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

Calendrier






Previous Month Mars 2016 Previous Month
L M M J V S D
29 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 29 30 31 1 2 3

  Colloque
  Conférences
  Soutenance
  Divers
  Plusieurs évènements
 Vous êtes ici : Accueil /  Évènements / Calendrier

ven. 04/03/2016 Séminaire DTT - Atelier Morphosyntaxe - Epistemics
14h-15h
ISH

Scott DELANCEY: "Decomposing "evidentiality": Kinds vs. Sources of knowledge" The grammatical category of egophoricity has been discussed as part of a broad category of evidentiality. A close analysis of the verbal systems in Tibetic, where this phenomenon has been most studied, suggests a different approach. The Egophoric category expresses, not a source, but a type of knowledge. Tibetic languages formally distinguish three types of knowledge, assumed (or generic), personal (expressed by the Egophoric category) and contingent. True evidential distinctions can only be marked on statements of the third category. The same tripartite structure of types of knowledge can be identified in languages without grammaticalized evidentiality, for example in English, where lexical evidentials (It seems, I hear, etc.) and grammaticalized modals can be used with their ordinary meaning only with contingent statements. For example, evidentials or modals used with statements of personal knowledge such as I must have a headache, I hear I live in Paris, while formally “grammatical”, cannot be used or interpreted with the unmarked realis sense.


Contact... En savoir plus…


ven. 04/03/2016 « L'’émergence d’unités morphologiques contrastives dans les paradigmes flexionnels kiranti (famille tibéto-birmane, Népal) »/ "The emergence of contrastive morphological units within inflectional paradigms in Kiranti (Tibeto-Burman, Nepal)"
15h-16h
ISH

This paper reexamines the structure of Kiranti verbal paradigms from a discriminative perspec- tive (Ramscar et al., 2013). Kiranti languages constitute a sub-branch of the Tibeto-Burman family and are mainly spoken in Eastern Nepal. The study focuses on two Kiranti languages, Khaling (Jacques et al., 2012) and Chatthare Limbu (Tumbahang, 2007). One of the main characteristics of Kiranti languages is that they are highly inflectional with very large verbal paradigms displaying complex patterns of stem allomorphy and form syncretisms spanning cells whose distribution does not follow homogeneous feature splits like person, number, or direct/inverse marking. The study focuses on the discriminative nature of the paradigms’ properties. This discriminative nature is reflected in both the exact distributions of regularities and form contrasts at full-form level and across corresponding parts of forms. We will show how the distributions in those paradigms implement a complex system of layered overlapping contrasts (prefix contrasts, stem contrasts, suffix contrasts) with partial regularities facilitating the learning of the system and high overall discriminability between verb-forms likely to appear in similar syntactic contexts, enhancing form processing. We compare the word-form structure exuberantly observable in Kiranti with previous findings on prefixing and suffixing preferences within work on discriminative approaches to morphology (Ramscar, 2013). As a result, this study will show how discriminative contrasts lead to the emergence of fundamentally discriminative morphological units whose interaction structures the overall inflectional system.


Contact...  


ven. 11/03/2016 Séminaire DTT - Atelier Morphosyntaxe - Epistemics
14h-16h
ISH

Topic: Across languages, there are different types of systems that classify the presented information with respect to if and how the information should be added to the addressee’s knowledge. Does the speaker express the information as a fact? Does the speaker express some doubt about it? Is the speaker asking about the information? Concepts that are often involved in the expression of epistemics are epistemic modality, egophoricity, evidentiality, sentence-typing and ‘discourse pragmatic markers.’ When describing a language, it is often difficult to analyze these concepts, because they are entangled with other categories and the elements seem to rely on pragmatics for their interpretation. Native speaker intuitions may provide very distinct interpretations of a epistemic element. The goal of these talks is to provide tools for descriptive semantic analysis of different types of epistemic markers. The main challenge is to tease apart the semantics and the pragmatics of these elements.
Today's introductory talk by Martine Bruil: Discourse markers, modal particles & the function of a sentence


Contact... En savoir plus…


ven. 11/03/2016 Atelier « Préparation de Terrain »
9H30 - 12
André Frossard

Dans le cadre des activités LED-TDR, un atelier « Préparation de Terrain » se tiendra le vendredi 11 mars à 9h30, salle A. Frossard (ISH).
Cet atelier est organisé à destination de quatre étudiants de master 2 SDL Lyon2 travaillant sur des langues en Amérique latine et en Nouvelle Calédonie, et sur l’arménien en France.
Il est ouvert à toute personne intéressée par les problématiques de terrain.

