Home › Dipartimento › Sezioni › Linguistica Teorica e Applicata › Archivio seminari 2004-2005
Archivio seminari 2004-2005
Seminari per il Dottorato di Ricerca A.A. 2004-2005
International Conference
Languages in Europe and the Mediterranean: contact phenomena and typological databases /
Le lingue euro-mediterranee: fenomeni di contatto e loro trattamento informatizzato Programma
3/12/2004 Aula Volta
9.30-9.45 Apertura / Opening address (Paolo Ramat)
9.50-10.20
Balthasar Bickel,
Representational and statistical methods for handling geographical factors in typological databases 10.25-10.55
Franco Fanciullo,
Problematiche degli arabismi nel mediterraneo italo-romanzo.
10.55-11.15 Pausa / break
11.20-11.50
Domenica Romagno,
La codificazione degli attanti nel Mediterraneo romanzo: accordo del participio e marcatura dell'oggetto 11.55-12.25
Andrea Sansò,
"Agent defocusing" revisited: Passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages 12.30-13.00
Romano Lazzeroni,
Fra mondo indiano e mondo mediterraneo. Categorie scalari e gradi di comparazione 15.00-15.30
Elena Filimonova,
Documenting typological findings: The Universals Archive 15.35-16.05
Federica Da Milano,
Demonstratives and definiteness in the Euro-mediterranean languages 16.05-16.25 Pausa / break
16.30-17.00
Linda Meini,
Le interrogative indirette latine con 'si' : modello greco o sviluppo autonomo? 17.05-17.35
Nicla Rossini,
Gesture and cultural contact in Europe: first results 17.40-18.10
Paolo Di Giovine,
Struttura interna del verbo nel gotico: risultati dell'analisi 18.15-18.45
Claudine Chamoreau,
Language contact, structural change and linguistic constraints 4/12/2004 Aula Magna sotterranea 9.00-9.30
Dik Bakker,
The use of databases and other tools in linguistic typology 9.30-10.00
Andrea Sansò,
The Pavia typological database, first release. Relative clauses 10.00-10.30
Discussion on the Pavia Typological Database 10.30-11.00 Pausa / break
11.00-11.30
Ignazio Mirto,
Complex determiners in Italian newspapers 11.30-12.00
Heike Necker,
L'immagine sperimentale della determinazione nominale nelle grammatiche italiane: verso la costituzione di una banca di dati 12.00-12.30
Nunzio La Fauci - Liana Tronci,
Forme del verbo in greco antico e in francese moderno alla luce di Fissione Predicativa 12.30-13.00
Francesco Rovai,
Accusativo esteso e scala di animatezza. Studio sul latino tardo e medievale Lunch break
14.30-15.00
Sonia Cristofaro - Anna Giacalone Ramat,
Relativization patterns in some languages of Europe 15.00-15.30
Elisa Roma,
Relativization strategies in Insular Celtic languages: history and contacts 15.30-16.00
Thomas Stolz,
Contact-induced change of typological class membership 16.00-16.30 Pausa / break
16.30-17.00
Nicoletta Puddu,
The role of language contact in Sardinian: reflexives and intensifiers 17.00-17.30
Simone Pisano,
Appunti sul sistema verbale del sardo moderno 17.45-18.30 Discussione generale sul progetto FIRB / General discussion on the FIRB project
International Colloquium on ‘Word structure and lexical systems: models and applications’
Programme Giovedì/Thursday December 16 9.00 Registrazione/Registration
9.30 Inaugurazione del Colloquio/Colloquium Opening
Lexicons and morphology 10.00 A. BISETTO - E. GUEVARA - S. SCALISE (Bologna) “The MORBO COMP project”
10.30 N. GRANDI (Milano Bicocca) “Lexicalized phrases, multiword expressions and compounds”
11.00 Pausa caffè/Coffee break
Word classes: Nouns 11.30 R. SIMONE (Roma Tre) “Strategies of naming between system and discourse”
12.00 G. FIORENTINO (Roma Tre) “Action Nominals and subordination in Italian”
12.30 C. MAURI (Pavia) “Semantically prototypical nouns used as modifiers and predicates: a cross-linguistic study”
13.00 Pranzo/Lunch
