Petición de contribucionesInfoling 3.13 (2020)
WAASAP is an international Workshop series celebrated biannually that focuses on the aspect and argument structure of adjectives and participles and adverbs and prepositions. In the time of its existence, it has developed into a referential forum of discussion of the theory of predicative non-verbal categories. Past editions have taken place at the University of Greenwich (2012), The Artic University of Norway at Tromsoe (2014), The University of Lille 3 (2016), and the University Pompeu Fabra (2018). This year’s edition is hosted by the research lab IKER UMR 5478 (CNRS, Université Bordeaux Montaigne, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour), and it will take place in Bayonne, at the Campus de La Nive (Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour) in the Basque Coast.
This year’s edition welcomes, together with other topics that have been showcased in previous editions of the workshop (see e.g. WASSAP4" target="_blank">https://sites.google.com/view/waasap4/">...), research on the relation between perspective and argument structure. The role of perspective, instantiated along the mental, spatial, and/or temporal dimensions, can be observed in linguistic phenomena ranging from certain types of anaphora (Clements, 1975; Sells, 1987; Speas, 2004; Sundaresan, 2012; Pearson, 2013), to psych predications (Adger and Ramchand, 2005; Landau, 2009) and so-called “taste”-predicates (Stephenson, 2010), and more generally, in linguistic phenomena regulating clausal finiteness and selection (Sigurdsson, 2004; Speas and Tenny, 2003; Bianchi, 2003; Wiltschko, 2014, among others). We seek works that approach the internal structure of verbs and participles, adverbs and prepositions, and explore the way in which perspective shifts relate to the internal structure of those predicates, as well as to the syntactic and semantic context in which they are embedded. Among the basic questions that the role of perspective raises in such contexts are:
(i) How linguistic perspective is formally represented
(ii) How differences and similarities between the different types of perspective (mental, temporal, spatial, modal) are grammatically encoded
(iii) How the instantiation of perspective may differ relative to grammatical phenomena (why for instance, perspectival anaphora is possible in the scope of spatial, temporal and mental predicates in Tamil, but only along a spatial dimension in Norwegian –Sundaresan and Pearson, 2014)
A non exhaustive sample of issues that we want to discuss within the specific topic of this year’s edition include (but are not restricted to) the following:
- Attitudes and attitude holders
Evaluative adjectives such as tasty, fun etc, have been analyzed as elements that include reference to a judge, attitude holder or evaluator (e.g. Lasersohn 2005, Potts 2007, Stephenson 2007, Patel-Grosz 2012, but see Pearson 2013), namely the individual whose perspective/attitude the adjective is relativized or anchored to. Theoretical work on these predicates has mainly concentrated on the question of how to represent linguistically the fact that the meaning of these adjectives is anchored to the opinion/perspective of an evaluator/judge/attitude holder (e.g., Lasersohn 2005, Stephenson 2007, Patel-Grosz 2012, Pearson 2013). In recent work, researchers have also started to look at how the attitude holder is identified. It is assumed that normally, the default attitude holder or judge of an evaluative predicate is the speaker. For predicates of personal taste, on the other hand, it has been argued that they involve, besides an evaluator parameter, an experiencer argument, something that does not happen with other kinds of subjective adjectives (e.g. Bylinina 2014, 2017; McNally & Stojanovic 2017; Martin, Carvalho and Alexiadou, forthcoming). How should we treat the relation between the judge/evaluator parameter and the experiencer argument (Bylilina, 2014)? Do different experiencer predicates diverge in their relation to the stimulus (is “first hand experience”, or “direct sensory access” to the stimulus a defining property of this relation (Pearson, 2013)? How do those differences transpire in the argument structure of psych predicates (Cheung ang Larson, 2013 for a biclausal analysis of Subject Experiencer Predicates, as opposed to Object Experiencer ones)? How do belief and saying predicates compare to experiencer predicates (Rooryck, 2000)? How do the deictic parameters of speaker and judge/evaluator relate to each other? How does indexical shift (Schlenker, 2003; Shkolvski and Sudo, 2014) relate to the other types of perspective holding? Is there a general anchoring mechanism (Sundaresan and Pearson, 2014)?
- Spatial relations and point of view
Reflexive relations in locational phrases have been a source of systematic perspectival phenomena since the eighties (Kuno 1987, Sells 1987, Zribi-Hertz 1989, Pollard & Sag 1992, Reinhart & Reuland 1993, Reuland 2001, König & Gast 2002, Huang 2005, Rooryck and Van den Wyngaerd, 2011 for English, Charnavel & Sportiche 2016 for French, Maling 1984 for Icelandic, Kuroda 1973 and Oshima 2004 for Japanese, Huang & Liu 2001 for Chinese, Etxepare 2013 for Basque, Major and Özkan for Turkish, among others). Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd (2011) note for instance, following Cantrall (1974), that the relation between the locational noun and the spatial ground in (1a,b) can be interpreted in terms of two different frames of reference, that they call, following Levinson (1996), «object-centered frame» and «observer-centered frame». This difference is particularly prominent when the spatial ground is animate, and can be alternatively conveyed by either a pronominal or an anaphor (Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd 2011):
(1) a. They placed their guns, as they looked at it, in front of themselves/*them.
b. They placed their guns, as I looked at it, in front of *themselves/them.
