<div dir="ltr">Dear all,<div><br></div><div>I'm posting this on behalf of colleagues.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Eitan</div><div><br></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB">Call for papers: </span></u><span lang="EN-GB">Workshop “<u>Beyond Information Structure”<span></span></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Organisers:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Dejan Matić (University of Graz) <a href="mailto:dejan.matic@uni-graz.at">dejan.matic@uni-graz.at</a><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Pavel Ozerov (Hebrew University of
Jerusalem) <a href="mailto:pavel.ozerov1@gmail.com">pavel.ozerov1@gmail.com</a><span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The workshop “Beyond Information Structure”
is planned for the 50th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea
(SLE) (Zürich, 10-13 September 2017). We invite submissions of preliminary abstracts
(max. 300 words excluding references) for 20 minute presentations. Due to the
approaching deadline of workshop proposals, please send your abstracts to the
organisers by the November 21, 2016. In the case the workshop is accepted, you
will be invited to submit the full abstract (max. 500 words excluding
references) by January 15, 2017.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB">Workshop description: <span></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In the last years, growing cross-linguistic
evidence suggests a shift in the functional approach to Information Structure
(IS), along the same theoretical lines that recently re-shaped a number of
domains of linguistic inquiry. Examples of such shifts took place in the study
of “word classes” (Haspelmath 2012) and grammatical relations (Bickel 2011).
Modern approaches dispense with the postulation of universal categories and the
exploration of their cross-linguistic expression. Instead, they replace this
method with detailed studies of language-specific phenomena and their ensuing
classification and comparison. In the case of IS the typological outcome of
such a shift results in the radical departure from the assumed universal or
prototypical categories.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Traditionally, theoretical approaches to IS
define a set of pragmatic-semantic categories, and study how these categories
are expressed cross-linguistically (e.g. Rooth 1992, Lambrecht 1994). The need
in these categories was in turn rooted in basic principles of communication and
information-processing, such as e.g. the need in a cognitive index to store a
proposition (‘topic’ in Vallduvi’s (1992) approach), or the importance of
update (a central feature of ‘focus’ in Lambrecht 1994).<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">However, a growing number of empirical,
language-specific studies attempting to analyse presumable IS-marking devices
instead discover their different, diverse primitive functions, which have no
direct relationship to IS categories. In addition to giving a better account of
the basic function, usage, and distribution of these devices, this research
also sheds light on the actual origin of “information structural” phenomena.
They show how diverse primitive functions can interact with the context,
rendering sets of interpretations related to such concepts as “aboutness”,
“contrast”, “unexpectedness”, etc., that are typically used to characterise IS
notions.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Matić and Wedgwood (2013) provide extensive
argumentation for this shift, and demonstrate a number of case studies of such
re-analysis of presumable IS markers. For instance, the Quechua particle mi had
previously been analysed as a marker of narrow focus (Muysken 1995, Sanchez
2010). However, although this characterisation is applicable within the limited
set of IS tests, it fails to address the full span of functions of the
particle. Its analysis along the lines of evidentiality (Faller 2002:150) or as
an “interactional device [of] persuasive intention” (Behrens 2012:209) allows
both to give a unified account for its functions, and trace the interactional
source of a presumable “focal” effect, which arises in certain contexts. In
another case, the apparent contrastivity of Even suffix –d(A)mAr turns out to
stem from its lexical meaning, which indicates that the denoted noun is
included in a set of relevant concepts. As such, it can occur with contrastive
referents, but also e.g. with kinship terms (which represent sets like {father,
child}) (Matić and Wedgwood 2013:152). And yet another case, stand-alone
nominalised sentences in Burmese, previously argued to be “cleft-sentences”
(Simpson 2008, Hole and Zimmermann 2013), are used to communicate speaker’s
emotions, narrator’s personal comments, visualise storyteller’s memories and –
more broadly – impart emotional involvement from the side of the speaker
(Ozerov 2015). As such, they are also used in the context of contradiction,
correction, or an opinionated selection from a set of alternatives – typical
instances of focus elicitation.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In fact, after decades of cross-linguistic
studies of IS, hardly any example of a purely IS device has been identified.
