* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 24.3315

Mon Aug 19 2013

Confs: Semantics, Cognitive Science, Pragmatics, Pyscholing/Netherlands

Editor for this issue: Caylen Cole-Hazel <caylenlinguistlist.org>

Date: 19-Aug-2013
From: Choonkyu Lee <c.leeuu.nl>
Subject: Concept Composition & Experimental Semantics/Pragmatics
E-mail this message to a friend

Concept Composition & Experimental Semantics/Pragmatics

Date: 02-Sep-2013 - 03-Sep-2013
Location: Utrecht, Netherlands
Contact: Choonkyu Lee
Contact Email: c.leeuu.nl
Meeting URL: http://logiccommonsense.wp.hum.uu.nl/events/workshop2013/

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Pragmatics; Psycholinguistics; Semantics

Meeting Description:

Concept Composition & Experimental Semantics/Pragmatics
Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS
In conjunction with XPRAG-2013

Invited Speakers:

Stephen Crain (Macquarie University)
James Hampton (City University London)
Hans Kamp (University of Stuttgart, University of Texas at Austin)

One of the hardest problems in experimental semantics and pragmatics is the way meanings of complex expressions are derived from simple lexical concepts and connected to concept representations. While concepts corresponding to simple words can be represented as feature lists or prototypes (Rosch & Mervis 1975, Hampton 2006), the ways in which such representations may be derived for composite expressions is highly puzzling, both in terms of experimental measures and in terms of formal analysis (Kamp & Partee 1995, Hampton & Jönsson 2012). Since the introduction of this problem by Osherson & Smith (1981), much experimental and theoretical work has been done by cognitive psychologists on the derivation of concept representations. However, in many ways this work has been carried out independently of related on-going work on meaning and use of logical operators (Crain & Khlentzos 2008) and compositionality (Bemis & Pylkkänen 2011). As a result, the interactions between concept combination, meaning and use of logical concepts, and compositionality principles have remained by and large underexplored.

The aim of this workshop is to bring together theoretical linguists, psycholinguists and cognitive psychologists in search of a common ground for on-going work on compositionality and concepts. Relevant questions are:

- Is there evidence for a general procedure mapping lexical concepts into concepts corresponding to complex expressions?
- Are there inherent and experimentally-supported distinctions between logical concepts (e.g. quantifiers, conjunctions and disjunction) and concepts corresponding to content words?
- How is the composition of concepts sensitive to contextual factors? Are there experimentally-supported generalizations to make in this domain?
- Are there significant distinctions in concept composition between different conceptual domains (space, time, quantification, Boolean operators, colors, etc.)?
- What are the interactions between concept composition and phenomena involving vagueness, implicatures, or scalar expressions?

The workshop will be held in conjunction with XPRAG-2013, which is under the auspices of the ESF research network EuroXprag. The workshop is part of the VICI project ‘Between Logic and Common Sense’ supported by NWO, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

Other Relevant Links:

XPrag2013: http://xprag2013.wp.hum.uu.nl
XPrag Network: http://www.euro-xprag.org/

Selected References:

Bemis, D. K. and L. Pylkkänen. 2011. Simple Composition: An MEG investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(8): 2801-2814.
Crain, S. 2008. The interpretation of disjunction in universal grammar. Language and Speech 51, 151-169.
Crain, S. and D. Khlentzos. 2008. Is logic Innate? Biolinguistics 2(1), 24-56.
Hampton, J. and M. L. Jönsson. 2012. Typicality and compositionality: The logic of combining vague concepts. In M. Werning, W. Hintzen and E. Machery (Eds.), pp. 385-402. Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hampton, J. 2006. Concepts as Prototypes, in B.H.Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 46. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 79-113.
Kamp, H. and B. Partee. 1995. Prototype Theory and Compositionality. Cognition 57:129-191.
Osherson, D. and E. Smith. 1981. On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9:35-58.
Rosch, E. R. and C. B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573-605.

Invited Speakers:
Stephen Crain (Macquarie University)
James Hampton (City University London)
Hans Kamp (University of Stuttgart, University of Texas at Austin)

Program:

Monday 2 September 2013

09:30
Opening

09:40
James Hampton (City U. London)
Composition and prototype concepts

10:40
Coffee

11:00
Lotte Hogeweg (Radboud U. Nijmegen)
Stone lions and unripe bananas: Solving conflicts in concept composition

11:40
Choonkyu Lee (Utrecht U.)
Color typicality knowledge and the interpretation of color terms

12:20
Remarks by Lawrence Barsalou (Emory U.)

12:30
Discussion

12:45
Lunch

14:30
Masha Westerlund and Liina Pylkkänen (NYU)
Unpacking the brain basis of concept composition with MEG

15:10
Maria Mercedes Piñango and Ashwini Deo (Yale U.)
Aspectual verbs and real-time concept composition

15:50
Tea

16:10
Louise McNally (U. Pompeu Fabra), Gemma Boleda (U. of Texas at Austin) and Marco Baroni (U. of Trento)
Conceptual vs. referential affordance in concept composition

16:50
Remarks by Bart Geurts (U. of Nijmegen)

17:00
Discussion

17:30
Drinks

18:00
Workshop dinner

Tuesday 3 September 2013

09:30
Opening

09:40
Stephen Crain (Macquarie U.)
How to derive the basic meanings of logical expressions

10:40
Coffee

11:00
Marisa Casillas (Stanford U.) and Patricia Amaral (U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
The internal structure of categories: Resemblances and typicality in acquisition

11:40
Galit W. Sassoon (Bar-Ilan U.)
Dimension accessibility as a predictor of morphological gradability

12:20
Remarks by Martin Everaert (Utrecht U.)

12:30
Discussion

12:45
Lunch

14:30
Eva Poortman (Utrecht U.)
Typicality effects and the interpretation of reciprocity & conjunction

15:10
Yoad Winter (Utrecht U.)
Logical Operators as natural concepts

15:50
Tea

16:10
Hans Kamp (U. of Stuttgart, U. of Texas at Austin)

17:10
Remarks by Remko Scha (U. of Amsterdam)

17:20
Discussion

End of workshop

Organizers (Utrecht University):
Choonkyu Lee
Eva Poortman
Yoad Winter
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Page Updated: 19-Aug-2013

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.