User Tools

Site Tools


3rd

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

3rd [2012/12/24 09:55]
voneaga [Useful information]
3rd [2013/03/21 11:42] (current)
mira [Summary of the talks]
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 ==== Useful information ==== ==== Useful information ====
 +
 +
  
 We recommend one of the following hotels: We recommend one of the following hotels:
  
-Circus Hotel (Rosenthaler Platz) +  * Circus Hotel (Rosenthaler Platz) ​  
-Holiday Inn (Berlin-Mitte,​ Gesundbrunnen) +  ​* ​Holiday Inn (Berlin-Mitte,​ Gesundbrunnen) 
-Novotel Berlin-Mitte +  ​* ​Novotel Berlin-Mitte ​(http://​www.accorhotels.com/​de/​hotel-3278-novotel-berlin-mitte/​index.shtml 
-http://​www.accorhotels.com/​de/​hotel-3278-novotel-berlin-mitte/​index.shtml +  ​* ​Winters Hotel Berlin-Mitte Gendarmenmarkt OR 
-Winters Hotel Berlin-Mitte Gendarmenmarkt OR +  ​* ​Winters Hotel Checkpoint Charly ​(http://​www.winters.de/​de/​hotels/​city/​berlin)
-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 The last three hotels are in walking distance to the ZAS, the first
Line 38: Line 38:
 ===== Program ===== ===== Program =====
  
-to come +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 ===== ===== Topics to be discussed =====
  
Line 55: Line 73:
 discourse ​ structuring, ​ and more generally ​ to  the  question ​ of  how  the  new  way  of  thinking 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. ​ 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.
3rd.1356339339.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/12/24 09:55 by voneaga