Workshop: Cross Linguistic Data & Theories of Meaning

[Musgrave, S.]

Workshop Announcement and First Call for Papers

CROSS-LINGUISTIC DATA AND THEORIES OF MEANING

May 18-20th, 2003

Linguistics Department, University of Nijmegen, and MPI for
Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Invited Speakers:			Committee:

Emmon Bach				Pieter Muysken (Chair)
Stephen Crain				Jürgen Bohnemeyer 
Dirk Geeraerts				Martina Faller
David Gil				Veerle Van Geenhoven
Manfred Krifka				Cliff Goddard
Stephen Levinson			Simon Musgrave		
Lisa Matthewson			Rob van der Sandt
Anna Wierzbicka

The success of recent endeavours such as the meetings on the theme of the
Semantics of Under-represented Languages in the Americas (SULA - 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)? 

We invite abstracts for papers which deal with the broad issues raised
above, as well as for contributions which deal with specific problems
encountered in cross-linguistic semantic study and the techniques used to
attempt to solve such problems. 

Each presentation will be allotted 30 minutes including time for discussion.
Abstracts should not exceed one page and should be anonymous; they can be
sent electronically or in paper format. Electronic submission should
preferrably be in pdf format, but we will also accept Word and Postscript
documents. Please include your name, affiliation, and contact information in
the email message to which the abstract is attached. If sending as paper
copy, please include your name, affiliation,  and contact information  on a
separate sheet. Please specify in the subject line or on the envelope:
Abstract for  ``Cross-linguistic data and theories of meaning"

Deadline for abstract submission: November 17th, 2002
Notification of acceptance: January 17th, 2003

Please send your submissions to:  

Edith.Sjoerdsma at mpi.nl

Edith Sjoerdsma
Max Planck Instititute for Psycholinguistics
Postbus 310
6500 AH Nijmegen
The Netherlands

Note that this is address is ONLY for submission of abstracts.

ALL enquiries should be directed to:

Martina Faller (Martina.Faller at mpi.nl) 
Simon Musgrave (S.Musgrave at let.leidenuniv.nl)

Website:

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/spls/CLD&TOM/

References

Bach, Emmon, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara H. Partee (1995).
Quantification in Natural Languages, 2 vols. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers. 
Barwise, Jon & Robin Cooper (1981) Generalized Quantifiers and Natural
Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159-219
Bittner, Maria 1994. Cross-Linguistic Semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy
17:53-108.
Bohnemeyer, J. (in press). The unique vector constraint: The impact of
direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. in E. van
der Zee and J. Slack eds.,  Representing direction in language and space.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories:
Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson
(1996), 145-176.
Chierchia, Gennaro (1998). Reference to Kinds across Languages. Natural
Language Semantics 6: 339-405.
Gil, David (1991) "Aristotle Goes to Arizona, And Finds a Language without
And", in D. Zaefferer ed., Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics,
96-130. Berlin: Foris Press.
Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka (eds). 1994. Semantic and Lexical
Universals Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Cliff Goddard and Anna Wierzbicka (eds).  2002. Meaning and Universal
Grammar: Theory and Empirical Findings (Vols 1 and 2.) Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.  
Grace, George (1987) The Linguistic Construction of Reality London: Croom
Helm
Gumperz, John J. & Stephen C. Levinson (1996). Rethinking linguistic
relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keenan, Edward L. & Jonathan Stavi (1986) A Semantic Characterization of
Natural Language Determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9:253-326
Levinson, Stephen C. (1999) H.P.Grice on location on Rossel Island.
Proceedings of the Berkeley Lingusitic Society 25:210-224
Matthewson, Lisa (2001). Quantification and the Nature of Crosslinguistic
Variation. Natural Language Semantics 9: 145-189
Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Wilkins, D., Levinson, S., Kita, S.,  & G. Senft
(1998). Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization. Language
74:557-589.
Talmy, Leonard (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press
Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1941) The relation of habitual thought and behavior in
language. In Carroll, John B. (1956) Language, Thought And Reality: Selected
Writings Of Benjamin Lee Whorf . Cambridge MA: MIT Press. 134-159.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Wilkins, D. P., and D. Hill. (1995). When GO means COME. Cognitive
Linguistics 6: 209-259.


Simon Musgrave
Spinoza Program Lexicon and Syntax (SPLS)
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/ulcl/faculty/musgrave (my pages)
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/spls (project pages)

Mail address: 
ULCL/Spinoza, Leiden University, 
P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA The Netherlands

Office: 
Nonnensteeg, 1103-515, phone 31 + 0 71 527 4148

***** The wonder of language!

Interviewer:   are you on time?
Interviewee:   ish
Interviewer:   (laughs) are you on budget?
Interviewee:   ish
Interviewer:   (laughs)

***** The despair of linguists!