* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
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!
        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.


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
(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.


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
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue

Page Updated: 19-Jun-2010

Supported in part by the National Science Foundation       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       ILIT Logo
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.