LINGUIST List 26.4582

Fri Oct 16 2015

Confs: Discourse Analysis, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax, Text/Corpus Linguistics/France

Editor for this issue: Ashley Parker <>

Date: 15-Oct-2015
From: Martine SEKALI <>
Subject: Linguistic Markers and Linguistic Structures, How Do They Interact in Meaning Construal?
E-mail this message to a friend

Linguistic Markers and Linguistic Structures, How Do They Interact in Meaning Construal?
Short Title: GREG PLS4

Date: 06-Nov-2015 - 07-Nov-2015
Location: Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, France
Contact: Martine Sekali
Contact Email: < click here to access email >
Meeting URL:

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Morphology; Semantics; Syntax; Text/Corpus Linguistics

Meeting Description:

Building on the epistemology developed in the previous G.RE.G Linguistic Conferences (PLS.I, II and III), the GReG PLS IV Linguistics Conference proposes to investigate the mapping of linguistic parameters involved in the elaboration of meaning. For its fourth conference, the GReG Linguistics Research Group wishes to gather researchers from various theoretical frameworks in linguistics, to focus on the making of meaning which results from the interaction of linguistic “markers” and “structures.''

This conference will adopt a purely linguistic approach to these phenomena (grammar, morphology, syntax, semantics, cognition, prosody, discourse) and all analyses should be based on authentic corpora. Those submissions which take into account the interfaces between these different dimensions of language will be favoured.

For example, in English, how can have and get be systematized within their syntactic environments? The question can be extended to negative structures, the passive, or do + pronouns. Likewise, how is the meaning of should filtered in context by the fact that it appears in a complement clause after extraposition which construes judgment (it’s nice that he should have come) as opposed to a complement clause within a jussive main clause (He ordered that the hostages should be freed)? Or, how is the meaning of since determined, depending on whether it co-occurs with a present or present perfect in the main clause?

This line of enquiry will be underpinned by a definition of certain concepts, and by specifying what is meant by terms such as “marker,” “collocation,” “structure,” “construction,” “colligation” or “pattern,'' to quote just a few. To what extent are the constructions under study more or less constrained? How are certain adjustments in meaning, ambiguity or misunderstanding possible? (e.g. Tu me remets en prison, je suis fini). Moreover, how relevant is the term “instantiation,” which suggests a static model based on “filling” positions or “slots”? Is the distinction between grammatical and lexical items pertinent here? (cf. work on French by de Vogüé 2004, on fil, by Legallois 2012 on colligations, by de Vogüé and Paillard (1997), or by Bolly 2012 on prendre (prendre racine, prendre vie, prendre la vie de quelqu’un)). Can prosody also be regarded as a “marker”? Is it appropriate to talk about “complex markers”, the trace of a unique operation? How are chains of operations triggered? Do structures without markers exist, and what can be made of a marker outside structure? Do parataxis and hypotaxis reflect distinct operations? - in which case, how should the conjunctions be analysed? How is asyndeton construed? What textual unit, beyond the utterance, should be considered?

This leads to an essential question in the (re)construal of meaning: Can we talk about the interaction of operations pertaining to markers on the one hand, and operations pertaining to structures on the other? In this case, the latter exist separately, are in synergy with the former, and engender their own paradigms.

Again, the aim is to compare linguistic theories and how each sheds light on these questions. Diachronic studies may prove useful, with the analysis of the processes of lexicalization and grammaticalisation serving to enrich the discussion about the relationship between markers and structures, as would a study of phenomena relating to language acquisition.

Venue: Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense


Vendredi 6 Novembre 2015 - BAT V SALLE R14


9H30-10H: Ouverture : Structures/Constructions/Marqueurs. Réflexions préliminaires. M. SEKALI et Anne TREVISE (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense, CREA GREG, MoDyCo)

Unités polylexicales et construction du sens dans le roman contemporain (français et anglais). Iva NOVAKOVA (LIDILEM Université Grenoble-Alpes)
et Dirk SIEPMANN (Université d'Osnabrück, Allemagne)

« Sentir » et « feel » : collocations et significations. Stéphanie BELIGON (Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, LISAA, EA 4120)

11H-11H15 Pause café

Les « constructions » de “see” comme verbe de jugement : he is seen AS a strong candidate vs he is seen TO BE a strong candidate
Françoise DORO-MEGY et Yves MALINIER
(Université Paris 8, EA CLILLAC-ARP Paris Diderot)

Les constructions collocatives et le processus de figement
Rania SAMET (Université de Tunis)

Déjeuner-buffet (salle de convivialité (1er étage Bât V))

Structure(s) BE X TO en anglais contemporain : repérage et modalisation. Anne-Laure BESNARD (Université de Nantes- LLING - EA 3827)

« Ça reste raisonnable » - La dynamique des forces dans l’analyse du verbe rester. Gaïdig DUBOIS (Université Paris-Sorbonne, Université de Helsinki)

The non-genitive of construction vs. the non-emotive oblique genitive: pragmatic and syntactic constraints. Lilli PARROTT (Université Paris 8)

15H30-15H45 Pause café

The interaction between the markers IF and NOT: from their simple association to their use as a fixed phrase. Blandine PENNEC (Université Toulouse II)

Patterns of (inter)subjectivity. Testing the asymmetry between left- and right-peripheral but in Glaswegian English. Carolin HOFMOCKEL (University of Augsburg, Germany)

Discussion générale

Samedi 7 Novembre 2015 - BAT V SALLE R14

L’anaphore prédicative en anglais : étude comparative des reprises en do so, do it, do this, do that et do auxiliaire. Saghie SHARIFZADEH (Université Paris-Sorbonne, CeLiSo)

Les constructions do this, do that et do it : Proformes complexes, ou verbe lexical DO + complément ? Kimberly OGER (Université Paris-Sorbonne, CeLiSo)

Do so : simple marqueur complexe ? Eric GILBERT (Université de Caen – Basse Normandie, EA 4255 CRISCO)

11H-11H15 Pause café

Pragmatic markers or multimodal constructions? A usage-based account of “I don’t know” and “je sais pas” in English and French spoken interaction.Camille DEBRAS (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense- CREA GREG)

The complex construction of referential values : the case of ANYWAY. Graham RANGER (Université d'Avignon- EA4277)

Déjeuner-buffet (salle de convivialité (1er étage Bât V))

14H-14H30 « En fait » : du syntagme prépositionnel à l’indicateur d’attitude discursive. Evelyne SAUNIER (Université Paris Descartes)

Predicate-based epistemic markers in English: A corpus-based quantitative study. Karolina KRAWCZAK (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland) – LaTTiCE – CNRS, ENS, Université Paris 3)

15H-15H15 Pause café

“Let freedom ring”: the interaction of prosody and syntax in the context of public address. Camille DEBRAS et Fiona ROSSETTE (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense- CREA-GREG)

Cognitive packing and rhetorical packaging in English science writing: a comparative analysis of pre-modified versus post-modified technical terms across three text types and registers. Chris GLEDHILL & Mojca PECMAN (Université Paris Diderot-CLILLAC-ARP)

Discussion générale- Pot de fin de colloque

Page Updated: 16-Oct-2015