27.4675, Confs: Gen Ling, Psycholing, Syntax, Text/Corpus Ling/Belgium

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-4675. Tue Nov 15 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.4675, Confs: Gen Ling, Psycholing, Syntax, Text/Corpus Ling/Belgium

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Kenneth Steimel <ken at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:00:16
From: Lena Karssenberg [lena.karssenberg at kuleuven.be]
Subject: International Workshop on Non-Prototypical Clefts

 
International Workshop on Non-Prototypical Clefts 

Date: 15-Dec-2016 - 16-Dec-2016 
Location: Leuven, Belgium 
Contact: Lena Karssenberg 
Contact Email: lena.karssenberg at kuleuven.be 
Meeting URL: http://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/presentationalclefts/workshop-non-prototypical-clefts 

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Psycholinguistics; Syntax; Text/Corpus Linguistics 

Meeting Description: 

Most analyses of cleft sentences focus on the English it-cleft (1a) and
pseudo-cleft (1b) and their equivalents across languages, and more
specifically on it-clefts with a focus- background articulation and
specificational semantics (Lambrecht 2001; Dufter 2009; Destruel 2012;
Cruschina 2014; De Cesare & Garassino 2015).

(1) - Who gave you the book?
a. - It's John who gave me the book.
b. - The one who gave me the book is John.

However, there is an increasing interest in non-prototypical clefts, i.e.
it-clefts that do not have a focus-background articulation (see example 2)
and/or clefts that are introduced by an element other than it (see examples in
3), such as French il y a 'there is', Italian c'è 'there is', English there
is, possessive clefts (I have my X who / J'ai ma X qui / ho mia madre che and
perception clefts (voici / voilà / ecco) (e.g. Lambrecht 1988; 1994; Collins
1991; Léard 1992; Davidse 2000; 2014; De Cesare 2007; Conti 2010; Lahousse &
Lamiroy 2015; Marzo & Crocco 2015; Verwimp & Lahousse 2016; Karssenberg in
press).

(2) [Beginning of speech] It was about 50 years ago that Ford gave us the
weekend. (Prince 1978)

(3) a. Il y a le téléphone qui sonne
there has the phone that is.ringing
'The phone is ringing.' (Lambrecht 2000: 653)

b. C'è un signore che vuole parlare con te.
'There's a man who wants to talk to you.' (Marzo & Crocco 2015)
c. You are quite right David, it was engineered, seems there's only me and you
who can see this. (Davidse & Kimps to appear)
d. I have a friend of mine in the history department teaches two courses per
semester. (Lambrecht 2001: 509)
e. Voilà le facteur qui arrive.
'There's the mailman coming. / Here comes the mailman.' (Lambrecht 2002)

Although these types of clefts are argued to be frequent in spoken language
(e.g. Lambrecht 1988), a lot of questions regarding the functions and formal
properties of these clefts remain unanswered. The aim of this workshop is to
bring together both descriptive and theoretical analyses on under-researched
types of clefts in order to arrive at a better understanding of those clefts
and of clefts in general.

In particular, the workshop aims to address the following questions:

- What are the similarities and differences between clefts introduced by
different elements (it, there, I've got and their equivalents in other
languages)
- How do non-prototypical clefts relate to one another cross-linguistically?
- What are the repercussions of the existence of non-prototypical clefts for
the definition of clefts in general?
- What is the link between the various introductory expressions (e.g. there,
c'è...) on the one hand, and sentences that are introduced by the same
elements without being clefts on the other (e.g. the link between there clefts
and there existential sentences, I've got clefts and possessive sentences)
- Which (formal, semantic, discourse-functional) properties do all clefts have
in common?
- Is there a single type of relative clause that all clefts have in common or
do the forms and functions of cleft relative clauses vary?
- Should non-prototypical clefts be seen as constructions or should they
receive a compositional analysis?
- How do the different types of clefts relate to online language processing?
 

Programː

For the latest version of the program, please check out the website:
https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/ling/presentationalclefts/Programme_2016.11.15 .





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

        Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-4675	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/