Word Order at the Workshop on Sign Linguistics, February 2004

Tue Jun 24 16:21:55 UTC 2003

This is a great idea--but I'd be cautious about the role of word order in 
signed languages--and in all languages where there is considerable 
flexibility in word order for pragmatic purposes.  Decontextualized picture 
descriptions are of limited use in studying this issue.  For example, 
although SOV is the preferred order for such descriptions in Turkish, less 
than half of utterances in discourse are SOV.  So it's good that you 
include discourse studies as well.  But, in regard to word order, most of 
the topics you suggest are not directly concerned with word order--unless 
you mean also to include any ordering of elements within constructions, in 
addition to the ordering of lexical items in utterances.  I also find it 
strange that a proposal to examine word oder makes no mention of 
subject/object, topic/comment, focus, etc.  The proposal needs more clarity 
in defining a specific topic that is precise enough to allow for comparable 
examination of several sign languages.

Dan Slobin
University of California, Berkeley

At 04:42 PM 6/24/2003 +0200, Myriam Vermeerbergen wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>We would like to try to form a group to prepare a joint contribution on 
>the topic of word order for the "Sign Languages: A cross-linguistic 
>perspective"-workshop (see Call for Abstracts below). Our objective would 
>be to compare as many as possible different studies where word order is 
>analysed both:
>-in declarative sentences elicited by the use of the drawings designed by 
>Volterra and her colleagues (1) AND
>-in spontaneous sign language data.
>
>If you have been studying word order or would like to do so and would be 
>willing to co-operate, please let us know as soon as possible. Abstracts 
>for the workshop have to be submitted by the end of July so there is not 
>that much time. Thanks in advance.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Lorraine Leeson and Myriam Vermeerbergen
>
>(1) Italian Sign Language: The Order of Elements in the Declarative 
>Sentence. In: Loncke, F., Boyes-Braem, P. & Lebrun, Y. (Eds.) 1984. Recent 
>Research on European Sign Languages. Lisse: Swetz & Zeitlinger. p. 19-48.
>
>
>
>>Call for abstracts
>
>
>>We hereby invite the submission of abstracts for a workshop on
>>
>>“Sign Languages: A cross-linguistic perspective”
>
>>to be held at the Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS) 
>>2004.
>>
>>
>>Location: Mainz (Germany)
>>Date: February 25-27, 2004.
>>Organizers:     Pamela Perniss (MPI Nijmegen)
>>        Roland Pfau (University of Amsterdam)
>>
>>Call deadline: July 31st, 2003
>>
>>
>>Goal of the workshop
>>The goal of the workshop is to bring together sign researchers who 
>>conduct comparative research on grammatical phenomena in different sign 
>>languages in order to investigate and discuss typological variation 
>>across sign languages.
>>
>>Comparison of sign languages with spoken languages has yielded many 
>>fruitful results. On the one hand, it was shown that the grammatical 
>>structures are strikingly similar, on the other hand interesting modality 
>>effects have also been revealed.
>>
>>We are convinced, however, that it is of crucial importance to compare 
>>sign languages with each other in order to gain better insights into the 
>>structures of sign languages in their own right. The expectation is that 
>>sign languages, just like spoken languages, are typologically different 
>>from each other. In this context, it is also worth investigating whether 
>>typological variation is observed along similar lines as in spoken 
>>languages and/or whether we find significantly different clusterings 
>>along a typological continuum.
>>
>>Usually, in the literature, the similarities between sign languages are 
>>highlighted. The grammatical similarities are indeed striking (e.g. 
>>phonotactic constraints, realisation of agreement, wh-questions) and it 
>>has been claimed that they are due to the language modality. Recent 
>>research, however, also points to interesting differences (e.g. position 
>>of functional categories, negation, plural marking).
>>
>>This workshop aims to bring together linguists who investigate the 
>>grammatical structure of various sign languages in order to ascertain and 
>>discuss further phonological, morphological, and syntactic similarities 
>>and differences.The results of such investigations have important 
>>implications for our understanding of the question of universals of 
>>language and cognition and of typological variation, in general.
>>
>>We hope that the different theoretical backgrounds of the organizers will 
>>ensure a forum for discussion at the workshop that is balanced between 
>>various theoretical approaches to linguistics.
>>
>>
>>Structure of the workshop
>>Depending on the content of a given abstract and the clustering of 
>>topics, both 30 minutes and 60 minutes time slots will be available.
>>
>>Note that the 60 minutes slots are designed to accommodate joint 
>>presentations by researchers working on similar topics in different sign 
>>languages. We thus encourage researchers to collaborate in advance of the 
>>conference.
>>
>>Possible topics may include, but are not restricted to:
>>
>>•     verb agreement
>>•     classifiers and classifier constructions
>>•     iconicity in lexicon and grammar
>>•     wh-questions
>>•     negation
>>•     number and quantification / plural-marking
>>•     narrative and information structure
>>•     discourse markers
>>•     use of non-manuals
>>
>>
>>Submission
>>All abstracts should be submitted by e-mail as attachments to both 
>>organizers (pamela.perniss at mpi.nl 
>><<mailto:pamela.perniss at mpi.nl>mailto:pamela.perniss at mpi.nl> and 
>>r.pfau at uva.nl <<mailto:r.pfau at uva.nl>mailto:r.pfau at uva.nl>), specifying 
>>‘abstract’ in the subject line. The following information should be 
>>contained in the body of the e-mail message:
>>
>>- author’s name(s)
>>- title of abstract
>>- affiliation
>>- e-mail address
>>- postal address
>>
>>Abstracts should be anonymous and be either in .doc or .pdf formats. 
>>Abstracts should not exceed two pages (font size 12) including examples, 
>>figures, and references.
>>
>>
>>Deadline for submission of abstracts is July 31st, 2003.
>>Notification of acceptance: August 31st, 2003
>>
>>
>>Information about the conference will be posted at:
>>www.uni-mainz.de/dgfs2004
>>
>>
>>We are looking forward to receiving your abstracts!
>>
>>Pamela Perniss & Roland Pfau
>>
>>*************************
>>Pamela Perniss, Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik,
>>Wundtlaan 1, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
>>pamela.perniss at mpi.nl
>>
>>Roland Pfau, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam,
>>Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
>>r.pfau at uva.nl
>>*************************
>>
></blockquote></x-html>

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dan I. Slobin
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Professor
in Undergraduate and Interdisciplinary Studies

Department of Psychology
3210 Tolman #1650
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650, USA

1-510-642-7090 [office] / -5292 [Dept.]
1-510-848-1769 [home]
slobin at socrates.berkeley.edu
fax: 1-510-642-5293
web page: http://ihd.berkeley.edu [Click on "Research"]
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20030624/218c5ea3/attachment.htm>