13.2667, Confs: Semantics/Cross-Linguistic Data

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-2667. Wed Oct 16 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.2667, Confs: Semantics/Cross-Linguistic Data

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, Arizona U.
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Anita Huang, EMU
	Tomoko Okuno, EMU		Steve Moran, EMU
	Lakshmi Narayanan, EMU		Sarah Murray, WSU
	Marisa Ferrara, EMU

Software: Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>
          Zhenwei Chen, E. Michigan U. <chen at linguistlist.org>
	  Prashant Nagaraja, E. Michigan U. <prashant at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Lakshmi Narayanan <lakshmi at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
Please keep conferences announcement as short as you can; LINGUIST
will not post conference announcements which in our opinion are
excessively long.


=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:19:01 +0000
From:  Martina.Faller at mpi.nl
Subject:  New Conference Announcement

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 14 Oct 2002 16:19:01 +0000
From:  Martina.Faller at mpi.nl
Subject:  New Conference Announcement


Martina Faller has submitted Announcement information about the following
conference: Cross-Linguistic Data and Theories of Meaning.
				
The success of recent endeavours such as the meetings on the theme of the
Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas (SULA at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, April 2001) shows that there is
considerable interest amongst semanticists, and indeed amongst linguists
generally, in the problems which arise in confronting semantic theories with
data from less-studied languages (Matthewson 2001). A central problem in this
research programme is that, in most cases, the linguist will not be a native
speaker of the language. We intend that this meeting will concentrate on the
conceptual and methodological problems of studying semantics under these
conditions.

It is generally accepted that languages have the same extensional
expressive power in the sense that any language can adequately describe the
physical world. In studying cross-linguistic semantics, the question of
interest is whether the extensional equivalence of languages also requires
intensional equivalence.  Some scholars take a universalist perspective and
assume intensional equivalency (Barwise and Cooper 1981, Bittner 1994, Keenan
and Stavi 1986), whereas others take a relativist perspective and start from
the assumption that languages are to a large degree not intensionally
equivalent (e.g. Whorf 1941, Grace 1987). In both the universalist and the
relativist research tradition, recent research indicates that there is genuine
 semantic variation across languages, but that this variation is constrained
by universal principles (Bach et al. 1995, Bohnemeyer in press, Chierchia
1998, Gumperz and Levinson 1996, Pederson et al. 1998, Wierzbicka 1996,
Wilkins & Hill 1995).  These findings are not only relevant for
cross-linguistic semantics, but also for language acquisition research
(Bowerman 1996).

One set of questions which we would like to see addressed arise from this:
What sort of arguments can be made for either a universalist or a relativist
position? If we take the perspective that this is an issue of 'more or less'
rather than 'yes or no,' what aspects of meaning are universal, and what
aspects are open to variation? Will the answers to these questions require a
reconceptualization of what semantics is and how it is structured? What are
the consequences for the learnability of languages?

Further questions arise with respect to the nature of universals of meaning,
if they exist. Are they conceptual units, a vocabulary, or a combinatory
system, a syntax, or both? And where do they fit into the language system? Are
 universals of meaning situated in semantics alone (as Wierzbicka seems to
argue), or are they situated in pragmatics (as argued by Levinson 1999), or in
 both sub-systems? Or are universals of meaning completely outside the
linguistic system, a possibility at least acknowledged by Gil (1991).

Methodological questions must also be considered. Even the most ardent
universalist would allow that some aspects of meaning cannot be transferred
from one language to another, or can easily be distorted in the process. What
techniques should the researcher therefore use in order to ensure that such
distortion is minimized? Can the dependence of the data collection process on
language be reduced, either by using non-linguistic stimuli to elicit
linguistic data (see e.g. Pederson et al. 1998), or by using linguistic data
to elicit non-linguistic reponses. To what extent are techniques used in
research on child language and large-scale corpora helpful for
cross-linguistic semantic research? Is a metalanguage necessary for
interpreting data, and if so, how should it be formulated: in a logical
language, or in a natural language (Goddard and Wierzbicka (eds) 1994, 2002)?
			

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-2667