Colette Grinevald & Michel Bert




mar. 15/03/2016 Atelier HELAN2: François Pellegrino: Aperçu du projet "Sur le bout de la langue" (soutenu par l'Institut rhônalpin des systèmes complexes (IXXI) et l'Institut des sciences de l'Homme)
14h00-15h30
ISH, Ennat Leger

Depuis un peu plus de dix ans, plusieurs modèles issus de la physique ont été adaptés à l'étude de la dynamique de compétition entre deux langues au sein d'une population simulée. Ces modèles sont évidemment très abstraits mais ils peuvent être intéressants pour évaluer l'impact de différents facteurs (taille de population, proportion de bilingues, etc.) sur la dynamique des populations de locuteurs et sur les conditions amenant à l'extinction de l'une ou l'autre des langues ou à l'inverse à leur maintien. A partir d'études de cas, plusieurs articles ont ainsi mis en avant des modèles simples dont les simulations s'approchent bien des évolutions démographiques réellement observées.

Cet exposé présentera la démarche du projet "Sur le bout de la langue", démarré en novembre 2015, qui mobilise des mathématiciens et des linguistes lyonnais afin d'explorer ces modèles et d'étudier leur pertinence vis-à-vs de facteurs sociolinguistiques notamment.


Contact...  


ven. 18/03/2016 Séminaire DTT - Conférence Amos Teo (DDL & Univ. Oregon)
14h-16h
ISH

'Optional ergativity' in Tibeto-Burman languages, with a case study of differential A and S marking in Sumi

Sumi, also known as Sema or Simi, is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in Nagaland, North-East India. Like many other Tibeto-Burman languages of the area, Sumi displays semantically and pragmatically motivated differential A and S argument marking. This type of differential argument marking is not unusual for the area, where it appears that semantic and pragmatic factors play a major role in the distribution of what is sometimes described as the ‘ergative’ or sometimes the ‘agentive’ in these languages. We find similar patterns of argument marking in other languages of Nagaland, including Mongsen Ao (Coupe 2007), and more generally across Tibeto-Burman (see DeLancey 2011; Chelliah and Hyslop 2012). In Sumi, we find a two-way distinction with A marking: the choice of two enclitics: =ye and =no; but a three-way distinction with S marking: the choice of the two enclitics: =ye and =no, and no overt morphological marking. In addition, non-pronominal O arguments are unmarked (at least for many members of the language community). In this talk, I describe the circumstances under which argument marking is obligatory in the language, before examining some of the triggers of differential A and S marking. I also present some inter-speaker differences in the marking of A and S (as well as O) and discuss the potential for using both experimental and sociolinguistic methods in future research.


Contact...  


ven. 18/03/2016 Séminaire du laboratoire DDL
9h30-12h30
ISH, salle Elise Rivet
Conférence de :
  • Dan Dediu (Max Planck Institute, Nijmegen)
  • Bruno Galantucci (Yeshiva University & Haskins Laboratories)

dans le cadre des séminaires DDL

Conférence de Dan Dediu : "The anatomy of language evolution" (9h30-10h30)

The study of language origins and evolution must take language's wider context into consideration. On one hand, I will argue that such a broad, cross-disciplinary approach supports an ancient origin and gradual evolution of modern speech and language going back at least half a million years ago to our shared ancestor with the Neandertals and the Denisovans. And, on the other, extra-linguistic factors influence language change and the patterns of cross-linguistic diversity, and I will highlight the role the anatomy of the vocal tract might play in shaping phonetic and phonological diversity and universal tendencies

Conférence de Bruno Galantucci : "Sabbatical reflections: A few things I learned about human communication" (11h00-12h00)

In this talk I present a synopsis of the research on human communication that I conducted over the last few years. In the first part of the talk I focus on the linguistic side of communication, which I investigated through a methodology—Experimental Semiotics—that allows us to study in the laboratory the emergence of novel forms of human communication. In particular, I present a set of related studies aimed at investigating how communication systems acquire a combinatorial design. In the second part of the talk I focus on the psychological and social sides of communication, starting from the observation that humans exhibit important limitations when they are asked to perform tasks that require communicative sophistication. This raises the question of how individuals who have limited communicative skills manage to develop sophisticated forms of communication. I discuss three non-mutually exclusive hypotheses to address the question and present some empirical evidence relevant to one of them.


