LINGUIST List 21.2651 Sat Jun 19 2010 Calls: Semantics, Syntax, Pragmatics, Philosophy of Lang/Germany Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler <elyssalinguistlist.org> LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature: Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process abstracts online. Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3! Directory         1.    Ilaria Frana, The Grammar of Attitudes Message 1: The Grammar of Attitudes Date: 16-Jun-2010 From: Ilaria Frana <ilaria.Franaphil.uni-goettingen.de> Subject: The Grammar of Attitudes E-mail this message to a friend Full Title: The Grammar of Attitudes Date: 23-Feb-2011 - 25-Feb-2011 Location: Goettingen, Germany Contact Person: Ilaria Frana Meeting Email: ilaria.Franaphil.uni-goettingen.de Web Site: http://https://grammarofattitudes.wordpress.com/about/ Linguistic Field(s): Philosophy of Language; Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax Call Deadline: 26-Jul-2010 Meeting Description: The Grammar of Attitudes A workshop at the 33rd Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS)? February 23-25, 2011 ~ University of Göttingen Workshop website: https://grammarofattitudes.wordpress.com/about/ Invited speakers Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Pranav Anand, University of California, Santa Cruz Meeting description The goal of the workshop is to bring together linguists and philosophers working on deepening our understanding of the way natural languages encode attitude reports, with special attention to the interplay of the syntax, semantics and philosophical basis of attitude ascriptions. We hope that you will come to Goettingen. Organizers Ilaria Frana (University of Göttingen), Keir Moulton (McGill University), Magdalena Schwager (University of Göttingen) Call for Papers The Grammar of Attitudes A workshop at the 33rd Meeting of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS)? February 23-25, 2011 - University of Göttingen Workshop website: https://grammarofattitudes.wordpress.com/about/ We welcome submissions articulating empirical and theoretical issues, including but not limited to the following: - Fine-grained distinctions between different attitude verbs. According to the classical analysis of attitude ascriptions (Hintikka 1969), attitude verbs resemble modal auxiliaries in that they encode quantification over possible worlds. However, unlike modals, they always come with a lexically pre-specified accessibility relation, which in the case of believe, for example, restricts the worlds quantified over to those compatible with what the attitude holder believes in the world of evaluation. According to this picture, the difference between different types of attitude verbs merely boils down to the different accessibility relations pre-specified in the lexicon. However, linguistics evidence shows us, on the one hand that attitude verbs differ in fine-grained ways and, on the other hand, that there are linguistically relevant classes of attitudes. Among the ways natural language groups attitudes are the following: (i) syntactic complementation (Grimshaw 1979) (ii) mood selection in the complement clause (Villalta 2008) (iii) distribution of epistemic modals (Anand & Hacquard 2008) (iv) temporal orientation of the complement (Katz, 2001; von Stechow, 2005) - The complement of attitude verbs. It is also traditionally assumed that the semantic complement of an attitude verb is a proposition (construed as a set of possible worlds). Sentences are typically those linguistic objects that are thought to correspond to propositions. The object of attitude verbs very often, however, is not of a form that canonically denotes propositions, as shown by sentences with content nouns (He believed the rumor that Edna was pregnant) and concealed questions (She knows the price of milk). How should such cases be integrated into a uniform analysis of attitude ascriptions? - The logical form of different types of attitudes. How do natural languages distinguish between de se non-de se attitudes (Anand 2006, Percus and Sauerland 2003, Maier 2005). In what way do the logical forms of de se attitudes differ: in the nature of the de se pronoun or also in the semantic type of the complement as a whole? - Contextual dependency. Attitude ascriptions have been argued to be context dependent in various ways. For example, what are the factors that enable 'de re' interpretations (Quine 1965, Aloni 2001)? Does the meaning of 'S knows that p' depend on the context (contextualism)? Which context has to satisfy presuppositions generated in attitude contents (Heim 1994, Roberts 1996)? - In what sense are these and further phenomena context dependent, and if so, how should this be encoded? How do the better studied attitude predicates like 'know' and 'believe' compare to others? Abstract submissions Abstracts are invited for 30-minute talks (20 minute presentations plus 10 minutes for discussion). Abstracts should be anonymous and confined to two pages (including examples and references) with 1-inch margins and 12-point font. All abstracts must be submitted via the Easychair platform available from the web site. https://grammarofattitudes.wordpress.com/about/ Important Dates Submission Deadline: July 26, 2010 Notification: September 6, 2010 Dgfs meeting: February 23-25 2011 Should you have any other questions, feel free to contact the organizers at attitudesphil.uni-goettingen.de Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 19-Jun-2010       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.