Different proposals have been advanced to account for the distribution of anaphors in relation to perspective. Some capitalize on the nature of the anaphor itself (doubling as a logophor in those cases –Reinhart and Reuland, 1993), some on the internal structure of the adpositional phrases, which may include an antecedent for the anaphor (Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd, 2011). A more general issue is how the perspective shifts triggered by the distribution of anaphors relate to other anchoring phenomena. In the syntactic side, an hypothesis that has been entertained is that the structure of adpositional phrases mimics the structure of clauses (Koopman, 2000), and therefore the anchoring phenomena that characterize clauses can also characterize adpositional phrases (see Den Dikken, 2010 for a concrete proposal in this sense, extending to deictic anchoring). The specific question of why perspectival anaphora is limited to spatial contexts in some languages but to both mental and spatio-temporal contexts in others is nevertheless not adressed. Spatio-temporal perspective is also involved as part of the inner constitution of demonstratives (see Kayne, 2005; Leu 2017), as they impose a relation between a possible (mostly silent) adjectival locational anaphor (here, there, Leu, 2017) and a deictic center, which may not be the speaker.
- Adverbs and point of view
The adverbial category is host to classes of adverbs that imply the presence of a perspective holder. This is clear for instance in the case of speech act adverbs, which interact with sentence mood : honestly, in honestly, I wouldn’t do that, introduces the perspective of the speaker, but honestly, in honestly, how much do you earn ? demands honesty from the hearer (Speas and Tenny, 2003). Perspective holding is a pervasive phenomenon for sentence adverbs, and can be seen as feeding the grammaticalization of adverb classes like the Romance –mente class (see Hopper and Traugott, 1993), which capitalizes on the relation that is established between the subject-oriented mental attitude and the manner in which the event unfolds. The deictic anchoring of adverbs raises a number of questions from the point of view of the syntax-semantics interface. Maienborn (1996, 2001, 2003) notes that a sentence such as (2), involving a frame adverbial, may have three different interpretations :
(2) In Italy, Maradona was married
Reading 1 : When he was in Italy, Maradona was married
Reading 2 : According to the laws in Italy, Maradona was married
Reading 3 : According to the belief of people in Italy, Maradona was married
Maienborn assumes that the lexical meaning of the frame adverbial is the one that corresponds to a locative phrase : In Italy expresses the property of some entity being located in Italy. She proposes a strict correlation between the position of the locative adverbial in the clause and its interpretation, an idea that informs much of the work on the syntax-semantics interface of adverbial modification, including the cartographic approach launched by Cinque (1999). To which extent the specifics of adverbial interpretation should depend on clausal structure is obviously an open debate (see Ernst, 2002, Frey 2003, among others), and one that impacts on our understanding of perspective holding. Recent advances in the syntax-semantics interface, as for instance Haegeman (2012), Sudo (2007, 2011) and Haegeman and Sudo (2019) explore possible correlations between the internal structure of the adverb and its position in the clausal structure. Under this view, the merge site of an adverbial modifier is determined by its internal syntax (it must have the same label as the functional head that it modifies). The specific derivational means that provides the label –relativization of temporal, modal, causal, assertive, operators within the adverbial clause- ensures that the adverbial modifier is interpreted from the perspective holder in the main clause.
Fabienne Martin (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin)
Sandhya Sundaresan (University of Gottingen)
Artemis Alexiadou (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
María J. Arche (University of Greenwich)
Boban Arsenijević (University of Graz)
Hagit Borer (Queen Mary, University of London)
Patricia Cabredo (CNRS – Université Paris 8)
Elena Castroviejo (University of the Basque Country)
Urtzi Etxeberria (CNRS – IKER, UMR5478)
Ricardo Etxepare (CNRS – IKER, UMR5478)
Antonio Fábregas (University of Tromsø)
Angel Gallego (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)
Berit Gehrke (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
Gianina Iordachioaia (Universität Stuttgart)
Rafael Marín (CNRS – Université de Lille)
Fabienne Martin (Universität Stuttgart)
Louise McNally (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)
Christopher Piñón (Université de Lille)
Isabel Oltra-Massuet (Universitat Rovira i Virgili)
Isabelle Roy (Université de Nantes)
Florian Schäfer (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
Elena Soare (Université Paris 8)
Andrew Spencer (University of Essex)
Institución: UMR 8163 (CNRS, Université de Lille)