Contact...  


mar. 22/03/2016 AG du Labex ASLAN
08h - 19h
ISH


mar. 29/03/2016 Atelier HELAN2: Amos Teo "Visualising the typology of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia by applying phylogenetic methods to parallel texts"
14h00-15h30
ISH, Ennat Leger

In this paper, I present some preliminary results of a large-scale investigation on the typology of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia, using data from Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (LSI, Grierson, 1903–1927). The LSI is rich in data, containing grammatical sketches, word lists and sample texts from more than 700 linguistic varieties. As this work has become digitized and made publicly available, we have become to see more large-scale linguistic studies – for instance, Borin et al (2014) show some preliminary results of lexical comparison using word list data from the LSI.
The goal of the paper is to offer a new method of visualizing typological similarities and differences in argument marking across the Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia. Previous typological studies of argument marking in Tibeto-Burman (e.g. LaPolla 1995; Coupe 2011) often compare categories such as ‘ergative’ or ‘locative’, but these labels are typically based on a few prototypical examples and do not capture similarities / differences in the degree of systematicity to which such marking is used – for instance, we find split ergative and differential argument marking systems (e.g. Chelliah & Hyslop 2012).
The data for this study come from the translations of the Prodigal Son parable found in the LSI, looking mainly at Tibeto-Burman languages and Indo-Aryan languages. The method used here is based on Cysouw (2014)’s analysis of ‘massively parallel texts’, i.e. texts in which the configuration of situations is very similar across the sampled languages (see also Cysouw & Wälchli 2007). Unlike lexical comparisons that rely on direct cross-linguistic comparisons of transcriptions, this method first looks at how an each argument as it appears in a text is morphologically coded (with its specific ‘contextual role’), and compares it with the morphological marking of every other argument within the same text. By looking at the degree of similarity between how languages code each pair of contextual roles, we can then visualize differences in argument marking across the family using a NeighborNet algorithm, without relying on more abstract labels like ‘ergative’ and ‘locative’.
The aim of the paper is to showcase a way of using old data to make new typological observations. Furthermore, although this study looks only at Tibeto-Burman languages, future studies will also incorporate data from Indo-Aryan languages. One important question is the degree to which similarities in alignment patterns can be attributed to language contact. For instance, Noonan (2009) notes some convergence in the grammaticalization of relational morphology between Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Nepal. It is hoped that such new methods can shed light on questions regarding the areality of specific grammatical features.

References
Borin, Lars, Anju Saxena, Taraka Rama, Bernard Comrie. 2014. Linguistic landscaping in South Asia using digital language resources: Genetic vs. areal linguistics. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (Eds.) Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'14). Reykjavik. 3317-3144.
Chelliah, Shobhana & Gwendolyn Hyslop (eds.) 2012. Optional Case Marking in Tibeto-Burman, Part II [Special issue]. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 35(1).
Coupe, Alexander. 2011. Pragmatic foundations for transitivity in Ao. In František Kratochvíl, Alexander R. Coupe & Randy J. LaPolla (Eds.) Studies in transitivity: insights from language documentation. Studies in Language 35(3). 492–522.
Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli (Eds.). 2007. Parallel Texts: Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology. [Special Issue] Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 60(2).
Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Semantic maps as metrics of meaning. In Michael Cysouw & Martin Haspelmath & Andrej Malchukov (Eds.). Linguistic Discovery 8.1: 70-95. (Special issue “Semantic maps: methods and applications”).
LaPolla, Randy J. 1995. ‘Ergative’ marking in Tibeto-Burman. In Yoshio Nishi, James Matisoff, and Yasuhiko Nagano (eds.) New horizons in Tibeto-Burman morphosyntax (Senri Ethnological Studies 41). 189-228. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
Noonan, Michael. 2009. Patterns of development, patterns of syncretism of relational morphology in the Bodic languages. In Barðal, Jóhanna & Shobhana Chelliah (Eds.) The role of semantic, pragmatic, and discourse Factors in the development of case. Studies in Language Companion Series 108. 261–282.




ASLAN -  Université de Lyon -  CNRS -  Université Lumière Lyon 2 -  MSH-LSE -  IXXI -  DDL :  Contact |  Mentions légales |