Word classes: Verbs 14.30 V. BATSIUKOVA (Autonóma de Madrid) “Russian verbal affixes and aspectual modification”
15.00 I. ESHKOL (Orléans) “Classes de prédicats: representation pour un dictionnaire électronique”
15.30 S. AYANO (Mie University) “Verb- vs. satellite-framed languages and three kinds of directional PP in Japanese”
16.00 Pausa caffè/Coffee break
Lexical acquisition 16.30 E. BANFI - G. ARCODIA - C. PICCININI (Milano Bicocca) “Lexical compensation strategies in Chinese learners of Italian L2”
17.00 Apertura sessione demo/poster -- Opening demo/poster session
17.15 Demo/poster session
A. ABEL - S. CAMPOGIANNI - C. RICHTER (Accademia Europea, Bolzano), Paradigmatic and syntagmatic lexical relations in the electronic learner's dictionary ELDIT
J. ANDOR (Pécs, Hungary), A lexical pragmatic analysis of polarity relations in adjectival and adverbial amplification in English and Hungarian: a corpus-based study of near synonimy
F. BELLOMI – R. BONATO (Verona), Lexical authorities in an encyclopedic corpus: a case study on Wikipedia
C. VERTAN – W. von HAHN - M. GAVRILA (Hamburg), Generation, Reuse and Management of complex lexical structures
L. BARRETT – R. KANJAWI – E. FITZPATRICK (Monclair State University, Translink Inc.), Modeling knowledge of doctor-patient dialogues in creating a translation lexicon
G. FLIEDL – I. FERNANDEZ DE RETANA - P. MAURER-STROH (Klagenfurt) Probabilistic retrieval of German and English compounds within the ANCR (Adjective Noun Collocation Retriever) project
M. JANSSEN (ILTEC, Purtugal) MorDebe: a morphological database in action
F. NAMER (Nancy 2) Acquiring lexical classes in biomedical lexicons: a morphosemantics-based multilingual approach
A. SANSÒ (Pavia) The Pavia Typological Database: first release
H. WANG (Singapore) Word sense disambiguation based on syntactic behaviour
Venerdì/Friday December 17 Lexicons and linguistic corpora 10.00 N. CALZOLARI (CNR, Pisa) “Semantic tagging and semantic lexicons: towards content interoperability”
10.30 A. LENCI - S. MONTEMAGNI - V. PIRRELLI (Università di Pisa, CNR Pisa) “The lexicon in context: distributional evidence and representational issues”
11.00 Pausa caffè/Coffee break
The representation of meaning 11.30 J. PUSTEJOVSKY (Brandeis) “Meaning in context: co-composition and specification”
12.00 M. PRANDI (Bologna - Forlì) “The two sides of lexical values: endocentric vs. exocentric concepts”
12.30 Pranzo/Lunch
Approaches to word senses distinction 14.30 P. VOSSEN (Irion Technologies, Delft), “Cornetto: a combinatoric and relational network for language technology”
15.00 A. GLIOZZO - C. STRAPPARAVA (ITC-IRST, Trento) “Domain models for lexical semantics”
Lexicographic issues 15.30 U. HEID (Stuttgart) “Making description broader and more fine-grained: experience from dictionary updating”
16.00 L. BARQUE - A. POLGUERE (Paris 7 - Montréal) “A definitional metalanguage for explanatory combinatorial lexicography”
16.30 Chiusura/Closing
Invited Speakers Nicoletta Calzolari (Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale, CNR, Pisa), Ulrich Heid (Universität Stuttgart), James Pustejovsky (Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.), Raffaele Simone (Università di Roma Tre, Roma), Piek Vossen (Irion Technologies, Utrecht)
Scientific committee Nicoletta Calzolari (Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale, CNR, Pisa), Elisabetta Jezek (Università di Pavia), Raffaele Simone (Università di Roma Tre), Paolo Ramat (Università di Pavia), Michele Prandi (Università di Bologna)
Organizing committee Elisabetta Jezek, Federica Da Milano, Andrea Sansò, Clizia Welker.
******************************************************
Dipartimento di Linguistica
Dottorato di Ricerca Internazionale in Linguistica Il Prof.
