Questions in Discourse

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Third meeting: Questions and discourse structure ======

===== General information =====
==== Time ====

11-12 March 2013
==== Place ====

Berlin (ZAS)
(exact place to come)

==== Useful information ====



We recommend one of the following hotels:

  * Circus Hotel (Rosenthaler Platz)  
  * Holiday Inn (Berlin-Mitte, Gesundbrunnen)
  * Novotel Berlin-Mitte (http://www.accorhotels.com/de/hotel-3278-novotel-berlin-mitte/index.shtml) 
  * Winters Hotel Berlin-Mitte Gendarmenmarkt OR
  * Winters Hotel Checkpoint Charly (http://www.winters.de/de/hotels/city/berlin)

The last three hotels are in walking distance to the ZAS, the first
two are a bit further away, but they are located in more interesting
parts of town and you can get to ZAS by using the metro lines U8 and
then U2 (change at Alexanderplatz)

Notice that we can only pay for 3 nights: 10-13 March. Especially for
people who come from the United States, early flight booking is
recommended. Remember also that due to DGFS regulations we can only
cover the travel costs for members. Associates need to take care of the travel
costs themselves.  

Travel information. \\
Link to google maps.

===== Program =====

Prelimary Program



**10th March** \\
Evening warm-up.

**11th March**\\
9-9:30 introduction\\
9-12 two invited talks\\
12-13:30 lunch break\\
13:30-18:00 talks on various topics\\
19-- meeting dinner (probably in Prenzlauer Berg)

**12th March**\\
9-12:30 talks on questions and particles\\
12:30-13:30 lunch\\
13:30-15:00 closed circle discussion on Questions and Focus (and
practical issues: publications, next meeting etc.)\\
15-19 joint activity in Berlin 
===== Topics to be discussed =====

(this text is from the application: please contribute)

We wish to consider the theoretical benefits and  problems of structuring 
discourse  by  means  of  question  hierarchies,  which  are  partly  motivated  by  considerations 
from  information  structure  (Büring  2003).  For  one  thing,  we  wish  to  compare  the  existing 
analysis  of  discourse  particles  in  question-based  discourse  models  with  other  competing 
analyses.  In  addition,  we  wish  to  discuss  the  relation  between  question-based  discourse 
models  and  discourse  models  based  on  discourse  relations,  such  as  SDRT.  One  particular 
question  we  have  in  mind  is  to  explore  to  what  extent  these  two  kinds  of  discourse 
representation can be thought of as being compatible, or even equivalent. This also leads to a 
theoretical discussion about the way in which overt questions relate to implicit questions in 
discourse  structuring,  and more generally  to  the  question  of  how  the  new  way  of  thinking
about questions in inquisitive semantics relates to more elaborate discourse models. 

===== Summary of the talks =====

**11.03.13**

**Floris Roelofsen: An inquisitive perspective on meaning: the case of disjunction.**

The first part of the talk showed a way to treat disjunction as generating alternatives (as argued for in current research) while still retaining the classical view of disjunction as an (Heyting-)algebraic join operator. This follows if one assumes an inquisitive framework and models propositions as non-empty, downward closed sets of sets of possible worlds. The second part of the talk discussed disjunctive lists. Floris argues that their interpretation can be explained via four operations: list completion, exclusive strengthening, presuppositional closure, and non-inquisitive closure, where the intonation (phrase boundaries, final rise/fall) and the syntactic form (interrogative/declarative) determine which operation is performed in which order.

**Henk Zeevat: From Particles to Questions** 

Henk Zeevat argued that certain constructions indicate questions, but questions which are not necessarily the immediate question under discussion. Constructions discussed include numerals, quantifiers, the focus-sensitive particles "too" and "only", and "already" and "doch".
He discussed each construction in turn, providing examples for their conditions of use.

**Dan Velleman: Towards a focus typology of Mayan languages.**

Dan Velleman showed that the Mayan language K'ichee' exhibits a focus asymmetry between focused transitive subjects and other focused DPs (including focused intransitive subjects): (i) focused transitive subjects require leftward movement (from canonical VOS word order), whereas other focused DPs can remain in-situ, (ii) with transitive subjects (but not other DPs), this movement is accompanied by a morphological marker. Daniel presented a discourse explanation for (i), namely that there is an asymmetry wrt what QUDs are asked about: in QUDs, objects are more likely to be asked for than subjects, and transitive subjects more likely than intransitive subjects. The asymmetry in (ii) is explained as a morphosyntactic reflex of movement, as it also occurs e.g. in relative clauses.

**Daniel Valle: Focus-sensitive particles in Kakataibo (Pano)**

Daniel Valle discusses the focus-sensitive operators =ribi ("also", "even") and =in ("only") in the Panoan language Kakataibo, based on data from texts and elicitation using the Questionnaire of Focus Semantics (Renans et al. 2011). These operators are clitics, they attach to their associate NPs, in canonical word order (SOV, but relatively free). When their associate is a verb or VP, it attaches to the direct object. The additive =ribi can associate with connectors (=in cannot); both can attach occur together, in either order (but with different semantic effect). Valle (using tests of associating the operators with "someone" and leaners) analyses them both as conventional association with focus.
Questions in Discourse

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools
