distinction between tensed and non-tensed clauses. Is this the case? If so, why is this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">References<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Boye, K. 2012. Epistemic meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Boye, K. 2010a. Reference and clausal perception-verb complements. Linguistics 48:2. 391-430. Boye, K. 2010b. Evidence for what? Evidentiality and scope. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 63.4. 290-307.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Craig, C. 1997. The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Cristofaro, S. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Dik, S. C. & K. Hengeveld. <span lang="EN-US">1991. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of perception-verb complements. Linguistics 29. 231-259.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Dixon R.M.W. & A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2006. Complementation: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Fraser, B. 1970. Some remarks on the action nominalization in English. In Readings in English transformational grammar, R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds.), 83-98. Waltham: Ginn and Company.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Harder, P. 1996. Functional semantics: A theory of meaning, structure and tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25. 127-157.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Lees, R.B. 1960.The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Loux, M. J. 1998. Metaphysics. London: Routledge.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Palmer, F.R. Modality and the English modals. London: Longman.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Perkins, M.R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Schüle, S. Perception verb complements in Akatek, a Mayan language. Dissertation. Tübingen: University of Tübingen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Svenonius, P. 1994. Dependent nexus: Subordinate predication structures in English and the Scandinavian languages. Dissertation, Santa Cruz: California: University of California at Santa Cruz.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sørensen, M.-L. L. & K. Boye. 2015. Vidensprædikatkomplementering. Ny Forskning i Grammatik.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>