Calendar

Aude Noiray nous parlera de son parcours, des mécanismes de financements et des challenges à relever après la thèse.

Writing a report using Rmarkdown L'atelier est ouvert à tous, merci de contacter Jennifer Krzonowski pour signaler votre présence. The workshop is open to all; please contact Jennifer Krzonowski to confirm your attendance.

Dans le cadre de la sensibilisation à la Science Ouverte (SO), une formation collective sur "La diffusion des données de recherche en linguistique" à partir d'une formation déjà existante en ligne (https://callisto-formation.fr/course/view.php?id=304) est proposée aux membres du laboratoire.

Cette formation abordera des sujets tels que les données de recherche, leur diffusion, et surtout leur stockage.
A travers cette formation, l'objectif est aussi de s’assurer qu'un maximum de personne est sensibilisé à ce que sont les données, et leur entreposage, mais aussi de s'informer des pratiques actuelles au sein du DDL.

• Efstathia Soroli (Université de Lille & Laboratoire Savoirs, Textes, Langage)

dans le cadre des séminaires DDL : Séminaire du labo

Abstract

In recent decades, numerous efforts have been made to establish connections between language use and the cognitive mechanisms that underlie event perception and conceptualization (Barsalou, 2008; Lupyan & Clark, 2015). Within the domains of spatial cognition and visual perception, psychological research suggests that visual scanning, and particularly spatial processing, are influenced by both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms (Wolfe & Horowitz, 2017; Chun & Jiang, 1998; Gazzaniga, Ivry & Mangun, 2013) –the former guided by low-level salience processing, while the latter based on higher-level control that depends on factors such as working memory, task demands, and the acquired semantic schemata (Lakoff, 1987; Talmy, 1985).

Regarding the semantic schemata involved in the processing of motion events, it has been proposed that the languages of the world vary greatly in how they integrate the ‘core schema’ of an event (Path) and aspects of the co-event that hold particular supplementary relations to the framing event (e.g., adding information about the Manner of motion). Depending on their lexicalization strategy, the languages fall into different typological categories (Talmy, 2000): (a) in Verb-framed languages (e.g., French) speakers tend to privilege the expression of the ‘core schema’ in the main verb, leaving the co-event in the periphery of the sentence; (b) in Satellite-framed languages (e.g., English, Russian), the core schema is jointly expressed with the co-event in construals that lexicalize Manner and leave Path in the periphery; and (c) in Hybrid or Parallel systems of conflation (e.g., Greek) speakers opt for both strategies equally frequently.

Many studies suggest that such language differences are only surface differences that cannot (or only momentarily) influence the cognitive processing of events (Pinker, 1998; Papafragou & Selimis, 2010). Others support that such linguistic variability extends beyond verbal tasks to non-verbal behaviors (Boroditsky, 2012; Soroli, 2012; Flecken, Athanasopoulos, Kuipers & Thierry, 2015; Soroli & Verkerk, 2017; Soroli, Hickmann & Hendriks, 2019; Soroli 2024) such as similarity judgements, recognition and memory, or even influences low-level visual processing mechanisms (visual attention).

The studies discussed in this presentation investigate whether typological differences, together with other factors (e.g., component salience, event types variation, acquisitional contexts), guide speakers from different linguistic backgrounds (English, French, Greek, Russian) in processing events differently. Additionally, the studies discussed examine how some non-verbal behaviors (e.g., variation in visual processing, in decision making) may serve as indicators of linguistic variability.

This talk adopts a two-way approach to the Language-Cognition debate, focusing not only on how language interacts with non-verbal cognition but also on how different cognitive measures can provide evidence regarding the degree of typological variability of a language system.

References

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual review of psychology, 59, 617-645.

Boroditsky, L. (2012). How the languages we speak shape the ways we think: The FAQs. In M. J. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. F. Joanisse (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 615–632.

Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive psychology, 36(1), 28-71.

Flecken, M., Athanasopoulos, P., Kuipers, J. R., & Thierry, G. (2015). On the road to somewhere: Brain potentials reflect language. Effects on motion event perception. Cognition, 141, 41-51.

Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2013). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. W.W. Norton & Company.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago press.

Lupyan, G., & Clark, A. (2015). Words and the world: Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 279–284.

Papafragou, A., & Selimis, S. (2010). Event categorisation and language: A cross-linguistic study of motion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 224–260.

Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Soroli, E. (2012). Variation in spatial language and cognition: exploring visuo-spatial thinking and speaking cross-linguistically. Cognitive Processing, 13(1): 333-337. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-015-0696-7.

