DDL - UMR 5596
ISH - Bat C
14 avenue Berthelot
69007 Lyon
Tél : 04 72 72 64 12
Fax : 04 72 72 65 90


Previous Month Février 2017 Previous Month
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 1 2 3 4 5

  Plusieurs évènements
 Vous êtes ici : Accueil /  Evénements / Calendrier

ven. 10/02/2017
> 10/02/2017
Atelier Morphosyntaxe -- Imperatives & commands -- Introduction (2) by Marine Vuillermet & Nina Dobrushina
ISH, Ennat Léger

Our theme, imperatives and commands, targets the study of “those situations in which the speaker wishes a state of affair (SoA) to (not) become true and conveys an appeal to the addressee(s) (or a third person) to help make this SoA (not) true” (adapted from Mauri & Sanso’s 2011:3491). Such situations are very instrumental in regulating joint activities and are highly frequent in discourse (see e.g. Xrakovskij & Birjulin 2001:4; Mauri & Sansò 2011:3489), and are accordingly associated to several interesting research questions. During the seminar, we would like to address the following ones:

  • 1) their tendency to heterogeneity in their morphological encoding(s) – languages vary from having or just a single dedicated imperative marker (2nd person) to one for each traditional grammatical persons (i.e. 6 forms as in Hungarian) (van der Auwera, Dobrushina & Goussev 2003; Jarry & Kissine 2016);
  • 2) the semantics associated to the numerous strategies available – e.g. the semantic (and morphological) impact of the grammatical person of the potential performer, or the restriction in verb types available to a specific encoding, or the existence of alternative indirect (but often highly conventionalized) directive expressions in reaction to the pragmatic specificity of this face threatening device;
  • 3) their origins (again, frequently influenced by the grammatical person as shown by (Mauri & Sansò 2011)).
  • This second introduction session focuses on the peripheral types of directive situations, especially the apprehensives and the optatives, which, respectively, primarily encode the speaker’s judgement of possible undesirability and the speaker’s wishes.

    ven. 17/02/2017
    > 17/02/2017
    Atelier typologie sémantique -- The apprehensional domain, an introduction -- by Marine Vuillermet
    Salle Berty Albrecht (100 A), 16 avenue Berthelot (1er étage)

    The goal of this seminar is to collaboratively elaborate a kit of experimental stimuli in the framework of semantic typology. While the general description of a language requires to be based on a balanced corpora (e.g. Himmelmann 1998), the semantic exploration of the language can undoubtedly be facilitated by experimental stimuli, especially non-linguistic ones (Lüpke 2009; Majid 2012; Ponsonnet 2014). Such stimuli not only help to seize semantic specificities in a language, but also allow to investigate variation within a community and may facilitate crosslinguistic comparison.

    The specific domain to be considered in this seminar is the “apprehensional domain” or the grammatical expression of fear, defined as a judgement of undesirable possibility (Vuillermet Submitted). Apprehensional morphology is so far little known in the literature (see for e.g. Plank’s 2013 call), probably for some of the following reasons: heterogeneous terminology, infrequency in corpora and (consequently) short accounts (if any) in grammatical descriptions. However, a preliminary crosslinguistic investigation shows that such morphemes are present in a number of languages, especially in the Amazonian and Australian areas.

    The collaborative reflection on an adequate stimuli will not only benefit from the various fieldwork experience of the DDL field linguists, but also from its psycholinguists. The seminar will be organized as follows:

    • 1st session (17/02): Introduction of the apprehensional domain and the parameters to be considered
    • 2nd session (10/03): Presentation of experimental stimuli in Psycholinguistics by N. Bedouin and Broad typology of materials used in field linguistics (by M. Vuillermet)
    • 3rd session (31/03): Participative session on the participants’ own experience with stimuli and associated discussion
    • 4th session (21/04): Brainstorming on possible stimuli targeting the apprehensional domain.

    Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1998. Documentary and Descriptive Linguistics. Linguistics 36. 161–195.
    Lüpke, Friederike. 2009. Research methods in language documentation. Language Documentation and Description 6. 53–100.
    Majid, Asifa. 2012. A guide to stimulus-based elicitation for semantic categories. In Nicholas Thieberger (ed.),The Oxford handbook of linguistic fieldwork, 54–71. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Plank, Frans. 2013. What exactly is ...? A new feature: Call for contributions. Linguistic Typology 17(2). 267–268.
    Ponsonnet, Maïa. 2014. Documenting the language of emotions in Dalabon (Northern Australia): Caveats, solutions and benefits. In Aicha Belkadi, Kakia Chatsiou & Kirsty Rowan (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 4, 1–13. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
    Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2005. The semantics and pragmatics of composite mood marking: The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia. Linguistic Typology 9(2).
    Vuillermet, Marine. Submitted. The apprehensional domain in Ese ejja: making the case for a typological domain? In Maïa Ponsonnet & Marine Vuillermet (eds.). Special issue in Studies in Language -- Morphemes and Emotions across the World’s Languages. 27p.


    ASLAN -  Université de Lyon -  CNRS -  Université Lumière Lyon 2 -  ISH -  Typologie -  IXXI -  DDL :  Contact |  Mentions légales |  Plan du site