Featured Linguist!

Jost Gippert: Our Featured Linguist!

"Buenos dias", "buenas noches" -- this was the first words in a foreign language I heard in my life, as a three-year old boy growing up in developing post-war Western Germany, where the first gastarbeiters had arrived from Spain. Fascinated by the strange sounds, I tried to get to know some more languages, the only opportunity being TV courses of English and French -- there was no foreign language education for pre-teen school children in Germany yet in those days. Read more



Donate Now | Visit the Fund Drive Homepage

Amount Raised:

$34378

Still Needed:

$40622

Can anyone overtake Syntax in the Subfield Challenge ?

Grad School Challenge Leader: University of Washington


Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


E-mail this page

Conference Information



Full Title: Agreement in Discourse
         
Location: Bamberg, Germany
Start Date: 01-Feb-2013 - 02-Feb-2013
Contact: Diana Forker
Meeting Email: click here to access email
Meeting URL: http://bamling-research.de/Vorlage/agreement.html
Meeting Description: The concept of agreement has played a key role for various domains of linguistic theory (morphology, syntax, semantics), and there are a number of different approaches to modeling it. However, there is still no generally accepted explanation or its function: Why should languages so often develop agreement in their grammars? In his seminal work on agreement, Corbett (2006: 274-275; see also Lehmann 1988, Levin 2001: 21-27, Kibrik 2011) proposes four possible functions of agreement, among which the most important are:

I. Agreement provides additional redundant (repeated) information to faciliate understanding for the hearer.
II. Agreement helps the hearer to keep track of the different referents in a discourse.

Remarkably, the two central claims (agreement is redundant, and agreement is referential) continue to be repeated in the literature, despite the fact that, with very few exceptions, neither has ever been subjected to more rigorous testing (cf. Siewierska 1998, Bickel 2003), and both clearly admit counter examples.

Questions to be addressed at the workshops are, among others:

- What does ‘rich agreement morphology’ mean?
- Does agreement fulfill primarily syntactic functions, or is it rather used to serve as referential device?
- Which methods can be used to potentially demonstrate the referential function of agreement or its correlation with word order (Siewierska 1998)?
- Which methods do we have in order to count agreement markers in natural texts?
- What can cognitive approaches tell us about the function of agreement?
- How can we explain differences in referential density (Bickel 2003)?
- Is it possible to prove a correlation between referential density and agreement morphology?

References:

Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79, 708-736.
Corbett, Greville. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. On the function of agreement. In Michael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) Agreement in natural language, 55-66. CSLI, Stanford.
Levin, Magnus. 2001. Agreement with collective nouns in English. (Lund Studies in English 103). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Siewierska, Anna. 1998. Variation in major constituent order: A global and a European perspective. In Anna Siewierska (ed.) Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 475-551. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Linguistic Subfield: Discourse Analysis; General Linguistics; Syntax; Typology
LL Issue: 23.4808


Back
Calls and Conferences main page