Christian Lehmann dell’Università di Erfurt terrà un ciclo di seminari per il Dottorato di Ricerca:
Tema
Frasi complesse
- Sistema semasiologico: estensione e riduzione di frasi
I. Coordinazione e subordinazione, sindesi ed asindesi, collegamento ed embedding
II. Desentenzializzazione, fusione
- Sistema onomasiologico: relazioni interproposizionali
A. Relazioni intrinseche
B. Relazioni estrinseche
Calendario Lunedì 21 febbraio: 11-13 aula VII (palazzo centrale)
Martedì 22 febbraio: 11-13 aula VII
Mercoledì 23 febbraio: 11-13 aula L5 (palazzo S. Tommaso)
Giovedì 24 febbraio: 11-13 aula L5
Venerdì 25 febbraio: 11-13 aula VII (palazzo centrale)
Ulteriori informazioni e una lista di letture preliminari si possono trovare all'indirizzo:
http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/personal/lehmann/CL_Lehr/complex_sentences/cs_index.html *******************************************************
Collegio Ghislieri --- Università degli Studi di Pavia, Dipartimento di Linguistica
Lezioni di linguistica
Calendario degli incontri 7-8-9 marzo 2005, ore 15.00
Raffaele Simone (Università di Roma 3),
Costrutti e categorie 14-15-16 marzo 2005, ore 15.00
Andrea Moro (Università San Raffaele, Milano),
Sintassi e cervello 4-5-6 aprile 2005, ore 15.00
Domenico Silvestri (Università di Napoli, L'Orientale),
Il lessico: premesse prototipiche e derive diacroniche Tutti gli incontri si svolgeranno presso l'
Aula Goldoniana ---------------------------------------------------
Programma del ciclo di seminari del Prof. Raffaele Simone (simone@uniroma3.it) Grammatica di costrutti e categorie 1. Nozione generale di “grammatica di costrutti e categorie” (GCC)
a. Illustrazione del concetto di costruzione e di categoria
b. Analisi delle costruzioni: distinzione tra micro- e macrosintassi
c. Tipologia delle costruzioni
d. Il concetto di categoria
e. Le classi di forme (“parti del discorso”) come categorie
f. Il concetto di manovra discorsiva
Raccomandazioni bibliografiche:
Berrendonner, A.,”Deux syntaxes”,
Verbum 2001
Fillmore, Ch.-Kay, P.,
Construction Grammar Coursebook, University of California, Berkeley 1993.
Kay, P.-Fillmore, Ch., “Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations”,
Language 75 (1999): 1-33.
Sasse, H. J., Scales between nouniness and verbiness, in Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds.)
Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, De Gruyter, Berlin-New York 2001, pp. 495-509.
2. Vista ravvicinata di alcune costruzioni
a. La dislocazione a destra
b. La frase causativa
Raccomandazioni bibliografiche:
Simone, R., “Une interprétation diachronique des ‘dislocations à droite’ dans les langues romanes",
Langue française 115/1997: 48-61.
Simone, R.-Cerbasi, D. “Types and Diachronic Evolution of Causative constructions in Romance",
Romanische Forschungen 113 (2001): 441-473.
3. Vista ravvicinata di alcune categorie
a. Tecniche del nominare
b. Il continuum verbo > nome
c. L’infinito nominale
Raccomandazioni bibliografiche:
Simone, R., “Masdar, ‘ismu al-marrati et la frontière verbe/nom”, in Girón Alconchel J. M. (ed.),
Estudios ofrecidos al profesor J. Bustos de Tovar, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid 2003, pp. 901-918.
Simone, R., “L’infinito nominale nel discorso”, in D’Achille, P. (a c. di),
Generi, architetture e forme testuali. Atti del VII Congresso Internazionale della SILFI, Società di linguistica e filologia italiana, Cesati, Firenze 2004, pp.73-96.
---------------------------------------------------
Programma degli incontri su
Sintassi e cervello del Prof.
Andrea Moro (Università "Vita e Salute" San Raffaele, Milano)
(A) Temi delle lezioni: I Lezione: (parte prima) introduzione agli studi di neuroimmagine. La tomografia a emissione positroni (PET) e la risonanza magnetica funzionale (fMRI); vantaggi e limiti delle neuroimmagini: il metodo cosiddetto "sottrattivo"; (parte seconda) l'autonomia della sintassi e l'organizzazione funzionale del cervello; come "ingannare" il cervello: l'uso di errori selettivi come tecnica euristica. L'invenzione di grammatiche artificiali.
II Lezione: grammatiche possibili e grammatiche impossibili; la nozione di dipendenza della struttura come proprieta' universale della sintassi: esempi concreti; l'apprendimento delle lingue negli adulti: ancora grammatiche artificiali; l'attivita' selettiva dell'area di Broca e il principio di dipendenza strutturale.
