25.4515, Calls: Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax/Netherlands

Tue Nov 11 19:24:41 UTC 2014

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-4515. Tue Nov 11 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.4515, Calls: Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax/Netherlands

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Indiana U <damir at linguistlist.org>
            Malgorzata E. Cavar, Indiana U <gosia at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org
Anthony Aristar <aristar at linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry <hdry at linguistlist.org>
Sara Couture, Indiana U <sara at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Anna White <awhite at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:23:35
From: Gunther Kaltenböck [gunther.kaltenboeck at univie.ac.at]
Subject: (Semi-)Independent Subordinate Constructions

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-4515.html&submissionid=35976857&topicid=3&msgnumber=1

Full Title: (Semi-)Independent Subordinate Constructions 

Date: 02-Sep-2015 - 05-Sep-2015
Location: Leiden, Netherlands 
Contact Person: María Sol Sansiñena
Meeting Email: mariasol.sansienapascual at arts.kuleuven.be

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax 

Call Deadline: 23-Nov-2014 

Meeting Description:

Workshop conveners: Karin Beijering (University of Antwerp), Sarah D’Hertefelt (University of Leuven), Gunther Kaltenböck (University of Vienna), María Sol Sansiñena (University of Leuven)

Invited Speakers:

Pedro Gras (University of Antwerp)  
Marianne Mithun (University of California, Santa Barbara)

Structures formally marked as subordinate do not only occur with main clauses as parts of complex sentences, but are also used independently. A well-known use of such an ‘independent subordinate clause’ is illustrated in the following example from Swedish, often labelled ‘evaluative’, ‘exclamative’ or ‘expressive’ in the literature: 

SWEDISH (Internet Corpus)
(1)
Att 	du 	aldrig 	kan 	passa 		tider! 		
COMP 	you 	never 	can.PRS	watch.INF 	times
‘Why can’t you ever keep track of the time!’ (lit.: That you never can watch the time!)

The independent use of formally subordinate constructions has been detected and described in a range of languages. Evans (2007: 367) introduced the term ‘insubordination’ to refer to “the conventionalized main clause of use, of what, on prima facie grounds, appear to be formally subordinate clauses”, and developed a typology of the different functions such structures can fulfill. In recent years, the interest in this phenomenon has increased, but many questions remain to be addressed. 

The aim of this workshop is to bring together linguists working on different types of (semi-)independent constructions in a range of languages, to understand how these different types of structures relate to each other, and whether they can all be considered instances of the same phenomenon. More specifically, the questions we want to address include the following: 

- Which different levels of (in)dependence should be distinguished (e.g. syntactic, semantic/pragmatic, dyadic) in order to adequately describe different types of (semi-)independent constructions? Can (in)dependence on these different levels always be considered a cline? 

- What is the grammatical status of these (semi-)independent constructions and how can they be accounted for in a grammatical model?

- Different diachronic paths and mechanisms of change have been suggested for the development of these different constructions, e.g. ellipsis of the main clause (Evans 2007), extension of dependency (Mithun 2008), dependency shift (D’Hertefelt & Verstraete 2014), cooptation (Heine, Kaltenböck & Kuteva fc.) and hypoanalysis (Van linden & Van de Velde 2014). Are these different diachronic hypotheses mutually exclusive? What are the motivations for proposing different hypotheses and how should we proceed to falsify any of these through actual diachronic corpus research? Is it possible for any of these constructions to have multiple sources? 

- Can structures with different degrees of (in)dependence fulfill similar functions? Can Evans' (2007) typology of functions of insubordination be refined by distinguishing between different degrees of (in)-dependence?

- The importance of taking a more dyadic approach to the study of (semi-)independent constructions formally marked as subordinate clauses has been suggested by Gras (2011, fc.) and Gras & Sansiñena (resubmitted), among others. What can the contribution of Interactional Linguistics and Conversation Analysis be to the discussion of the development and function of these constructions? 

- Can the study of the prosody of these constructions help us understand more about their (in)dependent status (see Schwenter fc.)? What kind of prosodic analysis is more appropriate when approaching this issue?

Call for Papers:

We invite 300-word abstracts addressing any of the above issues or related questions, for 20 minute-presentations (+ 10 minutes discussion time). Abstracts should be submitted to mariasol.sansinenapascual at arts.kuleuven.be, and should contain title, author’s name and affiliation.

The deadline for the submission of abstracts is November 23, 2014. If the workshop is accepted (notification of acceptance will follow around December 15), authors will be invited to submit a 500-word abstract before January 15, 2015, which will be reviewed by the SLE 2015 scientific committee and by the conveners. 

The independent use of formally subordinate constructions has been detected and described in a range of languages. Evans (2007: 367) introduced the term ‘insubordination’ to refer to “the conventionalized main clause of use, of what, on prima facie grounds, appear to be formally subordinate clauses”, and developed a typology of the different functions such structures can fulfill, like for instance expressing requests, orders or wishes, or connecting an utterance to previous discourse. In recent years, the interest in this phenomenon has increased, but many questions remain to be addressed.

This workshop will focus on types and degrees of (semi-)independence available for constructions formally marked as subordinate. Between the traditional ‘dependent’ use of a subordinate clause, i.e. as part of a complex sentence, and the completely ‘independent’ use of a formally subordinate clause, like in (1), there seem to be different intermediate degrees of (in)dependence which a construction that is formally marked as subordinate may display (see Sansiñena, De Smet & Cornillie, resubmitted). Furthermore, there are also different levels upon which a structure might be dependent (e.g. functional vs. syntactic). This is illustrated in examples (1) and (2): 

DUTCH (CONDIV, example cited in Van linden & Van de Velde 2014: 231)
(1)	
chance 		dat 	mijne 	radio 	hier 	nog 	opstaat 	
good.luck	COMP	my 	radio 	here 	PRT 	be.on.PRS
‘Luckily my radio is still on (here).’ 

SPANISH (COLA, example cited in Gras & Sansiñena, resubmitted)
(2)
J02: 	he engordado . es que yo me siento más gorda es que es verdad  
J01:	que	yo	no	te		veo		más	gorda   
	COMP	I	no	you.DAT.SG	see-PRS.IND.1SG	more	fat
J02: 	‘I’ve put on weight. It’s like I feel fatter. It’s true.’  
J01: 	‘You don’t look fatter to me.’  

In example (1), the complement structure introduced by dat ‘that’ occurs without a full main clause, but in combination with a complement-taking predicate. The complement clause can therefore still be considered syntactically dependent on this elliptical ‘remnant’ of a main clause. In example (2) the construction introduced by que ‘that’ is not syntactically dependent on any main clause element but is ‘pragmatically’ dependent on preceding discourse (see Lindström & Londen 2008 for the concept of ‘pragmatic dependency’). Structures like (1) and (2) have received some attention already in the literature, see for instance Van linden & Van de Velde (2014) on ‘semi-autonomous subordination patterns’ like (1) in Dutch; see for instance D'Hertefelt & Verstraete 2014 and Gras & Sansiñena (resubmitted) on structures like (2).

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-4515	
----------------------------------------------------------