30.2552, Calls: Gen Ling, Ling Theories, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Wed Jun 26 01:57:48 UTC 2019
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2552. Tue Jun 25 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 30.2552, Calls: Gen Ling, Ling Theories, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/France
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:56:54
From: Olivier Duplâtre [olivier-duplatre at wanadoo.fr]
Subject: The Problem of the Adverb
Full Title: The Problem of the Adverb
Date: 26-Mar-2020 - 27-Mar-2020
Location: Paris, France
Contact Person: Olivier Duplâtre
Meeting Email: adverb at sciencesconf.org
Web Site: https://adverb.sciencesconf.org
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Linguistic Theories; Semantics; Syntax; Typology
Call Deadline: 06-Oct-2019
Meeting Description:
The conference is aimed at presenting new approaches to the adverb. Following
questions will deserve careful consideration : What use can we make of the
notion of adverbial? Can we deal with the adverb, as opposed to the adverbial,
by dispensing with the criterion of invariability? Can we define the adverb
based solely on syntax? Will traditional adverbs still be adverbs in this
case? Where and how can we draw a line between adverbs and neighboring
categories in the languages of the world? What can we learn from language
history that could help us establish definitory criteria? Can we propose a
universal definition of the adverb at all?
Call for Papers:
Location: Paris (Sorbonne-Université)
Organization: Olivier Duplâtre (Sorbonne université), Pierre-Yves Modicom
(Université Bordeaux Montaigne)
Contact e-mail: adverb at sciencesconf.org
Full Call: https://adverb.sciencesconf.org/
Although the necessity of robust definitions of parts of speech in the
description of a given language is widely acknowledged (see Haspelmath 2001:
16538 for general argumentation), the degree of language-specific variation
and the respective role of functional and formal criteria are still under
discussion. Among the parts of speech of traditional grammar there is one
which, although probably no less useful than the others, appears less
satisfactory: the adverb.
The notion of “adverb” sometimes seems to be used in order to lump together
all the items that do not satisfy the definitions of the other parts of speech
(Quirk et al. 1972: 267).
In face of this extreme fuzziness, some grammarians have looked for a renewed
definition of the adverb based on prototypical features (Ramat/Ricca 1994).
But which criteria should be chosen to define a prototype of the adverb?
Should frequency data play a role in this definition? Should one take some
semantic features as more prototypical than others? Can the manner adverb
constitute the prototype? Should we follow follow Hengeveld’s position (1992,
2004) that the only way to come up with typological generalizations is to
focus on manner adverbs?
Other scholars have chosen to do away with the category of adverb and replace
it by the functional category of adverbial (Nølke [1990], Pittner [1999]),
with the latter being defined in a purely syntactic way if necessary (Chomsky
[1965], Steinitz [1969]). Similarly, some linguists even take the adverbial as
the more basic notion and derive the notion of adverb from it (Maienborn &
Schäfer 2019). However the notion of adverbial is not very clear either
(Eisenberg 2013: 212), as, like its cousin the adverb, the adverbial has
ill-defined boundaries: if the adverbial is a phrase that is not defined as a
specific type of sentential component (Nølke 1990: 17), this means that any
type of circumstantial, be it an adjective, a prepositional phrase, a
subordinated clause etc., falls into this category. Further, the question of
the syntactic domain of adverbials and of their semantic scope is as difficult
as it ever was for adverbs: should we really lump together in one category
manner adverbials, speaker-oriented modal adverbials, evaluative adverbials,
circumstantials, or even discourse markers?
The whole question is to examine whether other approaches to the adverb can be
taken. What use can we make of the notion of adverbial? Can we deal with the
adverb, as opposed to the adverbial, by dispensing with the criterion of
invariability? Can we define the adverb based solely on syntax? Will
traditional adverbs still be adverbs in this case? Where and how can we draw a
line between adverbs and neighboring categories in the languages of the world?
What can we learn from language history that could help us establish
definitory criteria? Can we propose a universal definition of the adverb at
all? These are all questions that deserve careful consideration, whether one
is working within the limits of the study of a given language or in a
typological framework.
Please send your proposals (in English or French) before October 6, 2019 to
adverb at sciencesconf.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-2552
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list