III Lezione: la sintassi nei primati e il principio di dipendenza strutturale; prospettive per uno studio genetico del linguaggio: il caso del gene FOXP2; verso una "linguistica mendeliana"?
(B) Materiale: 1.Testi per l'esame:
1.1. Moro, A. (2002) "
Linguistica Mendeliana ovvero quali domande su genetica e grammatica?",
Lingua e Linguaggio, 1, pp. 39-58, 1.
1.2. Moro, A. (2004) "
Autonomia della sintassi e tecniche di neuroimmagine",
Lingue e Linguaggio, 133-145.
2. Fonti degli esperimenti discussi:
2.1. Moro A., Tettamanti M., Perani D., Donati C., Cappa S. F., Fazio F., (2001), "Syntax and the brain: disentangling grammar by selective anomalies",
NeuroImage, 13, January 2001, Academic Press, Chicago, pagg. 110-118.
2.2. M. Tettamanti, H. Alkadhi, A. Moro, D. Perani, S. Kollias, D. Weniger, (2002), "Neural correlates for the acquisition of natural language syntax",
NeuroImage, 17, 700-709.
2.3. Musso, M., Moro, A. , Glauche. V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C., Weiller, C., (2003), "Broca's area and the language instinct",
Nature neuroscience. vol.6, pp. 774-781.
----------------------------------------------
Programma delle lezioni del Prof.
Domenico Silvestri (Università di Napoli, "L'Orientale")
4-5-6 aprile 2005, ore 15-17, Aula Goldoniana
"Il lessico: premesse prototipiche e derive diacroniche"
Schema delle lezioni e indicazioni bibliografiche scaricabili:
Silvestri1.doc Silvestri2.doc Silvestri3.doc ----------------------------------------------
*******************************************************
Dipartimento di Linguistica
Dottorato di Ricerca Internazionale in Linguistica
Il Professor
JOHN R. TAYLOR, (Università di Otago – New Zealand) terrà due seminari per il Dottorato di ricerca:
martedì 12 aprile, h. 11.00 – 13.00, Aula Scarpa, “CATEGORIES AND CONCEPTS”
mercoledì 13 aprile, h. 11.00 – 13.00, Aula Foscolo, “THE MENTAL CORPUS”
La S.V. è cordialmente invitata.
******************************************************
“Categories and Concepts”
Why should linguists be interested in categorization?There are two reasons:
(i) words can be regarded as the names of categories;
(ii) elements of language structure – word classes, phonemes, syntactic constructions, etc. – can also be regarded as categories.
The talk reviews a number of issues in categorization research, including:
(i) why categorization by necessary and sufficient features is bound to fail;
(ii) various alternative models of categorization, including prototype categorization;
(iii) what makes a ‘good’ category?
The study of categorization is relevant, more obviously, to lexical semantics. But given that syntactic constructions, word classes, phonemes, etc., are also categories, the study of categorization inevitably impinges on the study of phonology, morphology, and syntax.
******************************************************
“The Mental Corpus”
How should we conceptualize “knowledge of a language”? The traditional view is that language knowledge can be represented by a lexicon (which lists the basic units of the language) and a syntax (which lists the rules for combining items selected from the lexicon).
In this talk, I review some reasons why the “dictionary-plus-grammar book” metaphor of language is inadequate. In its place, I propose that language knowledge can be conceptualized as a “mental corpus”. The mental corpus is a repository of a person’s previous experience of the language. It comprises “multimedia” memories of specific linguistic events and generalizations over these, and has a “hypertext” format, in that any unit of the corpus stands at the hub of relations to many other units. Evidence in support comes from many sources, including the study of acquisition, the role of frequency effects, the ubiquity of idioms and “phraseologies”, the problematics of polysemy, and the nature of “motivation”.
The metaphor of the mental corpus may strike some as bizarre and outlandish, and some likely objections to the corpus-metaphor will be addressed. On the other hand, a number of recent developments in linguistics seem to be converging on just such a notion; these include the development of usage-based grammar, emergent grammar, construction grammar, and probabilistic grammar.
*************************************************
27 maggio 2005
Seminari del Prof.
Nicholas Evans, Università di Melbourne:
Complex events, propositional overlay and the special status of reciprocal clauses, ore 11.00-13.00, Aula VIII;
View with a view: towards a typology of double perspective in natural language, ore 15.00-17.00, Aula VIII.
