The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.
|Full Title:||DGfS Workshop: Parenthesis and Ellipsis|
|Start Date:||13-Mar-2013 - 15-Mar-2013|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||DGfS 2013 Workshop
Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives
This AG intends to bring together scholarship on parenthesis and incompleteness phenomena (ellipsis), and especially the interplay between the two.
In addition to ‘regular’ types of ellipsis (sluicing, VP ellipsis) in parenthetical contexts, various types of parentheses have been argued to be inherently incomplete and/or contain an empty operator: the missing object in comment clauses (Schneider 2007), the implied subject plus copula in appositions (Heringa 2011), covert clausal structure in identificational afterthoughts (Ott & De Vries 2012), etc.
We are interested in empirical differences and similarities between (unrelated) languages in this domain, as well as theoretical approaches to incomplete parenthesis. Since incompleteness is often contingent on information-structural properties, and since parentheses appear to be in a different informational dimension than the ‘at issue’ content of an utterance (Potts 2005), one expects the intersection of these two domains to reveal interesting facts and generalizations (for instance, concerning the cross-linguistically variable expression of focus).
Thus, we can ask questions like the following:
- To what extent can parentheses be incomplete? Is this similar to regular ellipsis, deaccenting, or various ‘drop’ phenomena?
- What are cross-linguistic similarities and dissimilarities with respect to ellipsis and parenthesis? (Factors may be word-order patterns, case and morphology, prosody, etc.)
- How does information structure influence incompleteness phenomena? Does this work differently in parenthetical contexts, and if so, what are the theoretical implications?
Stefan Schneider (U Graz)
Luis Vicente (U Potsdam)
Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott, Mark de Vries (U Groningen)
Heringa, Herman (2011). Appositional constructions. LOT Dissertation Series 294.
Ott, Dennis & Mark de Vries (2012). Thinking in the right direction. Submitted to Linguistics in the Netherlands.
Potts, Christopher (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. OUP.
Schneider, Stefan (2007). Reduced parenthetical clauses in Romance languages: A pragmatic typology. In N. Dehé and Y. Kavalova (eds.), Parentheticals, 237-258.
|Linguistic Subfield:||Phonology; Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax; Typology|
|Calls and Conferences main page|