29.4659, Calls: Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/Belgium

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4659. Thu Nov 22 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.4659, Calls: Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/Belgium

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:46:44
From: An Van linden [an.vanlinden at uliege.be]
Subject: The Syntagmatic Properties of Complementation Patterns: Accommodating Lexical and Grammatical uses of CTP-clauses

 
Full Title: The Syntagmatic Properties of Complementation Patterns: Accommodating Lexical and Grammatical uses of CTP-clauses 

Date: 09-May-2019 - 10-May-2019
Location: Liège, Belgium 
Contact Person: An Van linden
Meeting Email: an.vanlinden at uliege.be

Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology 

Call Deadline: 20-Dec-2018 

Meeting Description:

Recently, much attention has gone to lexical versus grammatical uses of
complement-taking predicate (CTP) clauses (Boye & Harder 2007, 2012; Davidse
et al. 2015; Van linden et al. 2016). Concomitant with this, the question has
been raised whether these two uses should receive a different structural
analysis. Complement clauses of lexical uses have been analysed as subordinate
to the CTP-clause. In (1), e.g., the that-clause is typically analysed as the
direct object of the main verb; in (4), the that-clause is traditionally
analysed as an extraposed subject clause (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 1224–1225;
Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 1252–1254). Semantically, the complement clauses
in (1) and (4) are viewed as only secondary. What is discursively primary is
the specific emotional state conveyed by the CTP-clauses. The that-clauses
represent the proposition presupposed in the processes of regretting (1) and
feeling wonder (4) (Van linden et al. 2016).

(1) This was Rosie at her most Rosieish, and Liz only regretted that Pritch
wasn’t there to appreciate just what she was up against. (WB)
(2) He spoke out after pro-Agreement parties were presented with the
proposals. “I think it is clear that all of the issues have to be addressed,”
he said. (WB)
(3) Alain Prost proved you can take time out and make a great comeback when he
won his fourth world crown […]. There is no doubt the constant testing and
pressure of racing takes a hell of a lot out of you. (WB)
(4) My kids got to see that my out-of-home life was far more complex and
intense than they thought. It was a wonder to them that I get to do all this
stuff. (IC)

While syntagmatically lexical uses of CTP-clauses are viewed as having
‘complementizing’ status, grammatical uses (2)-(3) are argued to show
‘modifying’ status (Boye & Harder 2007: 568), as the CTP cannot impose its
semantic profile on the complement clause (cf. Langacker 1987: 309). The
complement clauses contain the main information, and the main clauses are
viewed as stance markers or interpersonal modifiers (McGregor 1997: 236). That
is, (3) does not describe an act of not doubting. Rather, the impersonal
CTP-clause there’s no doubt expresses the speaker’s epistemic stance towards
the proposition coded by the that-clause; it signals a high degree of
certainty (Davidse et al. 2015: 51). In (2), the personal CTP-clause I think
functions as a speech act modifier, hedging the claim in the complement clause
(cf. Nuyts 2009: 152). Both CTP-clauses are not part of what is asserted and
hence cannot be challenged (Boye & Harder 2007: 573).
   
This workshop aims to focus on functional approaches towards complementation
patterns, and invites contributions discussing the following questions:

- What makes CTP-clauses prone to shift from complementizing to modifying
uses? Which semantic types of complement construction (e.g. factive
constructions?) do not allow for this shift?
- Does the formal type of complement bear on the possibility of the CTP-clause
to have either complementizing or modifying status?
- Does the semantic type of complement (e.g. State of Affairs vs. proposition)
bear on the possibility of the CTP-clause to have either complementizing or
modifying status?
- Do complement constructions with impersonal matrices (like (3)-(4)) manifest
the same structural and functional parameters and shifts as personal
CTP-clauses (2)?
- Do lexical uses of CTP-clauses always diachronically precede grammatical
uses?
- What does prosody tell us about syntagmatic relationships?

Invited speakers: Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen), Gunther Kaltenböck
(University of Graz) and William McGregor (Aarhus University)
Organizers: An Van linden (Liège), Lieselotte Brems (Liège), Kristin Davidse
(Leuven), Lieven Vandelanotte (Namur)


Call for Papers:

We invite 500-word abstracts addressing any of the above issues or related
questions, for 20 minute-presentations (+ 10' discussion time). Abstracts
should be submitted to an.vanlinden at uliege.be, and should contain title,
author's name and affiliation.

Deadline: 20 December 2018
Notification: 15 February 2019




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

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-4659	
----------------------------------------------------------