*******************************************************
Complex events, propositional overlay and the special status of reciprocal clauses Nicholas Evans, University of Melbourne
The lexicalization of event-denoting expressions has emerged as the area of semantics with the most extreme cross-linguistic variation. This makes the mapping between the semantic level of 'event' and the syntactic level of 'clause' one of the greatest challenges to semantics, syntax and typology. One dimension of this problem is working out how much complexity, in terms of event structure, can be accommodated within a single clause. Cross-linguistic studies of causatives, benefactive and instrumental constructions, and motion events have showed us that single-clause English expressions like 'I dropped the cup', 'I baked Mary a cake', 'I cut the bread with a knife' and 'The ball rolled down the hill' are all syntactically decomposable in some languages into multi-clause expressions of the type 'I made/let the cup fall', 'I baked cake gave Mary' and 'The ball descended the hill, rolling'. A wide range of languages employ such strategies, through methods like syntactic causatives, serial verb constructions or manner-framing through participial or other means; typological work here has taught us a great deal about how to motivate complex syntactic behaviour from the semantics of event decomposition.
Reciprocal constructions are a further type of complex event that maps to a single clause in English, as in many other languages. Their semantic characterisation is normally said to require two propositions: the meaning of 'John and Mary kissed each other' will be represented, logically, by the conjoined propositions 'John kissed Mary, and Mary kissed John', with symmetric exchange of referents between argument roles. I would add a third proposition, depicting their joint, coordinated action: 'John and Mary did this together'. Yet little work on the syntax of reciprocals has sought to ground the unusual syntactic features of these clauses in their complex event structure, in a way that relates these to other typological work on causatives, benefactives and motion-event-decomposition in 'event-atomizing languages', even though a large number of languages employ serial verb constructions for reciprocals just as they do for other types of complex event. For example in Golin, a Chimbu language of the Papuan highlands, the same overall strategy that produces multi-verb representations for benefactives or motion events does the same for reciprocal situations, by reporting them as complex symmetrical pairings of subevents. In the cross-linguistic study of reciprocal constructions that I report on in this paper, I will discuss widespread perturbations of clause structure found in reciprocal clauses, essentially resulting from an 'overlay' of symmetrically mirrored events, that include apparently contradictory signs of transitivity and of number, apparent violations of principles producing a one-to-one mapping of NPs to thematic role, 'sesquiclausal' constructions that appear to hover between one and two clauses in size, and violations of binding conditions through the use of non-anaphor pronouns in the same clause as their antecedent.
Effects like these raise the question of how many features claimed to be universals of clause structure (such as biunique mapping between thematic roles and syntactic argument positions) are really syntactically motivated. A fuller typological stocktake of reciprocal constructions suggests that, instead, they may be epiphenomena of limits to how much event complexity may be mapped onto a single clause; when, as happens with reciprocals in some languages, enough the clause exceeds a certain level of complexity, these syntactic constraints no longer hold.
*******************************************************
View with a view: towards a typology of double perspective in natural language Nicholas Evans, University of Melbourne
The human capacity for socially-based reasoning rests, among other things, on the ability to recognize that others may have a different perspective from oneself. Yet though there is a vast literature on the effects of viewpoint on language, grammar and discourse, it largely assumes that a single viewpoint is operative at any one time, even though there has been a great deal of work on showing how viewpoint may shift from one conversational participant to another, between clauses or turns. In this paper I investigate subsystems of particular languages - predominantly grammatical, but with some excursions into the lexical domain - whose main function is to encode two distinct perspectives, whether between two conversational participants, or by taking two reference points in temporal, spatial, social, attentional or epistemic space.
The most familiar examples of dual viewpoint in the literature so far (though not always presented in this way) involve dual reference points that do not require separate minds to be modelled, e.g. 'relativized' deixis, in the form of complex (relative) tense and spatial systems and logophoric pronouns. In the first case, exemplified by English
When you come to my office tomorrow John will have already left, the reported event of John leaving, is located before the reference event of me arriving, which is located after the speech act event. Complex tense systems have been studied since the pioneering work by Bull; relativized spatial deixis has also been studied by Fillmore though without 'double-perspective' systems being reported yet. Logophoric pronouns are found in West African languages like Aghem with special forms for reported clauses like 'The woman said LOGOPH fell' to disambiguate 'she said: she fell' and 'she said: I fell'; logophoric pronouns are thus third person from the perspective of the main speech act but first person in the reported speech act. A syntactically more complex variant is found in Golin (Papuan) 'semi-indirect discourse' where, within the same subordinate clause, the person deixis of subjects is calculated relatively while that of objects is calculated absolutely, so that 'they said they hit me' is expressed as, roughly, 'they [meabs hit-Irel] said-they', where the 'Irel' represents the person revaluation expected in direct speech ('they all said: 'I hit X'') while the meabs represents absolute calculation of person, relative to the speech act, that one expects in indirect speech: 'they said they hit me'.
