30.1574, Confs: Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/Belgium
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Wed Apr 10 22:06:26 UTC 2019
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1574. Wed Apr 10 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 30.1574, Confs: Gen Ling, Historical Ling, Semantics, Syntax, Typology/Belgium
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
************************************** LINGUIST List Support **************************************
Fund Drive 2019
29 years of LINGUIST List! The annual Fund Drive is on!
Please support the LINGUIST List to ensure we can continue to deliver important information to your mailbox.
Every amount counts:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 18:05:50
From: An Van linden [an.vanlinden at uliege.be]
Subject: The Syntagmatic Properties of Complementation Patterns: Accommodating Lexical and Grammatical uses of CTP-clauses
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: An Van linden
Contact Email: an.vanlinden at uliege.be
Linguistic Field(s): General Linguistics; Historical Linguistics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology
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).
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)
Program:
Check out the workshop website at https://ctp-clauses.sciencesconf.org/
Registration is open until 1 May 2019
Thursday, 9 May 2019
9:00:
Registration in room Séminaire Média
9:30:
Welcome / Opening by Louis Gerrekens, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and
Philosophy
9:40:
Introduction to workshop by An Van linden (University of Liège), Lieselotte
Brems (University of Liège) & Kristin Davidse (KU Leuven)
10:00:
Kasper Boye (University of Copenhagen): CTP-clauses with modifying status: the
role of complement types and constructional slots
11:00: Coffee break in room Séminaire Média
11:30:
Kristin Davidse (KU Leuven): Making the case that form and meaning in English
‘extraposition’ and ‘cleft’ constructions match
12:00:
María José López-Couso & Belén Méndez-Naya (University of Santiago de
Compostela): From complementizing to modifying status: On the
grammaticalization of the CTP-clause odds are
12:30:
An Van linden (University of Liège), Lieselotte Brems (University of Liège) &
Kristin Davidse (KU Leuven): Grammatical uses of 'no' + noun and the hierarchy
of qualifications of SoAs
13:00: Lunch in room Séminaire Média
14:30:
Gunther Kaltenböck (University of Graz): Hedged performatives: function and
grammatical status
15:30:
Charlotte Maekelberghe (KU Leuven): Imagine all the clauses: formal
variability in complement-taking predicate constructions with imagine
16:00:
Caroline Gentens (University of Stockholm): Manner components in Late Modern
English direct speech reporting
19:00: Workshop dinner
Friday, 10 May 2019
10:00:
William McGregor (University of Aarhus): Belief and thought complements in
Australian languages: Typology and theory
11:00:
Stef Spronck (University of Helsinki): Complementation is not a primary
syntactic category. Reported speech is.
11:30: Coffee break in room Séminaire Média
11:30:
Discussion and conclusions
12:30: Lunch in room Séminaire Média
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1574
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list