Soroli, E., Hickmann, M. & Hendriks, H. (2019). Casting an eye on motion events: eye tracking and its implications for typology. In M. Aurnague & D. Stosic (eds.), The semantics of dynamic space in French: Descriptive, experimental and formal studies on motion expression, 249-288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Soroli, E. (2024). How language influences spatial cognition, categorization of dynamic motion events and gaze behavior: a crosslinguistic comparison. Language and Cognition, 1-45. DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2023.66

Soroli, E. & Verkerk, A. (2017). Motion events in Greek. Cognitextes – Revue de l’Association Française de Linguistique Cognitive, 1-54. DOI: 10.4000/cognitextes.889.

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description (Vol. 3, pp. 57-149). Cambridge University Press.

Talmy, L. (2000). Cognitive Semantics (2 vols.). MIT Press.

Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nature human behaviour, 1(3), 0058.

• Michael Karani (University of Dar es Salaam)

dans le cadre DILIS

https://cnrs.zoom.us/j/98866698745?pwd=aC9Nd3RNMitFTERaNHhDcTlkUUJvZz09
Abstract
African languages are rich in the grammar of interactives but some interactive word categories have not been given enough attention by grammarians. There are numerous interactive speech categories which were left out in the early grammars of world languages. Recent literature suggest that linguists have started to closely investigate the categories of interactives (Heine, 2023; Ameka, 1992, 2001, 2006; Amha, 2013; Dingemanse, 2012; Poyatos, 1993, 2002; Andrason & Karani, 2021). Such categories include conative animal calls, emotive interjections, ideophones, attention signals, directives, discourse markers, evaluatives, response elicitors, response signals, vocatives and social formulae (Heine, 2023). We investigated three categories in Arusa, a Maasai dialect spoken in Arusha, northern Tanzania, near Mt. Kilimanjaro. In our studies, we employed a typologically-based and prototype-driven approach to the categories to determine the canonical and non-canonical members of the categories (Janda, 2015; Croft, 2003; Wierzbicka, 2003; Aikhenvald, 2010; Andrason, 2020).
Data were collected from more than twenty speakers in Arusha between 2019 and 2023. The analysis focused on phonetic, morphological, semantic/pragmatic and syntactic features of the tokens as presented in the respective articles. The findings suggest that most of the words in the three categories in question, conative animal calls (Andrason and Karani, 2021), ideophones (Karani and Andrason, 2022), and emotive interjections (Andrason and Karani, 2023) have canonical features making them the primary members of such word classes. Only some derived and borrowed words divert from the canonical qualities to non-canonical status in each particular category.


References

Aikhenvald, A. (2010). Imperatives and commands. Oxford University Press.
Ameka, F. (2001). “Ideophones and the nature of the adjective word class in Ewe.” In Ideophones, edited by Erhard Voeltz and Christa Kilian-Hatz, p. 25–48. John Benjamins.
Ameka, F. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18,2-3. 101-118.
Ameka, F. (2006). Interjections. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 743-746.
Amha, A. (2013). Directives to humans and to domestic animals: The imperative and some interjections in Zargulla. In Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Cushitic and Omotic Languages, Paris, 16-18 April 2008, 211–229. Koln: Rudiger Koppe.
Andrason, A. & Karani, M. (2023). Emotive interjections in Arusa Maasai. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 75-118. https://doi.org/10.26346/1120-2726-212
Andrason, A. & Karani, M. (2021). Conative calls to animals: From Arusa Maasai to a cross-linguistic prototype. Łódź Papers in Pragmatics 17,1. 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2021-0002
Andrason, A. (2020). “Ideophones as linguistic “rebels” – The extra-systematicity of ideophones in Xhosa. Part 1.” Asian and African Studies 29(2), 119–65.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.
Dingemanse, M. (2012). “Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones.” Language and Linguistics Compass 6, 654–72.
Heine, B. (2023). The Grammar of Interactives. Oxford University Press.
Janda, L. (2015). Cognitive linguistics in the year 2015. Cognitive Semantics 1. 131-154.
Karani, M. & Andrason A. (2022). Ideophones in Arusa Maasai: Syntax, morphology and phonetics. Open Linguistics, 8(1), 440-458. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0220
Poyatos, F. (1993). Paralanguage: A linguistic and interdisciplinary approach to interactive speech and sounds. John Benjamins.
Poyatos, F. (2002). Nonverbal communication across disciplines. Volume II: Paralanguage, kinesics, silence, personal and environmental interaction. John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.

Contact
Michael Karani
karanim@udsm.ac.tz
karanimichael6@gmail.com
+255 753 826 611
Centre for Communication Studies
College of Humanities
University of Dar es Salaam

A l'occasion de l'arrivée de Matthias Urban et de Rosa Illan, nous partagerons un moment convivial en salle de pause.