In each of these examples, a value on some dimension (tense in the first example, person in the second) is calculated twice, with respect to different standpoints. What would double-perspective constructions look like on other dimensions? In the spatial domain, demonstratives with meanings like 'near hearer, far from speaker' have been widely reported, interesting when one considers the context of face-to-face communication and close mutual monitoring of attention and orientation that demonstratives usually occur in. Relational spatial expressions with meanings like 'behind X and in front of Y' or 'behind X, seen from my viewpoint, but in front of it, seen from yours', would be more complex examples, if they exist. Clear examples in the kinship domain come from the many Australian languages with 'triangular' or 'trirelational' kin terms, that locate referents with respect to both speaker and hearer, e.g. 'the one who is mother to me but daughter to you, you being my grandmother'. All these examples involve the calculation of two externally verifiable reference points; we now pass to true 'dual viewpoint' that involves modelling two distinct minds.
In the domain of identifiability, double perspective analyses are relevant to article contrasts in languages where selection depends on speaker assessments of identifiability by the hearer, with contrasts like that between 'the one that I can identify but I assume you cannot' and 'the one that I can identify and assume that you can too'.
It is in the domain of modality that clear examples of double perspective seem most elusive: do we get 'complex moods', analogous to 'complex tenses', used for propositions whose modal framing is different between one 'knower' and another. The clearest cases involve particles, rather than actual grammatical affixes, such as Italian mica, roughly 'X is not the case, I assert with certainty, contrary to what you believe'. In sharpening our definition of dual perspective, we need to distinguish a couple of related but somewhat different cases. Firstly, the different values may be in more or less the same domain (say, space, or possession) but not calculated to quite the same specifications: Semelai locative prepositions that specify topological relations between two objects (spatial relation #1), and vertical direction with respect to the deictic centre, (spatial relation #2), are one example, and a second are 'double possessive' constructions in languages like Koyukon, Aneityum or Dalabon in which nouns are marked as belonging to two different possessors, but the nature of the possession is different in each case (e.g. a breast which belongs to its mother as a body part, but to a baby as a source of nourishment).
Secondly, we need to distinguish 'double' from 'joint' perspective, since the latter is essentially a single perspective held to be true of two persons. To this category belongs, among others, demonstratives locating items 'near both speaker and hearer', or the 'engagement' markers in [lg. name] used when a fact is mutually evident to both speaker and hearer, as opposed to facts known just to the speaker but not the hearer. Thirdly, we require that the construction entail both viewpoints, rather than just entailing one and implicating the other. Examples of this latter type are widespread, since any time a speaker chooses a modal value imputing the belief to someone else they will, by Q-implicature, implicate that they do not hold the belief strongly themselves. Thus reporting a state of affairs in German with the subjunctive entails the attribution of epistemic authority to some source other than the speaker, thereby implicating that the speaker themself does not have direct evidence for the assertion. Finally, we need to draw a boundary between constructionalized dual viewpoint constructions, and the exploitation of the recursive possibilities of languages to conjoin two distinct values, e.g. 'He asserts, but I dispute, that [X]', or 'Behind John, and in front of Mary, slept their daughter.' This boundary is not always easy to draw, since conventionalization and reduction of erstwhile compositional constructions can apply, such as in Archi 'double evidential' constructions resulting from the reduction of a speech act verb (with associated modal marking) to suffixal status on the once-embedded verb. The consequences of double-perspective phenomena for theories of language development have yet to be properly explored. Since the capacity to model conflicting perspectives is developmentally late, the grammaticalization of double perspective must result from language use by speakers above a certain age threshold, and therefore presents special problems for a view that sees child cognition as the driving force in grammaticalization. It thus promises to be a fertile ground for studies on the input of adult speech into the emergence of grammatical structure.
**************************************************
26 maggio 2005,ore 10.30,
Seminario della dott.ssa
Yoko Nishina, dell'Università di Erfurt:
Clause combining and syntactic reduction in Japanese converb constructions