28.4292, Calls: Pragmatics, Semantics, Typology/Estonia

Wed Oct 18 18:54:09 UTC 2017

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4292. Wed Oct 18 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.4292, Calls: Pragmatics, Semantics, Typology/Estonia

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

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: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:53:48
From: Eva Schultze-Berndt [eva.schultze-berndt at manchester.ac.uk]
Subject: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Apprehensive Markers in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Full Title: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Apprehensive Markers in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective 

Date: 29-Aug-2018 - 01-Sep-2018
Location: Tallinn, Estonia 
Contact Person: Martina Faller
Meeting Email: martina.faller at manchester.ac.uk

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Pragmatics; Semantics; Typology 

Call Deadline: 10-Nov-2017 

Meeting Description:

Workshop proposal for the 51st SLE Meeting, Tallinn, 29 Aug–1 Sept 2018 
Organisers: Martina Faller and Eva Schultze-Berndt

Many languages possess main clause markers akin to the Ngarinyman
(Ngumpin-Yapa; Australia) particle _ngaja_ in (1) which semantically encode
that a future situation is not only possible but also undesirable, and which
typically occur in the context of a warning. 

1. ngaja=nggu  bayalany dawujbany-du 
    APPR=2SG.O  bite:PRS  perch-ERG
    (A: ‘I will bathe here’) – B: ‘(watch out), a perch might bite you!' 

Such grammatical elements have been variously termed “apprehensive”,
“admonitive”, or “evitative” in the literature. In this workshop we will focus
on markers at the level of the main clause. However, apprehensive clauses are
generally pragmatically dependent in that they are employed as justifications
e.g. for a directive, and are therefore semantically, functionally, and
possibly diachronically, related to subordinate clauses expressing a negative
purpose.

Although apprehensive markers figure in numerous language-specific
descriptions, there exist very few works that address the phenomenon from a
cross-linguistic perspective (but see Dobrushina 2006; Lichtenberk 1995;
Pakendorf and Schalley 2007; Vuillermet to appear). They receive passing
mention in some typological works on modality (Bybee et al. 1994: 211; Palmer
2001 [1994]: 22) but have been largely ignored in the formal semantic
literature.

Dedicated apprehensive markers may actually exist, but have gone unnoticed, in
better-described languages, possibly due to a lack of awareness of the
cross-linguistic category. Examples are temporal adverbs (‘afterwards’,
‘soon’) which unambiguously convey undesirable possibility in German (2),
Dutch (Boogaart 2009), and a number of other languages (Angelo &
Schultze-Berndt 2016).

2. Nachher      gewinne         ich   noch 
    Later/APPR  win:PRS:1SG  1SG  PART
    (I think I’d rather not participate in this lottery.) 
    ‘I might win [a trip] 
    (and would not be able to watch the Champions League final at home)’

Call for Paper:

The semantics and pragmatics of apprehensive markers in a cross-linguistic
perspective

The aim of this workshop is to bring together scholars from different
subfields of linguistics to shed light on the elusive category of
apprehensives. We invite abstracts addressing one or more of the following
questions:

a) What is the precise semantic characterisation and pragmatic function of
(fully or weakly) grammaticalised apprehensive markers in the individual
language(s) considered? 
b) What is the place of apprehensive markers in the systems of modality and
mood of the languages concerned? What are the syntagmatic combinations and
paradigmatic contrasts involved?
c) What parameters can serve to describe cross-linguistic variation between
markers in this domain?
d) How is the pragmatic import of apprehensive markers conveyed in second
language teaching and translating/interpreting?
e) What are the diachronic origins of grammaticalised apprehensive markers?
What light do apprehensive weakly grammaticalised or multifunctional markers
shed on the semantics the apprehensives and the pragmatic conditions that give
rise to such markers?
f) What is the status of apprehensive utterances in speech act theories and in
discussions of the relationship between modality/mood and speech acts?

Potential participants are invited to contact the workshop organisers
(martina.faller at manchester.ac.uk) as soon as possible with an expression of
interest.

The final date for the submission of an abstract for a 20-minute presentation
(300 words) is Friday, 10 Nov 2017 (to the workshop organisers).

Notification of acceptance/rejection of the workshop proposal by the SLE
organisers is by 15 December.

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-4292	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/