Even the very prototypical case of an IS construction – cleft-sentences in
English –upon closer examination turns out to represent a rather different
phenomenon. It is only the studies of its interactional discourse functions
that were able to give a coherent account of its distribution (‘state-making
device’ Delin and Oberlander 1995, ‘inquiry terminating construction’ Velleman
et al. 2012), which also explains its typical focal interpretation. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Thus, it is repeatedly found that IS
accounts of presumable IS devices are insufficient. IS analysis alone does not
explain the full function of apparently relevant markers. Moreover, it does not
predict the idiosyncratic list of precise IS features, pertinent to each
particular marker. Coherent full-scale analyses show that primitive functions
of these markers lie beyond IS, while IS-interpretations often turn out to be
particular usages of their primitive functions. <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">If so, a coherent cross-linguistic study of
relevant language-specific categories promises to shed light on the way
IS-interpretations appear as a result of the interaction of a basic function of
diverse devices with the context. It will describe and explain how interactional
categories, stance, intersubjective alignment, particular discourse structuring
and lexical devices produce dynamic structuring of information in the course of
communication. Moreover, this research perspective strongly appeals to the
identification, description and analysis of currently poorly understood
categories from the field of interaction.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Only once these categories are properly
described and compared, will we be able to produce generalisations regarding
their natures. As a result of this process, we may end up with a modified
version of typological categories that would resemble IS-primitives. However,
it is not impossible that the outcome will be radically different. For
instance, an apparent typology of “verum focus” (He did go!) demonstrates that
in this context Albanian uses admirative verbal forms, while Quechua employs
the abovementioned evidential-persuasive particle mi (Behrens 2012:231);
Burmese creates the required effect by stance marking (Ozerov 2015:261-293).
Hence, what starts out as a typological study of a “focus”-construction, ends
up representing a typology of interactional, persuasive-contradictive
techniques.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">We invite abstracts of empirical and
theoretical studies that deal with the abovementioned topics, such as:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Studies of particular language-specific IS-like devices that investigate their
overall function and discuss the nature and origin of their IS-functions<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Theoretical and empirical studies that investigate the relation between IS and
fields of interaction, cognition, discourse-structure<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Comparative studies of IS-related devices with detailed accounts of their
precise functional similarities and differences<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Theoretical studies that critically discuss the proposed framework and its
relation to currently established theories of IS<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Theoretical studies of broader IS-like phenomena (“emphasis”, “attention”,
“aboutness”) in discourse and their marking<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">·
Empirical studies of particular strategies, functions and marking employed in
discourse in the contexts of “IS-tests”, e.g. answers to content questions,
corrections, frame-setting etc.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">References:<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Behrens, Leila. 2012. ‘Evidentiality,
Modality, Focus and Other Puzzles: Some
Reflections on Metadiscourse and Typology.’ In <i>Practical Theories and
Empirical Practice: A Linguistic Perspective</i>, edited by Andrea C. Schalley,
185–244. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical
relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), <i>The Oxford handbook of language
typology</i>, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Delin, Judy, and John Oberlander. 1995. ‘Syntactic
Constraints on Discourse Structure: The Case of It-Clefts.’ <i>Linguistics</i>
33 (3): 465–500<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Haspelmath, Martin. 2012. How to compare
major word-classes across the world’s languages. Theories of Everything, <i>UCLA
Working Papers in Linguistics</i>, Volume 17. 109-130<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. <i>Information
Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of
Discourse Referents</i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Matić, Dejan, and Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. ‘The
Meanings of Focus: The Significance of an Interpretation-Based Category in
Cross-Linguistic Analysis.’ <i>Journal of Linguistics</i> 49 (1): 127–163<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Muysken, Pieter. 1995. Focus in Quechua. In
Katalin E. Kiss (ed.), <i>Discourse configurational languages</i>, 375–393.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Ozerov, Pavel. 2015. The system of
Information Packaging in Burmese. PhD Thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora
(Melbourne)<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Rooth, Mats. 1992. ‘A Theory of Focus
Interpretation.’ <i>Natural Language Semantics</i> 1 (1): 75–116<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Sanchez, Liliana. 2010. <i>The morphology
and syntax of topic and focus: Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery</i>.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoBibliography" style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB">Simpson,
Andrew. 2008. ‘The Grammaticalization of Clausal Nominalizers in Burmese.’ In <i>Rethinking
Grammaticalization: New Perspectives</i>, edited by María José López-Couso and
Elena Seoane, 265–288. Typological Studies in Linguistics 76. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins<span></span></span></p>
<p class="gmail-MsoBibliography" style="line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB">Vallduví,
Enric. 1992. <i>The Informational Component</i>. New York: Garland Press.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Velleman, Dan B., David Beaver, Emilie
Destruel, Dylan Bumford, Edgar Onea, and Liz Coppock. 2012. ‘It-Clefts Are IT
(Inquiry Terminating) Constructions.’ In <i>Proceedings of SALT 22</i>, edited
by Anca Chereches, 441–460. University of Chicago<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p>
<div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Eitan Grossman<div>Lecturer, Department of Linguistics/School of Language Sciences<br></div><div>Hebrew University of Jerusalem</div><div>Tel: +972 2 588 3809</div><div>Fax: +972 2 588 1224</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>